Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-05 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session E!lENINC SESSION ADEN®A 6:®® ~.i~l., TUESI3AV, ®CTOBER 5, 2004 QIAIL T®~IN COl1NCIL CFIe4fWBERS 75 S. f=rontage Road ~!/. Flail, C® 81657 ~®'~E: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what tune Council will c®nsider an item. 1 • 1TEf~l/TOPBC: Citizen Participation. (10 min.) 2. Greg Hall ~ITE~iI/T®PIC: Construction / Streetscape Update. (10 min.) 3. Russ Forrest 1TEIt~I/T®P1C: Conference Center Update. (5 min.) 4• ITEfii/i/TOPIC: Consent Agenda. Approval of Minutes from 09.07.04 and 09.21.04 Council Meetings. (5 min.) 5. Farrow Hitt 1TEI~i/1fOPIC: Award of Vail Information Centers Contract. ICim Ruotolo (1 hr.) Stan Zemler REC®MINEtV®ATI®N: The Visitor Information Centers Council Subcommittee met Tuesday, September 28, to interview both respondents to the Request for Proposal, the Vail Chamber and Business Association (VCBA) and the Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau (WCTB). It is the recommendation of the Vail Information Centers Subcommittee for the Vail Town Council to direc4 the Town Manager to enter into negotiations with the WCTB for a one year contract to expire September 30, 2005. NIEGOTIATI®NS T® INCLU®E: a. Booth Information Displays and Distribution b. Monthly Accountability Summarizing Direct Bookings from the Information Center c. Hours of Operation d. Any Other Current Matters Council Would Like to Address Subsequent to these negotiations, the Council also authorizes the Town Manager to sign this one year contract for the Visitor's Centers with the WCTB. ®N-G®ING f~R®CESS WILL INCLUIOE: Recognizing larger issues remain to be considered, the Council members assigned to this subcommittee further recommend continued discussions with the Town Manager and staff to define more specifically the role of information centers, in serving Vail's guests and businesses. These discussions will culminate in a series of policy decisions to be determined by the full Council. 6: Suzanne Silverthorn ITEM/TOPIC: Chamonix Property Master Plan Update. (30 min.) BACKGROUND: Since July 20, 2004, at the direction of the Town Council, the planning team of Davis Partnership/Michael Hazard Associates has been working to facilitate a master land use plan for the town- owned Chamonix property at 2310 Chamonix Rd in West Vail. The purpose of the planning is to accommodate the Town Council's desire for a future fire station on the property, as well as other potential uses. The planning steps, to date, have included: - A kick-off meeting with the West Vail neighborhood on Aug. 9, in which five key themes were identified; - development of a series of fire station site plan options; - a residential density analysis showing height relationships and density comparisons to existing properties; - a second neighborhood meeting on Sept. 27 in which the most recent work was shared and comments and suggestions were collected. The purpose of the Oct. 5 presentation is to provide an update, answer questions, collect comments from the Town Council, narrow the fire station options to two or three, and describe next steps. 7. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Susan Marks Board's denial of a design review application, pursuant to Chapter Don Marks 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor exterior alteration (i.e. deck replacement utilizing simulated wood), located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13. (20 rnin.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, overturn, or modify the Design Review Board's denial of a design review application pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design .Review, Vail Town Code. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On October 16, 2001, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, amending the provisions of Section 14-10- D, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code. These amendments were "to clarify the existing regulations regarding the use of building materials, to create review criteria for the proposed use of building materials, to codify existing unwritten Design Review Board policies into. the Development Standards, to allow the Development Standards to be more responsive to the requirements of building and fire codes, and to allow the Development Standards to be adaptive to changing building material technologies." Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, regulates the types of building materials allowed within the Town of Vail. These guidelines encourage natural materials, such as wood, and discourage/prohibit synthetic building materials. The market for synthetic wood materials has dramatically increased in the past few years. Acknowledging the merits of these synthetic materials (i.e. low maintenance, mold/decay resistance, fire resistance, etc.) the Design Review Board has established a consistent policy of approving these materials for use as the horizontal floor elements of outdoor decks. However, the Design Review Board has also acknowledge the aesthetic limitations of these materials and has established a consistent policy of not allowing synthetic wood materials to be used for outdoor deck rails, pickets, support columns, steps, fascia, soffit, corbels, trim, etc. Since the adoption of Ordinance fVo. 25, Series of 2001, numerous decks throughout the Town of Vail have been approved in this manner by both the Design Review Board and the Town Staff, with this being the first time this interpretation of Title 14, •Vail Town Code, has been appealed to the Town Council. On Jufy 15, 2004, a Town of Vail Code Enforcement Officer observed illegal construction work occurring at 2685 Bald Mountain Road. The Officer contacted the property owners and informed them that the construction work must be halted and that Town of Vail design review and building permit approvals were required (see Attachment B). On July 21, 2004, the appellant submitted a design review application to replace an existing wood deck at 2685 Bald Mountain Road with Evergrain Decking brand synthetic wood materials (i.e. the illegal construction observed by the Town of Vail Code Enforcement Officer). The Town Staff informed the appellant that the application could be "staff approved" with the condition that all deck rails, fascia, trim, etc. be constructed with natural wood materials (i.e. consistent with Title 14, Vail Town Code, and the Design Review Boards policies). The appellant requested the application be reviewed as submitted (i.e. to replace all elements of the deck with the Evergrain Decking material), so the application was scheduled for review by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. On August 18, 2004, the Design Review Board reviewed the design review application and informed the appellant that the application, could be approved with the condition that all deck rails, fascia, trim, etc. be constructed with natural wood materials. The appellant requested that the Design Review Board review the application as submitted. The Design Review Board denied the design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor exterior alteration (i.e. replacing the entire deck with Evergrain Decking materials) located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road. On September 3, 2004, the appellants, Susan and Don Marks, property owners, appealed the Design Review Board's denial (see Attachment C}. Please refer to the October 5, 2004, Staff memorandum for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council upholds the Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code,. to allow for a minor alteration, located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, subject to the following finding: The Vail Town Council finds that upon review of the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing, that the standards and conditions imposed 'by the requirements of Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, have been implemented and enforced correctly by the Design Review Board. In making this finding, the Council has relied .upon the interpretation of the Town's adopted design guidelines by the appointed members of the Design Review Board. Should the Vail Town Council choose to overturn the Design Review Board's denial, the Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council makes the following findings: The Vail Town Council finds that upon review of the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing, that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, have not been implemented and enforced correctly. by the Design Review Board. In making this finding, the Council has relied upon the interpretation of the Town's adopted design guidelines by the appointed members of the Design Review Board. Additionally, should the Vail Town Council choose to overturn the Design Review Board's denial, the Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town- Council directs Staff to amend Section 14-10-D, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, to allow the exterior use simulated wood materials. 8. Elisabeth Eckel UTE~Ii/TOP9C: An appeal of the August 18, 2004 Design Review Board (DRB) denial of an application for changes to approved plans at the Vail Mountain Lodge located at 352 East Meadow Drive, Tract B/Vail Village 1St Filing. (10 min.) ACTBOIV E2E6~UESTE® OF COUNCIL: Uphold, uphold with conditions, or modify the DRB's denial of an application for changes to approved plans at the Vail Mountain Lodge located at 352 East Meadow Drive, Tract B/Vail Village 1St Filing. BACKC~ROUN® I~T'ION~-LE: On August 18, 2004, the DRB went on a site visit and performed a final review of .the applicant's proposal for changes to approved plans on the subject property, and voted 5-0 in denial of the application. At the time of the. original application in the fall of 2003, the DRB approved an enclosure of the Terra Bistro deck on the east side of the Vail Mountain Lodge. The approval was a result of the Design Review Board's request that the deck enclosure be octagonally-shaped, with an interesting roofline. Since that time, financial and practical issues arose as a result of the enclosure shape that the DRB approved and requested. Therefore, the applicant submitted an application for changes to approved plans to keep the deck enclosure in the original, rectangular shape. As a result of the DRB denial, the appellant, Mr. Stanley Cope is requesting that the Council modifies the Design Review Board denial of his application to keep the deck foundations, and consequently the enclosure, with the same shape. STAFF RECOAAIlAEN®ATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council upholds the DRB's denial of the application for changes to approved plans at the Vail Mountain Lodge located at 352 East Meadow Drive, Tract B/Vail Village 1St Filing. 9. Bill Gibson ITEi~I/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of Jay Peterson 2004, an ordinance amending Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract I(, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACYION REQUESTE® OF COUNCIL: Table the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to January 4, 2005. BI~CI~GROUN® I~TIONe4LE: On July, 12, 2004, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4-2 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for the proposed amendments to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. On August 3, 2004, the Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, with a condition requiring resolution of issues related to the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, by a vote of 7-0. On August 17, 2004, the Town Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to October 5, 2004, to allow Vail Resorts additional time to resolve the covenant issues. The outstanding covenant issues have not yet been resolved; therefore, Vail Resorts is requesting the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, again be tabled to a future Town Council meeting. 10. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 20, Series 2004, A Resolution approving the Gore Creek Place Development Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Vail Corporation, D/B/A Vail Associates, Inc., which agreement pertains to certain respective rights and responsibilities of the Town and Vail Associates in relation to the Gore Creek Place Development Site owned by Vail Associates and Affiliates. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Table Resolution No. 20, Series 2004 to October 19, 2004 evening session. 11. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) - Ice Dome Staff has gathered information on the re-sale value of the Ice Dome and has prepared a timetable for sealed bids. A component of the bid process will be a requirement that all bids contain a minimum purchase price of $375,000. The process includes issuing a public notice on Oct. 6. Bids would then be due on Oct. 27, followed by a bid opening on Oct. 28, and a review by the Town Council on Nov. 2. The town will specify the bubble is to be sold as-is and the town will reserve the right to accept or refuse any or all bids. - Community Meeting The annual community meeting has been set for Thursday, December 30, 2004, at the Donovan Pavilion. Staff has already begun the process to apply for a Special Events Permit (e.g., 1 day liquor license for that event). - Joint Council Meeting with Town of Breckenridge Agenda Council is asked if they have any items they would specifically care to have included on the joint Town of Breckenridge / TOV Council meeting agenda. ~ Grant of Utility Easement for Tract B, Vail /Lionshead Third Filing Authorize the Town Manager to sign permanent utility easements (see attachment) for the construction of utilities within town owned property in Lionshead to allow the relocation of the utilities prior to constructing the Gore Creek Town Homes and Lionshead Core site. 12. ITI~Rfl/TOP9C: Adjournment (8:55 P.M.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information V~99_ T®IA/N C®tJNC99_ EpV~ENINpG~/SESSI®N Tt99=S®[pF®9tl, SEPTEIitiBE9~ I, ~®®°ff ~.®® l~.l©1. T®V C®t9NC9L CF9AI~93E9aS The regu9ar noeeting off the Vai9 Town Counci9 convened at approxirnate9y 6:00 p.ovo.on Tuesday, Septermber ~, 200. Counci9 f~embers preseu~t: Rod Slifer, Mayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Farrow Hitt Kent Logan Kim Ruotolo Greg Moffet Staff 9Vlembers Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The ffirst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Joe Joyce, owner of Joe's Deli and the Vail Village popcorn wagon, expressed concern that the promoter of the upcoming Oktoberfest events in Lionshead and Vail Village would be using an outside vendor to sell food. Joyce suggested local businesses should be given the opportunity to participate in event planning before arrangements are made to bring in an outside vendor. James Deighan of Highline Sports Entertainment, the promoter of Oktoberfest, acknowledged Joyce's complaints, saying his company had been hired to operate the event in a fiscally responsible manner, thus his company's decision to internally manage food sales. Rick Scalpello began his public comment by complimenting the Town for a fine start to the Vail Village streetscape projects on Meadow Drive and Bridge & Gore. Representing businesses and property owners along Meadow Drive, Scalpello then stated the group's desire for snowmelt to be included in the town's streetscape design along Meadow Drive from Vail Road to Slifer Plaza, noting the group's willingness to pay for the snowmelt on private property. Scalpello qualified his request by stating that property owners have $400 million in reinvestment planned for the area, subsequently generating an estimated $2 to $3 million dollars in additional annual sales tax revenue. Councilman Kent Logan requested that a timetable and plans for the East Meadow Drive streetscape project be provided to Council. Howard Stone, a VVesthaven Drive resident, shared his frustration in working with representatives from Vail Resorts, Inc., to resolve outstanding issues as they relate to an ordinance amending the Cascade Village Special Development District that would allow for creation of a development on Tract K of the Glen Lyon subdivision to accommodate snowcat access. Stone said Vail Resorts has indicated that if agreements aren't reached with the homeowners, the Westin Ho ski run will no longer be maintained (snow making or groomed), the trail will be taken off Vail Mountain ski maps, and the run will be marked out of bounds. Although expressing an understanding that the closure of the Westin Ho ski run was a matter between Vail Resorts and the homeowners, Stone suggested the Town Council may have an interest in the outcome since the town will ultimately have to endure problems if the trail is closed. The second item on the agenda was a Village Streetscape, Core Site and East Meadow Drive Update. Public Works Director Greg Hall announced that streetscape improvements had begun on September 7 with construction returning to Lower Bridge Street, Eaton Plaza, Wall Street, Hanson Rarich Road and a new project on East Meadow Drive. Hall concluded by stating this installment of the Village Streetscape Improvements would be completed by November 20. The third item on the agenda was a Conference Center Update. Council voted unanimously, 7-0, to approve the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) of the conference center for a general contractor. Moffet moved with Logan seconding. It was announced that on September 21, Council would receive an update on conference center progress and a public open house would be held on a date soon to be determined, to review site plan concepts. Russ Forrest also presented an update on the process, to date. It was noted that more than 150 comments from more than 100 interested citizens and adjacent property owners had been received during the initial public scoping process. Logan stated all involved in the design process remain cognizant not develop a "black shuttered building." This comment encourages the design of a facility so that when conferences or similar events are not occurring, the facility would be able to serve as a public amenity. Councilman Cleveland reiterated Logan's comments and stated that during the design process that the town "should not close the door on making the project more usable." Councilwoman Donovan inquired as to if project designers /architects, Fentress Bradburn, had reviewed the RFQ and also encouraged staff to utilize Fentress's experience to help maximize facility usage potential. The fourth item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. Council voted unanimously, 7- 0, to approve the Town Council Evening Session minutes from July 20, August 3 and August 17, with minor additions made to the August 3 and August documents. Hitt requested that his name be added to the list of Council members present in the August 3 Minutes. Donovan requested that Chip Domke's comments made during the August 17 meeting, Citizen Participation agenda item, reflect that he stated efforts had been taken to protect the growth of "existing native vegetation" as opposed to "protect the growth of wildflowers and plants." Ruotolo moved and Cleveland seconded the motion to approve as amended. The fifth item on the agenda was a Pine Beetle Update by the United States Forest Service (USES). USES District Operations Manager Cal Wettstein and Forest Health Management Entomologist Dave Eager provided the update. Eager stated that due to continuing drought conditions throughout the inter-mountain west, the present pine beetle outbreak is vast and includes an area from Canada to Mexico. Although pine beetles are indigenous organisms, drought conditions cause trees to create less resin, a natural barrier to pine beetle infestation, he said. Wettstein added that four primary factors impact beetle infestation: 1) weather conditions; 2) stand conditions (trees approximate location to each other); 3) age of the trees; and 4) the species of trees located in specific areas. Wettstein also announced that an aerial survey of the Vail area had been recently conducted and that the USFS is tracking tree mortality rates in specific locations. .Wettstein continued that by decreasing tree density, more moisture is available to remaining trees, thus increasing the opportunity for lower tree mortality rates. Wettstein then stated that the Vail Valley Forest Health Project (WHFP) would continue and within the next few months, a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be released. As a part of the WHFP, Wettstein anticipated the propagation of aspen clones in West Vail area would occur. Photographs of the valley taken in the 1930s indicate that aspen trees were at one time more common in the area and would act as an effective fire break. Subsequently, current fallen and beetle infested trees in the West Vail/Intermountain area would be removed/culled and burned. This action could amount to the removal of potentially 30 percent of the present tree population (living, dying, dead bio-mass) in the area. Wettstein stressed this would be an attempt to control bio-mass as well as maintain scenery. This is referred to as an "adaptive management" approach. Town Manager Stan Zemler asked Wettstein when the USFS would begin the bio-mass removal project in West Vail. Wettstein indicated the EIS should receive approval by spring 2005, and bio- mass removal would begin within a .year to ayear-and-a-half after EIS approval. Eager added that several species of the pine beetle exist; however, Vail is mainly being affected by the variety that affects lodge pole pine. Bob Louthan, East Vail resident, asked about Pine Beetle and bio-mass control in East Vail. Wettstein stated East Vail has the advantage of a natural aspen break. However bio-mass removal is not viable as there are severe avalanche and debris flow risks iahat occur with such actions. The USFS representatives did stress they would work with adjacent land owners in removing/clearing dead or dying bio-mass. Slifer recommended to Zemler the town should set aside funds for pine beetle mitigation in future budgets. The saxttO item on the agenda was a Vail Recreation District (VRD) Update. Scott Proper, VRD board member, provided an update on the VRD's decision to forego operation of the Ice Dome during the 2004-05 winter season. Proper qualified "ice usage" demand has not materialized over the past few years due to a mix of programming provided at Dobson Ice Arena and a generalized decrease in demand created by down valley facilities. Hitt then asked Proper if the VRD had requested deposits for ice requests that had been made. Proper responded the VRD Board had requested ice usage contracts and deposits, and he assumed VRD staff followed the directive of the VRD Board. Instead, the VRD agreed to fund up to $5,000 to help the town store the Ice Dome for an additional year. Donovan stated that she believed that. the TOV and VRD should investigate the development of a less formal outdoor ice venue. Proper and TOV staff subsequently indicated they would explore the possibility of a "primitive" outdoor skating venue in Vail for the 2004-05 winter season. Proper also noted that extensive efforts would be made at Dobson Arena to accommodate as many skater groups and events as possible. Subsequently, Cleveland made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to take steps or investigate options to sell the Ice Dome. Ruotolo seconded. The motion passed 5-2, with Slifer and Donovan dissenting. Discussion surrounding the sale of the Ice Dome focused on the potential usability of the existing dasher boards and refrigeration equipment that had been used to operate the facility. TOV staff indicated they would investigate the potential viability of utilizing Ice Dome equipment for use in an outdoor or alternative venue. During a pause for public comment, Stephen Connelly, representing the Vail Valley Ice Users Association, stated Proper and the entire VRD should be commended for their willingness to revisit the issue. Michael Cacioppo, former TOV Councilman, remarked if the ice dome were to be sold to a down valley entity, a second sheet of ice in Vail may no longer be necessary. Proper also presented an update an two ballot issues authorized by the VRD. When referring to the proposed ballot questions, Proper said he has encountered many constituents in Vail who desire more recreational amenities, and to provide these, the VRD has decided to ask for a mill levy increase due to lower revenues at the Vail Golf Course and lower assessed tax valuations in Vail. Moffet inquired as to the status of golf course revenues. Proper responded there was a feeling amongst some in the community and the VRD Board the current method of golf pass distribution and green fee pricing amounted to very inexpensive golf far only a few local residents, while also pointing to a general "mushrooming" of availability of golf courses in the United States and more specifically in the Vail Valley. Several Council members questioned the specific language of the ballot questions, the subsequent revenues that each ballot question would generate, and management practices utilized by the VRD. Most of the Council expressed a belief the proposed ballot questions were vague and did not appropriately address the matters at hand. After further research, Zemler noted the certification deadline was the next day, 09.08.04. During a pause for public comment, Cacioppo expressed concern the VRD's proposed ballot questions included no sunset as the operating contract existing between the TOV and VRD would be expiring in a couple of year. Cacioppo concluded he believed international/national occurrences and down valley competition were the primary reason for the Vail Golf Course's. consistent decline in revenue. The seventh item on the agenda was an Information Centers/Overview and Award of Contracts. Finance Director Judy Camp announced the current contract for operating the Visitor Information Centers in Vaif Village and Lionshead would expire on September 30, 2004. Camp continued the TOV issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) via public notice in late June asking for three-year proposals to operate the information centers. Responses were received from the Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau (WCTB) and the Vail Chamber and Business Association (VCBA). Following review of both proposals, staff recommended awarding athree-year contract, subject to annual appropriation, to the WCTB. Camp reported the proposal submitted by the WCTB met all of the requirements of the RFP. The WCTB (and its predecessor organizations) had 30 years of experience in managing the Vail visitors' centers and maintains a strong staff as exhibited by the resumes submitted and the quality of their proposal. The proposed business plan from the WCTB was built upon their current programs as specified in the proposal. The WCTB requested $173,555, plus nine blue parking passes, to fund 100% of the staffing of the information centers and 50 percent of the support costs, with the remainder funded from commissions received on reservations. The WCTB's cost was the lower of the two proposals, but represented an increase over the current contract, as well as it was greater than the Town Manager's internal guideline of 2.0 to 2.5 percent. Staff further recommended that the amount of the contract for 2004/2005 be reduced to $170,675. The WCTB also submitted a proposal to re-instate the hours that were cut from the shoulder seasons in 2003/2004, particularly because of the construction anticipated throughout the town and the desire to communicate to our visitors Vail is "open for business." Staff did not recommend re-instating the additional hours and recommended the Town Manager enter into negotiations with the WCTB for information services. After the Town Manager's recommendation was made by Camp, there was some disagreement by the VCBA concerning what information had-been received by TOV staff, as well as discussion regarding the VCBA's submitted materials as they were reported to be provided to the town two working days past the RFP stated deadline. Councilwoman Donovan inquired as to why the contract recommendation was for three years. Brandmeyer stated the contract had been let that way in the past. Donovan rebutted the process had not been undertaken since Zemler had come on board as Town Manager, and she was disappointed the Council had not been given the option to review the RFP orapplicant-provided materials: Logan emphasized he believed the RFP process was not as thorough as it should have been, and the public had no credibility in the process that had been used. Cleveland emphasized due to redevelopment taking place in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas, he thought it would be premature to enter into a three year contract for information center services. Cleveland also stressed the need to operate only one visitor's center so as to eliminate duplication of services and the information center operation discussion should have occurred in July, as opposed to a month before the end of current operating contract. Hitt communicated he did not like nor want to continue "business as usual" at the information centers, and information provided at the information centers should be about Vail and promote it as an individual entity. Hitt used the example of "vailonsale" as a WCTB program that promoted businesses outside of TOV limits. Several Council members also questioned the proposed hours of operation of the twro facilities. Kaye Ferry, Executive Director of the VCBA, voiced it was unfair only one agency had the opportunity to gain experience operating the information booths, noting operation of an information center wasn't "brain surgery," and the VCBA already performed similar functions in their current office. Steve Rosenthal, President of the VCBA, also stated concern with the RFP process and handling of the RFP information packets after they had been returned to the town. Rosenthal questioned why town staff would not have reviewed the submissions with the applicants. Rosenthal also remarked experience could be an everlasting argument, and in everything the VCBA had embarked upon, they had been successful. Frank Johnson, WCTB President, rebutted more Vail businesses belong to the WCTB than VCBA. Johnson continued the WCTB had been a good partner and exemplary servant, operating the information centers for the past thirty years, and stated hiring the VCBA would be a short sighted mistake. Johnson disagreed that people would stop at an information center, then drive down valley to find accommodations, arguing he believed the average visitor is hesitant to even drive as far as Vail Village to Lionshead after stopping at an information center. Johnson agreed the WCTB would continue operation of the information centers until the management issue is resolved. Katie Barnes, WCTB, addressing the "vailonsale" questions raised earlier in the evening by Hitt and the VCBA, said visitors were directed to specific locations based on expressed needs, rather than predetermined locations. Tracy Long, Vail business owner, spoke in support of the VCBA operating the information centers, emphasizing the information centers should be used to promote a vibrant Vail Village atmosphere. Dale Bugby, Vail Resort Rentals, avowed the town should run the information booths longer, better, and effort should be spent examining Vail's competitive edge, in terms of web sites such as Travelocity.com and Expedia.com. Bugby also alleged lodging taxes are not utilized to the maximum benefit to the town. Rick Scapello remarked the town had not identified a specific purpose for the information centers, and a shorter contract term should be implemented. Michael Cacioppo spoke in support of changing the hours of operation for the information centers and questioned why the Council would accept a staff recommendation for an operation as important to the town as the information centers. Cacioppo ended by saying he believed it to be an egregious mistake that Council had not had the opportunity to see the applicant's proposals. Joe Staufer, local business owner, articulated concern with the WCTB operating the information booths, since that the WCTB had to cater to the needs of a numerically superior down valley membership base. Staufer concluded by emphasizing promotional dollars coming out of Vail should sta}~ in Vail. Donovan finished the discussion by stating there is an obvious interest in a "Vail only" organization running the information centers. After the questions were raised by VCBA staff and supporters concerning the RFP process, as well as generous public input supporting a "Vail only" organization, Council agreed to extend the selection process to include personal interviews with both applicants. It was agreed by Council the interview panel would consist of Hitt, Ruotolo, Zemler, Brandmeyer and Camp. Zemler emphasized however, only the specific information that had been previously received by the town in the original RFP would be used in the selection process. Moffet moved to have WCTB continue operation of the information centers on a month-to-month basis until a second recommendation by the Town Manager was received by Council. Cleveland seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Moffet had earlier moved to accept a two year contract, while revisiting information center hours of operation over the next several months. That motion died without a second. The eighth item on the agenda was a request by Crossroads East One, LLC, to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to construct private improvements on Town of Vail property. The Council voted unanimously, 7-0, to allow Crossroads East One to proceed as part of a redevelopment application to create a Special Development District (SDD). In conjunction with that application, there were several improvements which were proposed within the Town of Vail right-of--way for Village Center Drive and East Meadow Drive. Since Crossroads proposed to construct and alter Town of Vail property, Town Council permission was required to proceed through the development review process. The review process for creating a new SDD requires the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval or denial to the Council. If Council were to approve the SDD, it would require two public readings of an ordinance to establish the SDD. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion to proceed through the process. The ninth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 20, Series 2004, A Resolution approving the Gore Creek Place Development Agreement (The "Agreement") between the Town of Vail ("The Town") and the Vail Corporation, D/B/A Vail Associates, Inc., a Colorado Corporation ("Vail Associates"), which agreement pertains to certain respective rights and responsibilities of the Town and Vail Associates in relation to the Gore Creek Place Development Site owned by Vail Associates and Affiliates. At Mire's request, Council voted to table Resolution No. 20, pertaining to the Gore Creek Place development, to the September 21 Town Council Session.. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion, with the motion passing unanimously 6-0, as Slifer had recused himself from the item. The tenth item on the agenda was the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series 2004, an Ordinance making supplemental appropriations to the 2004 Budget Supplemental Appropriation No. 2. The ordinance, the second supplemental appropriation of the year, identified $3,045,169 in revenue increases and $3,272,372 in related expenditures. Finance Director Judy Camp outlined major changes to the budget, including an adjustment to funding and construction costs for the Multi-Purpose Recreational Facility at Red Sandstone School; legal fees associated with a water rights case brought by the town and several other resort communities on behalf of their whitewater parks; fees associated with the conference center planning; the cost of additional contract positions funded in part by a development resources agreement with Vail Resorts; and revenue forecast increases. Cleveland moved, and Hitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The eleveroth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Cascade Bike Path Greg Barrie from the Public Works Department provided a construction progress and financial report on the Cascade Bike Path. Barrie noted the town has added $150,000 to the 2005 Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) budget to reflect the town's share of improvements for this section of the bike path, in conjunction with a proposed cost-share from Holy Cross Electric and the Cascade Village Improvement District. Quick Response Vehicle (QRV) Update At Council's request, Fire Chief John Gulick provided an update on the status of the department's acquisition and use of its two quick response vehicles (QRV). Gulick said the department chose to utilize QRV's to reduce unnecessary expenditures and wear and tear on fire engines, and the department is finalizing standard operating guidelines for use of the new equipment. Appropriate QRV responses will include basic first-aid or medical emergencies; selected vehicle accidents on I-70; bicycle accidents on bike paths; off-road accidents on Red Sandstone Road, Mill Creek Road or on Vail Mountain; wildland fires; and confirmed non-emergency fire alarms in buildings. Fire officers will determine which vehicle responds based on the nature of the call as dispatched. Calls to which a QRV responds requiring additional support will be supplemented by personnel and equipment from another fire station. If an engine is already committed to a call requiring more help, a QRV can be utilized to deliver additional personnel. The chief said QRV's add a new level of flexibility in responding to a variety of emergencies. Gulick continued one QRV is currently being used for rescue while the other is used as a light engine. The chief then answered questions as to what equipment is currently installed and in use on specific vehicles as well as where the vehicles were being stored. Cleveland and Moffet requested a pro forma and statistics be provided by staff to unequivocally demonstrate the efficiencies of QRV usage. Keg (Barrel Containing Malt Cereal Beverage) Tagging Legislation As participants in a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) underage drinking grant, the Town of Vail Police Department (TOVPD) requested support from the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) to help sponsor "keg tagging" legislation during the present 2004 State of Colorado Legislative Session. The law would require when kegs are sold, buyers must show identification and fill out a form writing in their names and addresses. A registration "tag"-really asticker-is then affixed to the outside of the keg. The intent of the tagging law is to hold adults accountable for providing alcohol to minors. If law enforcement finds a tagged keg at a party where minors are drinking, they can track it back to the purchaser, who may then face civil or criminal penalties. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has contacted the TOVPD supporting these efforts. The TOVPD is requesting permission to collaborate with the CACP and MADD to sponsor this legislation. Council approved of supporting the legislation, however, stipulated they did not want TOVPD to spend an inordinate amount of time on the project, or such time that would hinder normal duties directly benefiting the TOV. Zemler announced only a reasonable amount of time would be spent on the endeavor. - Park City Tour Corey Swisher from the Town Manager's Office announced for the third time in recent history, a large contingent of Park City representatives would be arriving in Vail to learn about and explore a peer municipality. Swisher continued the group would arrive on the evening of September 15 and would consist of approximately 70 people, including elected officials, staff, a local leadership class of 25 people, and local business members. Swisher explained a 'dine around' with Vail officials and community members would occur on the evening of September 15 at local restaurants, and town staff would provide a formal program at Donovan Pavilion on September 16. The twelfth item on the agenda was adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:05 p.m. Moffet moved, Ruotolo seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk !laiB Town CounciB Evening Meeting Minutes Ta~esday, September 2~1, 200 x:00 P.M. ~laiB Town Coa~ncil Chambers The regaeBar meeting of the !/aiB Town CounciB was calBed to order at 6:00 P.llfl. by Mayor Rod Slifer. Members present: Rod Slifer, IViayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Farrow Hitt Kent Logan Kim Ruotolo Greg 11Aoffet Staff rvae~mbers: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Assistant Town Manager, Pam Brandmeyer Matt Mire, Town Attorney The ffrst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was no citizen input. The second item on the agenda was a streetscape/East Meadow Drive/Core Site Update. Public Works Director Greg Hall provided a report on the status of present streetscape improvement operations. Hall reported East Meadow Drive was reopened prior to Oktoberfest as was originally scheduled. Hall continued that Hanson Ranch Road has been reopened, while Bridge Street paver installation work continues, although the weather may become a problem. Water feature development on Watl Street continues, and the restrooms are close to being opened. Paver work will begin on Earl Eaton Plaza after Bridge Street is improved. Fountains on Wall Street would be poured within the next two weeks. In a pause for public comment, Rick Scalpello, representing East Meadow Drive business owners and operators, thanked and complimented the town and Eagle River Water and Sanitation (ERW&S) for their sensitivity and cooperation while performing utility work. Halt also provided a report; outlining private sector investment and cooperation surrounding streetscape improvement efforts. B_Ol~EBZ B31~B®GE STREET Russell's Building- Slifer Building - Gorsuch Building - Covered Bridge Building - Gasthof Gramshammer- IVo impacted area Check received No impacted area on Lower Bridge St Owner (Florescue) does not want to participate, exiting pavers/ snowmelt to remain in tact Owners (Gramshammer) do not want to participate tftlA~~ STBaEET/ EAT®t!I PLAZA Bridge Street Building- Agreement signed /payment plan Wall Street Building/Lazier- Payment Plan Vail Sports Building- Check sent One Vail Place- Based on public access of easement Plaza Lodge Building- Agreement signed/ payment plan Hill Building- Traded for pedestrian easement Ruotolo asked for the reasons why payments were not received. Hall stated some owners simply did not want to participate, as well as there were a few legal matters pertaining to certain properties. Hitt asked if some of those not willing to participate or pay for streetscape improvements were the owners of Pepi's Restaurant and the Gasthof Gramshammer. Hall indicated that was correct and the town had spent an estimated $15,000 to remediate their property. Logan then asked if Florescue had also failed to be an active financial participant in streetscape improvements. Again, Halt indicated that was correct. In summarizing the streetscape projects, Hall said the first year of improvements had gone very well. Hall concluded his presentation by noting that due to contractual issues, Lionshead core site improvements might be delayed for the fall. Logan asked that a letter of thanks be sent to the President of FirstBank of Vail for its gracious contribution to the utility improvements by allowing traffic to be rerouted through its parking lot. The third item on the agenda was a Vail Parking Task Force (VPTF) Presentation. The Council reviewed a recommendation from the .Vail Parking Task Force in which the group recommended no change in parking rates or policies for the 2004-05 winter season from the 2003-04 winter season. Hall announced during the last year the parking program had succeeded in limiting parking on the Frontage Road to 14 days. The announced goal had been 15 days. Parking and Transit Manager Mike Rose reported no changes were recommended to help eliminate public confusion. Cleveland further elaborated people have learned and understand the program, and it was time to leave the parking system alone. Hitt announced as a new member of the task force, he felt confident in the recommendation, and the town would remain vigilant in improving and simplifying the town's parking situation. During the public comment period, Michael Cacioppo questioned potential fines that might be imposed upon parking structure users, due to unfortunate timing. Rose noted fines are imposed reasonably and are ultimately determined by enforcement officers. Moffet moved and Cleveland seconded a motion to maintain the 2003-04 parking rates and policies without change. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was an appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of a conditional use permit application, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business office, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Units 16 and 17 (Vail Village Plaza) /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. On a 4-2 vote, with Mayor Slifer being statutorily recused, Council upheld a PEC tie vote, which had resulted in denial of a conditional use application that would have allowed a real estate office to open on the ground floor of 100 East Meadow Drive. Moffet moved to uphold the PEC non-vote, with Hitt seconding. Stating it was one of the toughest votes in their public careers, Cleveland, Donovan, Hitt, and Moffet voted to disallow a Public Accommodation Zone (PAZ) variance, in an effort to protect or not hinder, what they believed might become one of the most thriving areas in Vail. Cleveland expressed concern Council would have the political will to deny further applications for conditional use as time went on, and approving the present application, "would fly in the face of what we are trying to do on Meadow Drive." Hitt stated he believed approval of this item might lead to a flood of real estate offices and would be contrary to ongoing redevelopment efforts. While dissenting, Logan and Ruotolo expressed they believed the square footage of the frontage requested to be developed into office space would not significantly impact the potential of the area, and future variances could be controlled. Logan stated Council can control. matters such as this, one by one, and the volume of real estate offices in Vail Village and Lionshead was not currently a matter of concern. Logan finished his arguments by stating: "When we get to thirty-four offices I think we have serious problem." Ruotolo stated she thought a real estate office is a use that could be allowed in this area. "I think a real estate office provides a nice mix in what we are trying to do in this area and is not an incompatible use." Many citizens and interested parties spoke in support of the applicant. Mire also made it known letters and voicemaits in support of the applicant had been received by the town. The applicant John Slevin, fVico Vail, Inc., was represented by his father Jim Sleven, former Council member who stated he believed that a good business operation of any sort, in a good location was positive for the town and that the volume of revenue his real estate office would generate for the town would be superior to what a normal "store" would generate. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, quoting recent newspaper articles, stressed regulation will hamper diversity and market conditions should dominate what type of business locates in a specific area. Peterson continued real estate is a large part of VaiPs local economy and that second homeowners are becoming more and more important: Luc Meyer, owner of the 100 East Meadow Drive location under discussion, stated he had been trying to find a tenant for the aforementioned location for six months. Meyer emphasized that certain retail businesses such as art galleries do not benefit the town as most of the art sold in Vail is shipped out of state; subsequently no sales tax is collected. Meyer also emphasized he looks for quality tenants, and an entity that would be a benefit to the town. Meyer completed his comments by stating he would continue to work on the aesthetics of the property. David Viele, PEC Member, stated he believed the PEC failed to implement proper code and succumbed to the impetus to implement public policy. Speaking as a citizen, Viele commented he did not believe public policy should "tinker" with economics, and real estate is the economic driver of the Vail economy. Rick Scalpello, remarked Council could not find justification to deny this request. Michael Cacioppo suggested the possibility of a compromise, recommending only the second level of the property be used for office space, leaving the lower level for true retail. Steve Stafford, Manager for Slifer, Smith & Frampton Management Company, stated real estate offices are a pseudo retail use and visitors have an interest in what type of property is available in the resort area they are visiting. Stafford continued he didn't think approval of this use; sets a precedent, and future usage of the area will remain subject to Council approval. Dan Telleen, Karats Gallery owner, asked Council to deny the request, stating he believed real estate office space does not contribute to pedestrian shopping synergy. The ffiftb item on the agenda was Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, a Resolution of the Town of Vail adopting the State of Colorado Municipal Records Retention Schedule. Council voted unanimously, 7-0, to approve a resolution that simplifies the town's methods of records retention. Town Clerk Lorelei Donaldson stated current methods used to dispose of records are a cumbersome paper-based procedure, and that adopting the State of Colorado Model Records Retention Schedule would give town departments a basis upon which to make records disposition decisions for many different types of records without going to the State Archivist for approval each time a new record type is created. It also allows for a less cumbersome records disposal process. Cleveland asked Donaldson if all town departments had been made aware of the resolution. Donaldson reported each department would implement methods most acceptable to its individual needs. Mire qualified Donaldson's comments by stating the resolution only set minimum standards. During the public comment period, Michael Cacioppo expressed concern he had not had the opportunity to review the state legislation. Moffet moved, and Donovan seconded the motion. The sixth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 20, Series 2004, a Resolution approving the Gore Creek Place Development Agreement between the Town of Vail -and the Vail Corporation, D/B/A Vail Associates, Inc., which agreement pertains to certain respective rights and responsibilities of the Town and Vail Associates in relation to the Gore Creek Place Development Site owned by Vail Associates and Affiliates. Mire recommended a motion to table the item until the October 5 evening session. Due to a predetermined statutory conflict, Mayor Slifer recused himself from the item. Moffet moved and Hitt seconded the motion to table the item. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The seventh item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. - Zemler reported the Town of Breckenridge asked to have a joint meeting with the Vail Town Council. There was a general consensus by the council to participate in such a meeting, at which time Mayor Slifer directed staff to investigate an appropriate date for the meeting. - .Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer announced comprehensive Council contribution information haci been distributed to Council earlier in the meeting so as to allow more time to review the item prior to the October 5 work session. Zemler asked for clarification on what Council was expected to do in determining contribution levels. Brandmeyer stated the Council would have the opportunity to review contribution requests line item by line item. Councilwoman Donovan reminded Council to take the requests very seriously as the matter is extraordinarily important in the budget process and at times Council members may find themselves voting for or against friends and individual interests. - Mayor Slifer asked for and received verification from Council there was a general consensus the "option three" conference center design plan, presented earlier in the day, was the preferred direction of Council. - Hitt announced he had received three emails from parties interested in purchasing the Vail Ice Dome. Brandmeyer reported information-gathering work was continuing to determine a sales price for the facility. The eighth item on the agenda was adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. Moffet moved, Logan seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Town Council Information Centers ,advisory Committee fleeting lillinutes Tuesday, September 28, 2004 10 a.m. Community Development Large Conference Room The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Chairman Stan Zemler. Members Present: Stan Zemler, Chairman Farrow Hitt Kim Ruotolo Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp Staff Members: Matt Mire, Attorney Suzanne Silverthorn, Minutes The first item on the agenda was an interview with representatives from the Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau (WCTB). Presenters were Frank Johnson, Steve Pope, Stan Cope, Katie Barnes, Mike Griffin grid Vi Brown. The group was asked by the chairman to describe their experience and qualifications. It was explained the WCTB has 30 years of institutional knowledge in running the centers, which has allowed the addition of value-added programs, such as the community host program and a concierge web site. Frank Johnson then provided an overview of the response to the town's Request for Proposals (RFP) by saying the proposal represents 100 percent of the personnel costs to run the center, plus 50 percent of the remaining operational expenses associated with the center, which includes phone lines, postage and supplies, copier lease, host uniforms, and special event calendars. The remainder of the operational costs, he said, is covered by commissions on revenues booked from the centers. The group assured the chairman that appropriate firewalls are in place to separate funding and management of the centers from the valleywide functions managed by WCTB. As an example, Steve Pope commented that 97 percent of the reservations from the visitor centers over the past 3 years have gone to Vail properties. The group was also asked to explain the relationship between the information centers and the vailonsale program. It was explained that vailonsale is funded by the WCTB and the visitor centers are allowed to use the electronic system for increased efficiency. The group also reviewed a visitor center policy which was instituted approximately five years ago to reflect aVail- firstdirection given by the town. Examples and anecdotes were given to show how the Vail-first policy is implemented. When asked if the vailonsale component would be available to another operator of the visitor center, the group indicated it could be available, but it would not be a free arrangement. It was noted that a software change had been recently implemented that blocks non-Vail properties from being shown on the vailonsale computer screens in the visitor centers. Johnson indicated the WCTB would welcome any new policy directions, changes or enhancements to the centers. He suggested the Town Council spend two hours in the centers during the next two weeks, and then schedule a discussion to give additional direction on policies and operations. Regarding hours of operation, the committee asked to receive information on past research. As for compensation, it was explained that new agents start at $10 per hour and are eligible to receive a $1 per hour increase, with appropriate performance, after a 30 or 90 day review. As an incentive, agents receive 2 percent of the gross amount of lodging and activities they were responsible for booking through the center. When asked if there would be an incentive to book only high-end lodging, Mike Griffin responded that most guests who stop at the visitor centers are looking for amodestly- priced room at the $100 or lower level. Regarding office space, it was noted the WCTB central reservations division leases the west side of the Vail Village space from the town. The east side is used for the info center operation. When asked what would happen to the community host program if another vendor is selected, the group responded that it would become more difficult to run the host program because the manager's salary is paid from the visitor center operations contract. In response to questions about the number of parking passes needed for operation of the centers, Katie Barnes said the original request for 9 passes was an error. The number was reduced to 6 after a discussion regarding the total number of agents'who would be working the centers. In concluding the interview, Griffin noted the importance of the information centers, saying it's much more than giving brochures and directions. Agents, he said, have a big role to play in listening and understanding guest needs and expectations so the guest experience can be successfully achieved. The second item on the agenda was an interview with representatives from the Vail Chamber and Business Association (VCBA). Presenters were Kaye Ferry, Steve Rosenthal, Dan Barry, Sarah Akeroyd and Joyce Gedelman-Viers. The group was asked by the chairman to describe their experience and how it relates to operation of the information centers. Kaye Ferry noted the VCBA staff already handles many of the functions of the info centers on a day-to-day basis, spending approximately 25 percent of the organization's time, answering questions and giving directions. Lodging inquiries are typically redirected to central reservations. In describing the proposed operation of the centers, it was stated that Joyce Gedelman-Viers would serve as the manager, working approximately 20 hours per week. Also, lead agents would be hired in each center. The lead agents would then manage staffing. The VCBA would hire approximately 8 individuals to work part-time in shifts of up to 6 hours. It was noted the VCBA would ask existing info center employees to stay on, if interested. Another component of the proposal is to relocate the VCBA offices to the info centers (east side of building), which would result in additional supervisory presence, according to Ferry. The chairman asked for clarification as to whether the town would be paying the chamber to be housed in the info center. In response, Ferry said the VCBA would be willing to pay rent for a portion of the office. In addition, she said she's not sure there's a need for a firewall because the organization is a Vail-only based affiliation, representing all business license holders equally. When asked about avail-first versus Vail-only philosophy, Ferry said the VCBA would serve at the town's direction, although her personal opinion was that it should be Vail-only. The group went on to explain how it was prepared to use apassword-protected web site data base to book lodging. The cost would be approximately $200. The suggested commission rate for booking lodging out of the info centers would be 10 percent, although the group said a commission wasn't even necessary, since 100 percent of the fee was proposed to be returned to the town. Saying the commission could range from $20,000 to $40,000, the VCBA members qualified the estimate, noting they have no way of knowing what to expect. Ferry then presented an amended budget showing reductions in postage costs and telephone charges. It was explained that agent wages would be an average of $14 per hour with a staffing level of 8 to 12. VCBA members said they could begin operations within a 30 day notice. When asked what percentage of bookings to Vail lodges would be considered successful, the group offered an 85 to 95 percent rate. In concluding the interview, the group noted that VCBA "owns" customer service through its Turn it Up and Premier Impressions programs. Therefore, operation of the information centers would be a natural progression. And while the VCBA hasn't run the centers previously, the greatest mistake to be made would be sending business out of town. Ferry pledged this would never happen with the VCBA managing the centers. With the interviews completed by noon, the Committee then evaluated what was presented. It was noted the VCBA was better prepared than a previous presentation, although the Committee members expressed concern about disagreements being voiced among the representatives during the interview. There was some discomfort expressed about the VCBA organization moving into the info center space, as well as no estimate of bookings or commissions in the operational plan. Further, the group wasn't completely clear about how the reservations system would be operated by VCBA. This left the group with uncertainty. about VCBA's ability to make reservations and return money to the town. Regarding the WCTB presentation, the Committee noted the value of the group's professionalism and its institutional knowledge, as well as the WCTB's willingness to modify its policies and procedures if so directed by the town. The Committee then unanimously agreed the WCTB is best suited to manage the information centers at this time due to its demonstrated ability to perform in the following areas: 1) experience in operating an information booth or similar operation; 2) ability to financially perform as proposed; 3) background qualifications of organization and staff; 4) completeness of business plan/ability to implement; best ability to serve the goals of the town. The Committee agreed to recommend the following to the Town Council: to direct the Town Manager to enter into negotiations with the Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau for cone-year contract to expire Sept. 30, 2005. Negotiations would include: booth information displays and distribution; monthly accountability summarizing direct bookings from the Information Center; hours of operation; and any other current matters Council wishes to address. Following the negotiations, it is recommended that an ongoing process be considered in which the Council members assigned to the Committee continue discussions with the Town Manager and staff to define more specifically the role of the information centers in serving Vail's guests and businesses. These discussions would culminate in a series of policy decisions to be determined by the full Council. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stan Zemler, Chairman ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk c' i T®: Town Council FR®ll/i: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Suzanne Silverthorn, Project Facilitator ®~aTE: October 5, 2004 SU~.DECT: Chamonix Property Master Plan Update ~AC~GR®lJ~® Since July 20, 2004, at the direction of the Vail Town Council, the planning team of Davis Partnership/Michael Hazard Associates has been working to facilitate a master land use plan for the town-owned Chamonix property at 2310 Chamonix Rd. The purpose of the land use plan is to determine the most appropriate location for a future fire station on the property as well as other potential uses that would maximize community benefit while complementing characteristics of the surrounding area. The 3.6 acre property was purchased by the Vail Town Council in 2002 for $2.6 million. At the time, a fire station, affordable housing and land banking were identified as possible future uses. The property is currently zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. A citizen review team has been assembled to help manage the process. Members include Kim Ruotolo and Dick Cleveland from the Town Council, as well as Bob Armour, Bruce Norring and Tricia Hutchinson from the neighborhood, plus town staff. The planning steps, to date, have included the following: o August 9, 2004 Kick-off meeting with West Vail residents to introduce project and to identify neighborhood interests and concerns. Five key themes were identified: o Preserve and build upon community characteristics o Pay particular attention to site access and traffic impacts o Minimize fire station impacts to the neighborhood o Explore financing options for fire station o Explore long-term needs and opportunities August 9 -September 26, 2004 Seven fire station site plan options were developed using the following criteria: ease of fire truck movement; safety for fire truck access to site and exit from site; extent of site utilized/site availability for future development; response to existing neighborhood uses and existing zoning; and response to existing site grades. Two of the 7 site plan options were expanded to include possible master plan scenarios representing high density residential and land banking (see attachments). The scenarios included a site section showing height relationships and the impacts on existing residential properties on Chamonix Lane. • September 27, 2004 Update meeting held with West Vail residents to present fire station site plan options and the beginning stage of land use planning options for the remainder of the property. The purpose of the October 5 update. to the Town Council is to provide a summary of the September 27 neighborhood meeting, narrow the fire station options to 2 or 3, and describe next steps. SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, SEPTEMBER 27 Questions & Answers Q: What is the current zoning and how does that relate to height requirements for new development? A: The current zoning is Primary Secondary Residential. This current zoning limits the height to 33 feet for sloped roofs and 30 feet for flat roofs. One option is to rezone the site to General Use to allow the fire station to be sited. The General Use zone is defined by the Planning and Environmental Commission for height limits. If rezoned to High-Density Residential or Public Accommodation, the Height would be limited to 48 feet. If the site were rezoned to Medium Residential, the height limit would be 38 feet for a sloped roof and 35 feet for a flat roof. Q: .How many calls would the Fire Department respond to from West Vail? A: An average of 1 call per day. Q: Where does Greater Eagle River Fire Protection District boundary begin? A: At mile marker 171 at Dowd Junction. Suggestions/Comments • Development of the property could help block highway noise and .provide a visual screen from the service stations and Wendy's. • In addition to the fire station, consider a small park with picnic tables in lieu of residential use. . • Look at open space opportunities. By adding more residential, it will add to traffic in the neighborhood, which is already a concern. • Maintain apedestrian/bike path through the property. • Avoid a rental housing scenario. It would negatively impact single family homes. It would also compete with rental units already available by individuals who earn their living this way. • There are no easy access solutions for the fire station. Chamonix Road and the corner of Chamonix Lane are both difficult, especially during the winter when roads are icy. • Holiday Inn prefers drive-through for fire trucks to avoid use of back up beepers. • Lighting is of concern. Neighborhood Preferences • Drive-through scenario for fire station bays is preferred. • Option 7.0 for fire station location best minimizes impact to the neighborhood. 2 ~E1f~' STEPS o Following the Town Council's review of the fire station location options, the design team will carry forward the top two or three fire station location options. o The design team will then prepare a series of master plan options for the entire site based on an evaluation of the neighborhood themes, zoning considerations, density ranges, public-private scenarios and land banking options. o The design team will also produce a financial analysis of each option and a comprehensive evaluation of the opportunities and constraints. Schedule October 5, 2004 Review Fire Station Location Options with Town Council October 6-29, 2004 Develop Master Plan Options TBD Present Options to Review Team November 1, 2004 Neighborhood Open House to Review Master Plan Options November 16, 2004 Present Master Plan Options to Vail Town Council for Review and Refinement 3 A1.0 Site Plan Summary: This option represents locating the fire station at the south side of the site near the existing heavy service district. This option forces the fire trucks to back into the station, but allows the building to be used as a retaining structure along the steep slopes to the north and west of the site. A feeder road would also be developed off Chamonix Road to access additional fire station parking and future development. ~ , -.--~ ~- ` _.-,. .- ~. r" - / _,.. _ _ ~ ~ .~, d ~.-- .. i /'-`t ~ / /~ ~~ / ~_. !~ _.- /" .._.,.. \ . ~ 1 ~"- --__._~-.--„'" , '-tip .F, /'.-",-.-._ ~-..'' / ~' . :.---=~~~ _ r rf _ \.. ,...--~~~ / f f f ,V! //.~..-r'~ i fly f, / '~ 1 I) .r--I .~---~-,...-'1 \'* / ~m f J y, •4 \\~ .~~- _ ,~~~~ '~ ,~ f /'~~ ,;; _,.~ /, ~,`~ 1 ~- -~-~-- ---IX LANE _ ~ ~~ ~~ ~°~' ,~ ~~._./ ~~_ '~''/,.-''~- ~ _,,-~~ ._ ,; ~ ___ rr ~,,, , . 1 ,/'/ ,~ .~_. -:~ _ _ _ _ _ ,, F _ ; ~. , ., /~ .. _! s / ~,, -- ... ' w -~ r ,~ -ta ~ /i~/~~ /f/ ~~~/', /' /~/ ~,~ ~'"` _ ~ 14 PARKIN SPACE - ~ ~ J ' !I /r 1 „~ ~. ..,_ r, \ / , f .~ 1~ ~ i r ~ I -_ i __ _ __ ~~ ,. 1~ ..,.-;. ~.`~~ // /j/\.~.... f ~~/// ~/ ._ _,- --, „` •~ fi'PARKINGSPACES ~ .~~~ -'. ~,.. m / ~ ,. A. t/ ,, `~ ~ ,~ 1JJ ter' / ,~, `/- =. - ' ~,,.~- ~ ' V /~'` ,~/ %r/ ~ jam: ~ _ \ ~ `~ ~ ~.. -_ _~s4 ~. (/ /.. i j ,- .~ ,-,~- ~ _ - _ ~ l AG /~/ ~ ~~~ ~~', ~'~ %',%--`/ is l ~ -....,.. ~~ ~ ''.', = ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ' ~ I -,'"_~.... `\ ~. y ,, 111 f ,~ _ ,., ,. ~ ---- ,'~ i \~ / ~~ ,~~~ rf~~.~ ~ .~ -., .~~ _ ~/ ~ ~ ~.~ ' '' ~ ,1 ~ ROAD ~f ~- ..~, ~ / ~ CHA NI f t _. M 7 \ -,r j l // , % - --, - , .. t. ~, k , _- ~,,._ I~I;; ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~~.. ~ ~ ,r , ~_ . _~ _ , _ r t j ~l /~~~ ~ . ~ I/ir ~ wENDy15 ~ ~~i ' ' ~ i ~~ ~~~., ____ ~ ~. / ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~''i~/ ~'~, / ~ ~ __ _. ~ .~,~ PHILIPS ~ I I ~ € FIRST gg1NK~,~ ' i ~ ~ / ~~ ~~~ ~/~i'/ s'/ I SHELL ~,/ ~ 66 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~ - ..._ ~~ ELEUEN ``~. e '/'`..,,~„~ ~, ~ r r /;~ ~~ ~/,~1~/ ~ ~/1~l ,/~ ~ ,r- ~, ...---.__~ ~,,, ~; t 11 ~ oFFicES ~~... _ ~ a``w r A "W1 \ ~~~~ fj~ fir; f+~~~~r~~~~ 1 1,~ (7~ ~l i ~ ~: .,. ~~'.. \ S \i 1 ~~~~ ~~I~~IIf( i~7; fl f ~ ,/w mil' .,~ f ~ I ~~~~ I~ \~ ~0". \ ` s; ~~, __ _ ~~(~,! ~~i'III~~ ft~'~~~rl I I ~ \~l'~~_ ~~-..~N-~''~ i,,J~ ~.,~ ~/ ~ ~-_,~~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~YFST _ G~i f' tI t J,~~/ ~r I f i III it 1 r ~ ~ '-~_ / ~ ~'" _ --tip ~`- ,~' v.. _/`~ ` ~. ~I~, w ~,/ ~ i ' ~w '~F ly 1 ~~~~ , n FIRE STATION -SITE PLAN OPTION 1 0 ~ „ AU 1 40 0 I~ _ -_I ISSUEIREVISION DATE N0. ~ ~ Q W~ J W aW 0 0 0 > O W Q D X0 ~ X ~ ~~ 0 U 0 ~ 0 ~ ~_ ~~ ~ Q ~ ~ ' U FIRE STATION SITE PLAN DAiE 09/Y7/04 DRAWN BY MR, BP CHK'0 BY BN, MH SHEET FlLE A1,O.dwg ranwrt mm er Deis vwml[asw v.c, ucwlrns v7m ruuefx '/~~III II o~ D.P.A. PROJECT# 04934.00 0115 M4a SiREEi. UNR Cf 5f EDWARDS,COLORA0051p2 BT0.A25.B950 F870.915.0.61 A2.0 Site Plan Summary: This option represents locating the fire station at the east side of the site near the intersection of Chamonix Road and Chamonix Lane. This option forces the fire trucks to back into the station, but allows the building floor to be twenty feet below Chamonix Lane. One access point would be developed off Chamonix Road to access both the fire station and future development at the west side of the site. ~tf ~~~/' f n /~ \~/, ~ / /f~ . ~E I / / / 1,~/~~~~°1/ 11 t /'~ ~.. 0226 MAIN STREET. UNR C107 EDWARDS, COLOPAD061572 870.026.8%0 F.B10.02G8061 ISSUEIREVISION DATE N0. Q W 0 ~ Q_W 0 ~ 0 0 O > wQ ~ B X o0 0 ~ Z ~~ U 0 ~ 0 Q ~_ ~> ~ > U ~0 0 ~ FIRE STATION SITE PLAN DATE as/sT/oa oRAwN er MA, eP CHK'D BY SN, MH SHFET FlLE A2.O.dwg mvmnB ~ m an vxnxmsxv rc, urxrtrn FIRE STATION -SITE PLAN OPTION 2 i" = ao'-o" ~.. 0 10 d0 ~i sBEr ruue[a ~~o® D.P.A. PROJECT# 04934,00 A3.0 Site Plan Summary: This option represents locating the fire station at the east side of the site near the intersection of Chamonix Road and Chamonix Lane. This option forces the fire trucks to back into the station, but creates good fire truck vision to the Chamonix Lane intersection. An additional access point would need to be developed off Chamonix Road to access additional fire station parking and future development at the west side of the site. r. ISSUElREVISION DATE N0. ~ ~ Q W ~ ~ aW o ~ 0 0 ~ ~ >~' 0 0 ~ X0 0 3 ~ ~~ U 0 ~ 0 ~_ ~ > _ ~p ~ U (A 0 ~ I 1 ~~ r~ FIRE STATION SITE PLAN DATE 09J27/OI DRAWN Sf Mfl, BP CHN'D SY SN, MH SHEEP FlLE A3.O.dwg wmmrt mu n ww rwnanxs v.c .Ywrtrn FIRE STATION -SITE PLAN OPTION 3 1 = 40 -0" ~~i D YO W s¢n xu~[x ~o® D.PA.PROJECT# 04934.00 A4.0 Site Plan Summary: This option represents locating the fire station on Chamonix Road with a loop drive. This option allows the fire trucks to drive through the station, but creates steep entry and exit drive lanes and extensive site retaining. An additional access point would need to be developed off Chamonix Lane to access fire station parking and future development at the west side of the site. t ~ •; ~ _ _ I ~' _ ,~,,/ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _~ %%,, ~ f I ~I '" " ~/~''' f ~' ~r'''"',.,~ ~,~~,/ '-- - /! j e,!~ -- 9~~~ ._ ~ ~ I j~ f-`~"~`1-'"_ "`~""' ; ~ i ~ ^ "`~~ -..Jif' / ' "^~-~ / (r t ~~ ,~ -- _,_ _., ~ ~. ~ ~_ 1 ...-._._ ~~ 1 - / ~ ~ lam/ ~/f _ .~' ' ~%i ~ `~ j ~/ ,1,x.1 I r~'= ~~-'f ~ ~ \ IX LANE ~'~~.~_' ~ %~~ f .- ~ - ~~ -- 1 / ~., ... ~t / 1 . - - ,-.~- ~. ., t ' ~' _ _ ,.~ -,. _ /" /' 1 .r^ _ _ RKING SPA 5 y,, / ~. / ~- ~,. _ - ,` ,,, -` --~ - w T~b'1 - 7~ °i! rim !!//, / ~, ,r' `` _, --. ~ - ~ /; / ,^i~~ ~ ,. /'f.f . - 9 -,_ ._ ~-- - -. _ ,;~~~,,.~i~~li rr,,~ ,.,~ ....,~,, -- ,1 ~ ~,; ?rte/r --/ //~~ir,% ~~' , _ .,, - ~' '- ,.~ _ __ _-- _. - ~ ~ _ - _ , ` l ,, ~ , ~ ~, . , ,, %/ /~ ~_v ,, f ;' /~,r, ~rrl,! i -~' ~; -2930 `~ .. __. '~: _ - _ - - ~ ~'~~, ~ 1 l ,....---'"... -~,~~ ~~~- ,,, r/ _ ~ ~~ ~,.. ~.\ ~ ._. _ ii \~-' , CHANiONI' (ROA , ~. -;: --- ;, ...r, ~,.. ----- _ --- (t ~ \, ~ i _ /~ //~ i i7 111177((( l " _ _ ~~\ / S ~'t ~~ ~ ~i ~ / ~ ENDrS ~1 ~ ~ PHILIPS ~ ~~~}~._._FIRST ~ ~,,,,~J ~~ /~ ~ ~,.... 1 ~ ~ 66 I ~. _7 EL ~` ~1 ~~'i~/ 1 ~ ~ + ' I ~' BANK ~ ~ ~ f / , rl 1 SHELL ~ t~ -__ ,- j , i I - EVEN "^-... ~ ~~-.~. ~ / °_ J ~, ~ i ~~~ ~ ~,--/ 1 '".---'.., _./f ~` ~'' OFFICES `"~ - ,. f .` Iii' ~'I ~ 'f ~ !'j 1 ~' ~ '~''`~-- ~'~' ~ v NO (71 f . , J It ~ ~ ~ ~rJ~l(~ ~' ~ (' ~'~_'__-'- ~ / -~..',, / /~",,_--~.~ I i ~ \ ST '9S i ~`~ `~ ~ ;:-''"-/,r---.--. RONTA ~..,/ ~ ~'e..~'~ ~ t r FROM ~ ~,\, r~.., TH f / _.. -~ % NOR -- _` -~- `~ ~ f \ ( ~t ~ - l ~ T AC ROAD \ ; `~.;~ ; ~: , FIRE STATION -SITE PLAN OPTION 4 D A4 0 1 40 0 1 A i L,; r i ~~ issuE>REwsioN DATE No. ~ Z Q ~ wp a ~ W 0 0 ~ LL O B >~ X0 0 ~ X Z ~~ 0 U 0 H 0 ~_ ~ ~ Q U ~ 0 ~ o U r` FIRE STATION SITE PLAN OAiE 09/27/04 DPAWN DY Mp, DP CHN'D BY 9N, IAN SHEET FlLE A4.O.dwg fAPMIM A N A' NM VMIXfIB1Y P.L N6112CI9 91Rf NJYBER . ~~o~ D.P.A.PROJECT# 04934.00 A5.0 Site Plan Summary: This option represents locating the fire station at the south side of the site near existing the heavy service district. This option allows the fire trucks to drive through the station, but creates a need for an access easement over Shell and Wendy's property. An additional feeder road would also be developed off Chamonix Road to access additional fire station parking and future development. _ ~. _ .., ~, J.. y f ~ .~ ~ ~ ~) f ' ' ~/,,,f%,r' ._,v, ~ll(~" ~-~ i./''r%~r _~-". - ~ /// ~ `~... i}-_.. ~ ~I._ J ~ j ~ ~I",~.~---°~ `" -~ ` 1 ~.,,. ~` ^~-'~i%~ /Jr'_` ``"1 /J ~ r 1' ~'~ r ~, ~ / ,r f' r ~ ~_. - /// Jf ~ ,, ,1 / / ,, ~ r ~.- ` \ _ IX LAN E `" "'~..~ .J ~ ~ ,.~/'/~.r.- .--_ __ -_._ _ _ ~"~ ~ ~ i !j ~~ ~ ~ ~ 'i% 'ter .o ~ "t, ~~~ _..,. ~_ ~.~ ~ ~ ,,.~ .'. \ ~ ~~ ll.a - j .- ,_._ .~ _ _.._ ._-. ' -~ I . ~, __ -" _ r- \ f / _ _ _ _ .~ ., • ~/ _ •, - 'y.~ / `~ -~ __4 -' . . ~~,r , .. / - P -` ` ",, / /~/. ~''~// r,~'!' ~ ~ .% /~ .-^ "" ~.,,. ~ 14 PARKIN SPACES _ ~ ~ 9 / frJJ ,,/, //~ //% ~/ / ~ ~// /r ' f `-' ~ ` ,w _ ~I..~-I~' -~ -~' t-I~ ~~~_i~ -- -.._~ , ,_, _ _ ~l j~/f~ l~ r ` / f r / _ / r a1 f j w • / ' i ~~ `~~ II ' / fi% / % ~i'~~J i'~~~ f~/ //'fir l ~ ..~. _..~ \ - ^•.~. •~ -~ ~.- -` ..... .. ~ -r ( \ J".._., ,....,,.. '`~ ,,./` i / / , - ~ -J ~. ,. ~. ~- .. .,_ y.. _. _ . , -~",r \~' ! ,/f l/1 ~`~,/-.~ / ' // \ _ PARKING SPACES ~ ~ __ _ _ ___ f(r ~,`• ~ ,,,,/ ~ _ if._. ,,.. - / / / j ~ ~1~1',F~ // / /, :/ ,~/////~ t ~ ~~ -7930. "^. / ~ \ ~ r.i -_ ~. "~ f,. _ f: / / ~./' ~`~ _ - `/ ~~ J ~~\'".i~~~~ ~ ~~~-=\~- ~ `- -- ~~ ~• J:- ~' ~HAMONI ROAD 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ / / __ ~ .L_ r rii ------ _ ! i i 1 1 ,~ f / f ~~ ~s ~~ r ~; ~ -- sN.A~'~ST9~~-- - Q •~ - ~ ~ -""r' -~~ f ~ \_.. ~~~ } i r ; i a ~ I I - snowsrauc~.`~ / ~ CCC.. 2 / -- -- __ v_ ~j i ~ ~ ~7~/ j ~ • ~ ~ /~~ ~ 7 12 NEVYSI~ ~ /~ ~,,•-r,,..-•,~„~ 1 >< i f ~ ~ ~~ ~, TI ~ ~ ...- ~ /•~ ~ I ~~t~ll~1/~ ~/ lq~l ~' I l '~% A I ~'~ `-''~ ~ ~ ti`;a i .,/ ~` ~/ ~l, /, ~, / ~ I~yEN --" "~ ~ , ~ ~ ----" HILIPS ; ~ ~ i i .... RST BANK `,' I ~ / /~ ~ A` ~/ r. ! i ~ I I ,., I ~%~ `~~f~~~ ~~~~ oy / i ~ l~ ~ 66 DEL-EV ~'~`' ~..,, ~•..- ~~ ~ ~ i /I j' ~ °~ i~ SHEL ,~ __ ~ / ~~., I t OFFIC S~ `-., -. //~,, ,! / ---~ j I/~ ~ ~,r 'Q9 r tip /~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ;~, ~,~; ~l~ , / 1 I , Jl 1 1 f~l 1 7 1 ( it 1 I ~ ~(1~14~ r ~~1 f1 ~ fj ' (tj(r ~l "' _ ! /11 III =1j1 1311) I ~! it'd /// ~ /'f / -- -- ~~ ~ /~ \\ --- .. ~ 1~~~kll f I ~'~ (~ r (;~i~ ^~,~ , (~ i ,~,,,,,~/i`,.--~,. ,,,~ ~~~ A 1; `~ , v. ~,, IV~IS I ~; ~\`~ ~~ ~~ ~_-=~~ N'(pGE RO% ~1 ~~ ~ S~ %•1 NORTH FR \ ~. , ~~\"~ .-.. ._ , ~.~~,~~--- ~ NOR1N _ - --- -____ ; /~~ ~ _. ~ ~ \ .` ~ _ ~ AG ROAD ~~~`~' 1,.. ~ /~ FIRE STATION -SITE PLAN OPTION 5 0 I Pl I AS 0 , 40 0 ISSUEIREVISION GATE N0. Q W 0 ~ aW 0 J 0 ~ lL ~ >~ 0 0_ Q O J 0 ~ ~ }~ 0 F- 0 ~ Z= ~ F- ~_ Q ~~ ' U 0 ~ FIRE STATION SITE PLAN SATE o9/v/oa 9RAwN ar MR, aP CHK'D 6f $N, MN SHEET FlLE AS.O.dwg aviwow xw m u.~s vwrocanv rx, wcwrtrn wm x~ume ~o® D.P.A. PROJECT# 04934.W 9715 MA& STREET. UNRC197 EowAROS, coLORAOO els3z fi79.92fi.8%0 F.970.9ffi.fi951 A6,0 Site Plan Summary: This option represents locating the fire station at the east side of the site near the intersection of Chamonix Road and Chamonix Lane. This option allows the fire trucks to drive through the station and creates good fire truck vision to the Chamonix Lane intersection. An additional access point would need to be developed off Chamonix Road to access the fire station parking and///f/ut/ure development at~the west/side of the s'i~t~e-.-~ i ( ~ ~ \ ti~ rn r' ._ ,~ ,---'; ~ f ,J / ~ = ,, ~ IX LANE ; ~ '''` ,~, `~~_./ ~.,_ ,~ ~... --- - ;. ..- r _ ~./` f/~ ------''~-~ ..-----,,~ / r ~ ) `f/~1 ~` ~ \~ -.~/ 'r ~-' ~~` _ - _ ~'"j.: `=~ , - -" fir, _~ tj 1 ~ V _ `~ 1 1! t / i~~f 1 ~ it ~'/~ ~/.... -' ~ t _..- -_ _. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 11 ...._ ._..... -^.'."' i - ~ ~ r,~ ~. _ -. .. ^" ~- / J r ~ _ . / ,/' ,,~,~,•-..'!//~ ~ ~ ~/ r~'if// ~ // / ~,,, ~, r ....- .-... - +. ~ _....._ ~.. _v _ ~___ ~ __ '...~ ill - ~/' ~.r_ i /,r ~ ~ l l ~ - 1 ,,, ~ r-- ,~ / ,,, ,, ,._....._.-~; r 7950- ~. ~ _ _ _ '1 ~ 1/ % ;~ ~ ~/ ~~_.._ -'"~ % . ~:~/'~ ~%~ ~ ~ , • ~ ~///~~,.r . % /,~ ~ ~ _ - ~ _.. __ _ ~__ _ z ~PARmNO Aegis J ' - ~ ~ ~.'' - ~ ~ r ~ _ . ~,``i'r r"i fit`'. r°%%!i'r~'//~~/ ~~/i / / ~''' _ _. .~ ~ _ ~.~_._.- ...,.... __ ~ ~ f~ ~ "` -~ ~ ~ _ ...._ ~ r ~ ~ N~~:. ,il ,, / ,/fib ~,, ff %i ,' t~ - ... ~ / ;\ __ \ `` ~, -~ ~~ - ... .- ~~ ~. _7 _ .~ ,r ,~ ail ~~.~.J/i/ 1,r / \ _ ---- - - ------ ~ i' •k"! ~( ` ",/, ,; .. ~ .,,,. -. ~ ~ l •- ~ ~~ __ 1 -. - .~ ~ 11 ~ ~.-- ~ _~ ~ r~ ~~j~~/ ~,~ -_ ~ ~7 lM \ __~-._ - - ' ,- ~__-'• -' ~ `.._ ~, ~ _ -- _:~ :i%%'%y' 1 CHAMONI~ ROAD _ ~- ~. ~ ~ _ _._. __- ,, ; , I , ~~,~ A, ~, k ,~ ,~ fr z ~ ~_ ~ _ ~..---., 1 1` 1`~ ~I~~t ~L/ ~,,~/~ , wFND1"S ~ 7 ~_.-~ ~ PHILIPS ~~ l~~ ~._FI 1 '~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ , RST Bq{~K ~.. ,-F ~ f ~~~~ ~~~~~ ., ~ SHELL ~' 66 , t i ~ ~,. ~ 7 ELEV~N''~.~ '`^•.,,,,~ ~ , { ~ --- ~ , l/ ~ ~f ~ %1 ~~~~ ~ ~ __`' ~ ..- . ,, ~ ~r,/' r ~ f ~ l ~- _~__.- ~FFICE ~ _ ~ ~ ``~ C e ~ ~v ;' ('~~~j,(~f ~fli`rfi j`~~i7 7 i t ~-~'.f' I f ~`, /? i,.... .~~_.~1 ~_` `F ` \\ Cl~s~s~o '~ ~ r ' ~.. yo ~j='~~ E ROAD ~ --~ ` t NORT ~ `~\. ~ ===-.:,~ ~=,..~.- ` FRONT AG ,...,~' ~ ~ ~.-'' ~ ~ ~ N FRONT .\ , ,f-...--,''--- ~..----'` % NORTH ._ - - -~ , ~ ~ 1 AG R .,,~ ,~ FIRE STATION -SITE PLAN OPTION 6 ~ ~ w I~ I A6 0 , 40 0 ISSUEIREVISION DATE N0. Z ~ Q W 0 ~ ~W 0 ~ 0 O ~ ~ >~ 0 O X X0 0 ~ ~ ~~ U 0 ~ 0 ~ Z= ~ ~ ~ Q ~0 > U 0 ~ FIRE STATION SITE PLAN DATE 09/27/04 DRAWN BY MR, BP CHK'D 9Y SN, MH SHEET FlLE A6.O.dwg canmrt m w er nna wxnom~v v.c, uwrtrn ~o® D.P.A.PROJECTq 04934.DD 0715 MAIN STREET. UNR C701 EDwARDS, coLDRADDa76sz B70.978.B960 F.970,825.8967 ExlsnNc RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FPMILY RESIDENTIAL i RESIDENTIAL I FIRE STATION RESIDENTIAL SHELL -------------- DN~ Nuc cNalDNlx _~` ______________ pJ,RI IG LANE FEEDER ROAD ~ SITE SECTION A -OPTION 6 ~ '° p I^ ~ I CHAMONIX ROAD EXISTING RESIDENTIAL d SITE SECTION B -OPTION 6 ~ '° °° I^ . A6.1 1 _ 40 -0 A6.1 Master Plan Summary: ~ ~ T ~---__ This master plan option reflects the fire station site plan , option A6.0. If the fire station is located on the east side of the site it creates the potential for future development to occur on the west side of the site. This option represents the ~ I' ' possibility of a multiple family residential complex being '' ' located west of the fire station. Underground parking would - be used to retain the site and increase density. This option "' I~,r ~ allows a small area to be land banked by the town, but would A CHAMONIX LANE have limited access. Other uses besides residential could be ~~ _____ designed in the same manner to utilize the western portion of ~ /~, --'"~ ~~~ the site. /y _-- '~-------- ' ,--~~~ I PHILIPS FIRS7 BANK ~ 1 ELEyEN OFFICES 1 I ISSUEIREVISION DATE N0. z° Q w0 J W aw 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ a O X o0 0 3 Z ~~ U 0 ~ 0 ~ Z= ~~ ~ a _ ~o ~ ~ U cn O n MASTER PLAN I'~ ~~ ' I "'FS 1 ~ ~ TS~C r , ~ ~ qFF - ~- ~ / _ Q MASTER PLAN -FIRE STATION OPTION 6 ° >D b a A6 1 1 40 0 I• ~ I I HTE ~/~T/a X+AMM BY MR BP :NX'D BY SN, MN NFET FIIE AS.I.dry mnion au n oc wnion~ vc. wlma ~~ A6.1 LPA PRQIECT# 01934.00 A7.1 Master Plan Summary: This master plan option reflects the fire station site plan option A7.0. If the fire station is located at the south end of the site it creates potential development opportunities to the north, east, and west. This option represents the possibility of a multiple family residential complex being located north and west of the fire station. Underground parking would be used to retain the site and increase density. This option also allows the town to land bank the east side of the site, which would be easily accessed. Other uses besides residential could be designed in the same manner to utilize the remaining site. yij ;, _\ J I_,/ LANE 1 IssuEmEVI~oN DAre No. /i (ROAD ~ % Z~ Q wp a J W w 0 0 0 > 0 wQ ~ O ~ 3 X Z ~ ~LL 0 U ~ ~ 0 a Z= >> ~ > ~~ U 0 ~ ExlsnNc RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -------- FIRE STATION 19 RESIDENTIAL CHAMONIx SHELL /f~ LANE FEEDER ROAD n SITE SECTION A -OPTION 7.1 m '° I^ ~ A7.1 1' = 40~-0' /-\ Hp~ ~qS ~N ~qY Q MASTER PLAN -FIRE STATION OPTION 7 ° m p p~ l Azi ~ . ao -o I ^ . MASTER PLAN D1rE Dg/v/Ix auwN er uR. sP CHK'D BY SN, MH SHEFf fH£ A1.1.drg pMii! AW F GY6 PMtNyp F.C. W11LL 5 4EEi MfIR' A7,1 D.PA PROJECTR pgg3q.DD ons M4W srneET. uxrt trot EOV/ANDS, COLOM0081612 gT0.9e6.B9B0 F370.~b~81 A7.0 Site Plan Summary: This option represents locating the fire station at the south side of the site near the existing heavy service district. This option allows the fire trucks to drive through the station, but requires a lot of site excavation to create the building pad. An additional access point road would also be developed off Chamonix Road to access additional fire station parking and future development. _ ~ ~. , , _ _ --- _ .._ _ - ~ `/ ,,~~ °~ ,/'r/''" '~,' ~ ., t ~ '`, ~ I (I ! `f /~ ~/~~ J~ J r'~ 1,-~ ~ ~ --- ,r/'/r L ~`~\ /~ '° -.__..._ ~\ 4f f ('~~ ..._. / ~ .1 JJ ~ / , _v. ~ tom, ( ~ ~,~ 1 ! r / f \+ ~ /,/~ A ' ~,,~ i /~ ,~~ _, , ! .. l ~ / ~ ` ? ~ 7~ - \ - r.. /` ~ ~.~~ f % ` ,. ~/ / ~, ~ ~,. ._ . LJ //'~'~ f ~ ~ / _.,.. ~ -. _ _ t '~ ' ,/j ~~ '. ~ ~` ! ` -~ .~ ~ ~-~' ` I X LAN E ~ ~..,, ~ F ,. - ,' ,-,s ,-~~i -' i __ _ ._: Try - ~ 0 f ~- / E - __ - '",~'~ ,~ .- ..~_ ,n- ~~ l 1 ~~ ~~ ~• ~ _. - ry w 1 ~, ~ - '~-- r.__. -- _ may, - ~ `~ ~ ~ r~ _ '"~. -.... __ i ~~ \ r t ~ ~ ,, - s ~ ~ ,-,- -, ~-----~'"' ~ _ _ ~~ ~ ~r ~r ~ ,_. ; ~ \~/ ~ -fir/ r...~ __, _ '~ v.,~ _ dy._ -,.---- ~,~_ ._._._ _..,e"_ r _~t___~y ~_ , , _ "-' l . r /fir . ---~ ,.~ r' - .. N~ ~ ~ "/ //,r ".. ' ,... - - _.._ .,__ .__......_ ..._ ~ ... _._ - ._... -.. __ -- - r ~7 ~ 11 - - - - ~ n / . ~ r- ~ ___ .-- ~ ,.. ~- i ~ ~' ~ ,~ ,r . ~ ,, ~ f -... ,r _. ,. ., ,r t ~ ,,//i~ ~ ~ ,,. / ..- ~ .,....-. ~ ~ _._. _.--.. ~ ~- ~ -,._ / ~ ,.,. ,... ~% ~, / ~ :~, ~ % i fi' /ma'r' ' ,_.. ~.~ _.. _ _ ..._ -.,.,, _ ` - -~-- -.__.._- 'mil / ` ''~ ,~ J i i„ ~ ,~ r~ ~ ~''. ~.`,~ '',/' -~ NPARKII GSPACES ~ ~ i ~ f ' .. y / _... ._ _. ," X~ • r _ _ ,, _ _ :~ ~~,' 1 . r. / - -~ .m, ~ ... -,.,. ~ --~ ~' y ~~/ -yi i grid r ~,/~~ _ ~ _ ~ I i ~ f I ! ~.' -. ~ _ ~~ ~`~' ,~ -_ , ,~~ ~; r _m (~ ~ ;°°%''J/%r;C~~ ~ ''`''ri',,~, i ~. /~ saaRKINCSPACes- -- -,,~ --~ ------ ~~.-y ,,~ ~~~ , ,~ ,Y.- `' {r "~ ~ .J } i ~"~/ Jar` "r„ ...,_ - /i ~ - - -... 7940'"' - __ ~_ ,, ,.. ..,y _.. , r ~ ~ _. / : , ~~,~ ~~,"-" /, , - - ~ - - -- %/ - ~ : ~~ CHA~ONI ROD ~ ,, ~:, i it ~// • I ,~; : zip ~ ~ ;~'P~ ,, /, 1~,J' __ .. ---~ -_ ~ - ~,- ~~... _.. ~ ~ m ~~`"`~._. sll - _ ~ -- r ._. - ,f f _, ----- --- - `, ,- % 1~ 1 lj/ F' ~~~~' i j~, ~/ ~ v r , ,~s k , ,~ , r ~~ wEN ~,~ ~ / ~.I ~ ~ -- ~f,~/ ~ ~ - /,/ ,r~,,~/ ~, OY'S ..al ~ ~ r_.._.., PHILIPS ~ i .~_.FIRSTg r~ ~~ I K ,, , ~ ~ , i ~~ ~',~~~.,~ i ~/ .,~ / ~ w'"" 1 66 16 N '~., ``~~. ~ 1 _ ELEVE ~ ~ l SHELL ~ ~~ / , !~ ; /~ i/~,~~ ~, / ~ - l ) ~ ' OFFICES ~ 9G •,, ~ f~ _.._ .. _.,_,_J j , f ~ , ii r; /'~~ ~,~ f ~ ~'' , 1 ~ ~.. ,~ p/ ~1 .. ~-- - -_ ...~ ., ~ r r { ~~ _ CqF~ - ~ .. ` ~,.... .- -- ..~. 1 ` /' ~ ,, ~ ~ _r J 1 ,. ~_.~~.~ FRS ,, H ~-- f .~ r ,..._- ~R /~ ~ f f ~ ~ ._. _. N _._ -~ , _ ~ ~, ~ 1 r~ .~--" . ~ ..~ 0 20 40 BO TATION -SITE PLAN 7 , ®® ,. `~_ ~. r IJ ISSUEBEVISION DATE N0. Z~ Q W Q. ~ D_W 0 J ~ ~ >~ 0 p a o~ ~ O p F- ~ ~ ~= ~~ J Q ~ , U ~ ~ ~ FIRE STATION SITE PLAN GATE 09/27/04 DRAWN BY MR, BP CHK'D BY SN, MH SHEET FlLE A7.O.dwg mnwort xmi er a~a rwmosxr v.r, ucxm s !! ~~o® D.PA.PROJECTA 04934.00 INiENIORANDUIIIIi TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Susan Marks Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13 (see Attachment A). II. STANDING OF APPELLANT The appellant, Susan Marks, has standing to file an appeal as the property owner. III. REQUIRED ACTION The Vail Town Council shall uphold, overturn, or modify the Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-C5, Vail Town Code, the Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with the 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 (Zoning Regulations, Title 12) have or have not been met " The appellant's appeal application has been attached for reference (see Attachment D). IV. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2001, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, amending the provisions of Section 14-10-D, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code. These amendments were "to clarify the existing regulations regarding the use of building materials, to create review criteria for the proposed use of building materials, to codify existing unwritten Design Review Board policies into the Development Standards, to allow the Development Standards to be more responsive to the requirements of building. and fire codes, and to allow the Development Standards to be adaptive to changing building material technologies." Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, amended Section 14-10-D, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, as follows: (Text that is to be deleted is c{rim. Text that is to be added is bold italicized.) 1 Ri iilrlinn mo+oriolc droll h ,., I e S~i~l42rJ, ~n-Ctrta-rn~+ra?civc-~+.~cvrre-or~61~c I.r7,a66epTabl°~ 1A/horo c+~ ~/~nn icy i i~ili~or~' nr~c+c. era6re~te °~ ~~~6es shall be treated •ri+h +o.,+, .ro ~.,,~ ,.,,~.,~ ,{ , ,..,.a aveided--r OQI IQ :.,C~ 1-CG1000i1Ti CCY' ol~ imin~ ~m c4ool nnr nloctin ~ i r nnrmi+lorl Dl~nernnrl cirlinn droll nnF ha normi44orl rv 7. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used within the Town of Vail. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, wood shingles, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and EIFS maybe permitted. Concrete surfaces, when permitted,. shall be treated with texture and color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use of stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface features that appear to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of simulated stone or simulated brick shall not be permitted. The exterior use of aluminum, steel, plastic, or vinyl siding that appears to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of plywood siding shall. not be permitted. The exterior use of any building material, including those not specifically identified by this Section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this Code, where the Design Review Board finds: a. that the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance,. quality over time, architectural style, design, color, and texture; " and, b. that the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this Code; and, c. that the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the Town of Vail. As stated above, Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, regulates the types of building materials allowed within the Town of Vail. These guidelines encourage natural materials, such as wood, and discourage/prohibit synthetic building materials. The market for synthetic wood materials has dramatically increased in the past few years. Acknowledging the merits of these synthetic materials (i.e.. low maintenance, mold/decay resistance, fire resistance, etc.) the Design Review Board has established a consistent policy of approving these materials for use as the horizontal floor elements of outdoor decks. However, the Design Review Board has also acknowledge the aesthetic limitations of these materials and has established a consistent policy of not allowing synthetic wood materials to be used for outdoor deck rails, pickets, support columns, steps, fascia, soffit, corbels, trim, etc. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, numerous decks 2 throughout the Town of Vail have been approved in this manner by both the Design Review Board and the Town Staff, with this being the first time this interpretation of Title 14, Vail Town Code, has been appealed to the Town Council. On July 15, 2004, a Town of Vail Code Enforcement Officer observed illegal construction work occurring at 2685 Bald Mountain Road. The Officer contacted the property owners and informed them that the construction work must be halted and that Town of Vail design review and building permit approvals were required (see Attachment B). On July 21, 2004, the appellant submitted a design review application (see Attachment C} to replace an existing wood deck at 2685 Bald Mountain Road with Evergrain Decking brand synthetic wood materials (i.e. the illegal construction observed by the Town of Vail Code Enforcement Officer). The Town Staff informed the appellant that the application could be "staff approved" with the condition that all deck rails, fascia, trim, etc. be constructed with natural wood materials (i.e. consistent with Title 14, Vail Town Code, and the Design Review Boards policies). The appellant requested the application be reviewed as submitted (i.e. to replace all elements of the deck with the Evergrain Decking material), so the application was scheduled for review by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. On August 18, 2004, the Design Review Board reviewed the design review application and informed the appellant that the application could be approved with the condition that all deck rails, fascia, trim, etc. be constructed with natural wood materials. The appellant requested that the Design Review Board review the application as submitted. The Design Review Board denied the design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor exterior alteration (i.e. replacing the entire deck with Evergrain Decking materials) located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road. On September 3, 2004, the appellants, Susan and Don Marks, property owners, appealed the Design Review Board's denial (see Attachment D). Based upon the sequence of events associated with this appeal, the Town Staff questions if this appeal is based solely upon the appellant's disagreement with the Design Review Board's interpretation of Title 14, Vail Town Code; or if this request is being influenced by the fact that the appellant has already illegally reconstructed the deck at 2685 Bald Mountain Road with building materials not permitted by the Vail Town Code and the policies of the Design Review Board. Please note that had the appellant contacted the Town of Vail and followed the proper procedures for submitting design review and building permit applications prior to purchasing building materials and beginning construction, Staff would not be posing this question. V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOVVRI CODE Chapter 12-3, Administration and Enforcement (in part} Section 12-3-3: Appeals (in part) C. Appeal of Planning And Environmental Commission Decisions And Design Review Board Decisions: 3 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 may lie 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 Council 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 filing an appeal falls on a ,Saturday, Sunday, ora Town-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 ofappeal will require the Planning and Environmental Commission orthe 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) atleastfifteen (15) calendardays prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the Town Council on the appeal within forty (40) 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 c under this Chapter to ap,aeal any interpretation or determination made by the \ Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board. 4 4. Effect Of Filing An Appeal: The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay all permit activity and any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed unless the administrative official rendering such decision, determination or interpretation certifies in writing to the Town Council and the appellant that a stay poses 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. Sub-section 12-11-1 D (Design Review; Intent; Guidelines), Vail Town Code, describes the intent of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines for development within the Town of Vail. D. Guidelines: It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be as follows: 7. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors. 2. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the Town as defined by the guidelines herein provided. 3. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape. 4. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment ofbuilt-up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the Town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. 5. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sightbuffers, the preservation oflightand air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 5 Title 14 (Development Standards), Vail Town Code, provides Design Review Standards and Guidelines for the development in the Town of Vail. In reviewing any application for development, the Design Review Board is guided by the Design Review Standards and Guidelines. ' 14-10-D. Building Materials and Design 7. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used within the Town of Vail. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, wood shingles, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and EIFS maybe permitted. Concrete surfaces, when permitted, shall be treated with texture and color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use. of stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface features that appear to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of simulated stone or simulated brick shall not be permitted. I he exterior use of aluminum, steel, plastic, or vinyl siding that appears to imitate other materials shall not be permifted. The exterior use of plywood siding shall not be permifted. The exterior use of any building material, including those not specifically identified by this Section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this Code, where the Design Review Board finds: a. that the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural style, design, color, and texture; and, b. that the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this Code; and, c. that the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the Town of Vail. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council upholds the Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 2685 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, subject to the following finding: 1. The Vail Town Council finds that upon review of the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing, that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, have been implemented and enforced correctly by the Design Review Board. In rnaking this finding, the Council has relied upon the interpretation of the Town's adopted design guidelines by ,the appointed members of the Design Review Board. Should the Vail Town Council choose to overturn the Design Review Board's denial; the Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council makes the following findings: 6 1. The Vail Town Council finds that upon review of the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing, that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, have not been implemented and enforced correctly by the Design Review Board. In making this finding, the Council has relied upon the interpretation of the Town's adopted design guidelines by the appointed members of the Design Review Board. Additionally, should the Vail Town Council choose to overturn the Design Review Board's denial, the Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council directs Staff to amend Section 14-10-D, Building Materials and Design, Vail Towri Code, to allow the exterior use of simulated wood materials. !lII. ~4TTACHIViE~ITS A. Vicinity Map B. Town of Vail Code Enforcement Officer Letter C. Appellant's Design Review Application D. Appellant's Appeal Application E. Public Notice 7 , `. ~ark~ Resid~n~e I: ,. `. ,, . r r. ' 2685 bald 9lilountain Road t _ -',. ,. ,. Town. Council October 5, 2004 ` • :; . ~, __ .. __ T. .. -~ - ; ~' ~ ~'~ _' ~~; i ~. r _ ~ Syr ~ .~ f { l 9 (1 ~ ; ; r f c i - ,~ ~1 S ' t ti ~ li: rSf I . ~~ b~ ~~~ ~ ~ tc:, 3~ ~ ~ ~J Y jJ ~ ; ~ a. _ r ~ _ ~~~ r~ ~ ~3 E ~ . ~ f~ o ~1 , ~ ~ ~. J ~ - 4 -, !~. ~~~. 0.1 ~ . •.: r ~ t} ~` ~ ~.; i J '' ~ z' X,,. ~ . ,..~"~, (~~ r f .~f ~ f ;.,.~ ~` f . ~ ~ '~ .~ • ~ x _~ }: r ~ e -, 'i t ~ '~ ' f ~ - ~ - ~` ~~- ~ : ;Fri r,-, ~~ ti ~~ '~ J ~ ,. ~~ a ~ ~ i t ~ _ ~ t ~ • ~_ ~, ~ - . ~ ~ {i,~. - ~~ ~ ~ - ~` I ~ ~ ~ 0. ~ ' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ , f _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,, , r f ~ ~ t ~ ' , _ ~ L ~ 'k - r~ ! ' t~ S l ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ -- '' 11Y r ~f _ ~ i~-1 i~ f. / . _ L V ~i CS r r ~ ~ ~ ~ r'F . . _ l _ ' 50 0 50 Feet " ' This map was created by Ne Town of Vail GIS Department. Use of this map should be for general purpos The Town of Vail does nol warrant Ne eccurecy of the (nrormatlon cantaineO• rh - 100 1 ~ (parcel Iina work is approxi NORTH ~ -...: Bill vibson - Marks residence /deck issue - .4ttdChll'1ent: ~ From: David Rhoades To: Bill Gibson Date: 09/30/2004 8:33:49 AM Subject: Marks residence / deck.issue On Thursday July 15, 2004 I observed that this residence (2685 Bald Mtn Rd) redoing a large second floor deck and was replacing wood with trex (or similar). Much of the deck was already finished with the new product at this time. No approvals or even an application listed in Permits Plus. I called the owner and spoke with Mrs. Marks. I advised her to come in on Friday to pick up a DRB application. I also advised her that she would need a building permit. She stated that it was a "same for same" so she didn't need anything. I reminded her that wood for wood composite was not same for same. She agreed to come in and speak with Joe Suther to get the application. David Rhoades Town of Vail Code Enforcement Officer 970-477-3417 970-479-2452 Fax drhoades@vailgov.com David Rhoades Town of Vail . Code Enforcement Officer 970-477-3417 970-479-2452 Fax drhoades@vailgov.com ~r i ,~ ., ` i+ ~~- ~<, T ~~j~~ r ~] 1 rr flE:s~~~a Revi~vv ~®ard ~ Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road; Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: MARKS RESIDENCE DRB Number: DRB04.0342 Project Description: DECK REPLACEMENT Participants: OWNER MARKS,. DONALD J. & SUSAN V. 07/21/2004 Phone: 2685 BALD MOUNTAIN RD VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT MARKS, DONALD J. & SUSAN V. 07/21/2004 Phone: 2685 BALD MOUNTAIN RD VAIL CO 81657 License: Project Address: 2675 BALD MOUNTAIN RD VAIL Location: ;, v.ision;:;VAIL VILLAGE FILING 13 legal Description• Lot: 8 Block ~Ubdl, ParcellVumber; 210103401025. Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION .Motion By: ROGERS Second 8y: HANLON Vote: 5-0 . Action: DENIED Date of Approval: Conditions: Attachment: C Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $20.00 . _- ~~ ~ ~1 ~ 1 TOWN OF UAIL ='"' GeneralInfarmation: All projects requiring design review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to 't'ree submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested.. An application for Design Review cannot be accepted until .all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project .may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission. Design review approval lapses unless a building permit is issued and construction commences within one year of the approval. Des rption of the Request: +'~ ~.. ~rrnor E~~erior ~~~er~~~ons ~pplica~ion for ~esig~ Revier~ Department of Community Development R E 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com 2 Location of the Proposal: Lot:~Block: Subdivision: L14-~~ y i'11ciG-e_ .~~ ~ t nG~_,~. Physical Address: ~(o ~ ~~~~ ~~,:~ ~-cL~ ~.~ Parcel too.: ~ o ~, ~ 0/UZ 5 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: \l~:.e t ~~ d ~ ~r=+ I T- Name(s) of Owner(s): ~~~10..\ ~ c~ rt. ~~~„Z~-~, ~M~'~S Mailing Address: ~ i^r~ oU Y1 ~e-c~,~ Phone: Owner(s) Signature(s): SZ Name of Applicant: ~ ~ S~ ra-fZi~..S .+ Mailiny Address: S~vy`~-~ u-~c~~f r-- _ _ E-mail Address: Type of Review and Fee: ^ Signs ^ Conceptual Rzview ^ New Construction ^ Addltl0n ^ Minor Alteration (multi-family/commercial) ~~ Minor Alteration ''` (single-farniiy/duplex) ^ Changes to Approved Plans ^ Sepa,-ation Request x: $50 Plus $1.00 per square foot of total sign area. No FeP $650 For construction of a new building or demo/rebuild. $300 For an addition .where square footage is added, to any residential or commercial building (includes 250 additions & interior conversions). $250 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining walls, etc. $20 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining. walls, etc. $2U For revisions to plans already approved by Planning Staff or the Design Review Board. No Fee For Office.lJse Only Fee Pasd _Z C'J ''' Check No, ? (d~ - 5y ~~ S0. ~~t~,r ~ _ _ ~ Meeting Date:. ; l'~7- ~.LF DRB No.` _~ t ~ `1 Planner ~ Project No ~ ~--E~~-~.. t~ r ~ i ~`~ ,.. ~ ~ Page 1 of 12/04/28/04 _ PROPOSED MATERIALS Building Materials Type of Material Color r Roof Siding Other WaII Materials Fascia Soffits Windows Window Trim Doors Door Trim . Hand or Deck Rails ' Flues Flashing Chimneys Trash Enclosures Greenhouses Retaining Walls Exterior Lighting Other n ~~.•SUr~-~L~r.q ~~tS~~n~ ~U~~G~Pt~~ ~~.c.~L-~ V`~e..~~1op~ ~e3 w::o ~.- n e c.1u,- Notes: Please•specify the manufacturer's name, the color name and number and attach a color chip. TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement ***~**~********~,****** ****************:x********* **********:~***x~*~*~~*x~********~****~~*~***** 'Statement Number: 8040006251 Amount: $20.00 07/21./200402:27_ PM Payment Method: .Check Init: JS Notation: #7104/SUSAN MARKS Permit No: DRB040342 Type: DRB-Minor Alt,SFR/DUP Parcel No: 210103401025 Site Address: 2675 BALD MOUNTAIN RD VAIL Location: 2685 BALD MOUNTAIN ROAD Total Fees: $20.00 This Payment: $20.00 Total ALL Pmts: $20.00 _ Balance: $0.0.0 *******************************************************~******************************x~***** ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description. Current-Pmts DR 00100003112200 DESIGN REVIEW FEES 20.00 a;, 4G ~'~ f i. ~ ,~ Y1. __ ._ ~.._ ~.u. ..._.__,_. ~~~yyy ~~ ~~ TM ~ ` ~ t ; r ,`n 1 - • a ~ ,~ ~ v~ ~ i r~'""" S~ .: .~ s~fr;. ,~ ~. ~ ~ -s Y x rTM ~ . ~! ~ `="3~ r. ' L . ~ ~ 8 J 1~ ~, S. ~ ~ 1, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ r .. r 4 '4y ~ v~ 1 ~ g f ~ t° i rte. 3,_ a ~. I `f.~_ ~~ ~ .I ~J~ ~• I ~~a ,;.~~ . w: ,..V I I~E~K91~1~,,, BY EPOCH INSTALLATION Installation is easy. You use the same . tools and fasteners when installing EVERGRAIi\r as you . would when installing natural wood, so there's no extra work or time involved. ~~ ~J ° Deep wood. grain appearance ' ° Low maintenance ° Five natutal colors 2 ' ° Skiltitlg to complete professional finish ° Exceeds slip-resistant recotlunendations set forth itl the ADA accessibility guidelitles ° 1vlililnal moisture absorption ° Virtually none of the problems cotntnon to mailt<aining wood. decks ° Easy to install ° Matcllitlg railing system ° Contorts recycled. material ° Code approved ° Ten yeat• 1ullited warratty' ia; ° No need to paint or stain, saves time and money ° True, good looks of natural wood Warranted against rotting, splintering, splitting, and termite damage ° Use existing tools and fasteners to install ° Cedar, Redwood, Grey, Drifttivood, Cape Cod Grey = A color to satisfy each atld every, customer ° 10 year warranty grey twood Lpoch Composite Products, Inc. P.o. Box 567 Lamar, iK0 64759 Tech 5etvices: 1.800.405.0546 ~~~arranty Services: 1.500.441.7190 Sales Olfice: 1.800.405.0546 Fax: t.S00.6R2.J563 www.evergrain.com I-IANtDLING Special care should be taken when handling EVERGRAIN dec(dng prod}ICts. Because they are hea~'ier and more flexible than wood; do not attempt to lift or retry more than you cats handle safely at one tune. S~~ C ~ "MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED CEHfBiiU-Cp1i615PANS WITH A MINIh7UM OF THREE JOISTS EVERGRAIN SIZE RESIDENTIAL'DECKS 8 COMMERCIAL DECKS PLAYGROUND LIGHT DUTY.DECKS BOARDWALKS & MARINAS EQUIPMENT 1 " x 6" ~• ~ ~ 12" 16" or less 2" x 4" 20" 16" , 16" or less 2" x 6" 20" 16" 1G" or less 'NOTE: When diagonal installation Is used, subtract 4° In the maximum span. EVERGRAIN Decking are nonstructural products. These decking products should not be . used In a structural manner; Including Joists, load bearing columns, stringers, or beams. STAtvDAI2D DECK BOARD SI'/,ES Lumber sizes and dimensions Nominal Size Actual Size t" x G" x (12', 1G' & 20') 15/76" x 5-1/2" 2" x G"x (12', l6',or20') 1-7/16" x 5-]/Z" 2" x 4"x (12' or 16') 1-7/1G" x 3-1/?" 2" x 2" x (42" or 48") 1-1/2" x 1.1/2" 4" x 4" x (52") 3-1/2" x $1/Z" Skrrtyv:g (S') 1/2" x 11.3/4" All Tolerances +/- 1/16" ' To linty appreciate the vadery of wood grain panems In EVERGRAIN decking, view several full length boards. ' Reproduction of Ihesa colors Is as accurate as modem pdnting will permit. As wkh any wmposite product, minor color vadatlons wlil occur View several IulMlength boards prior to final color selection.' Colors of boards vrlli weather to a lighter shade wkhln the first 12 weeks of exposure to dte elements. DdtNaood will fade to a silver grey color. ' For a copy of the limited warranty, see your stocking Lumher Dealer er Decking Installation Contractor, visit www.evergrain.com or roll the numher listed heleei. Distributed By G~ioratd~ ~®r~~ ~ndats~ri~s, inc., ~ X303} 288-2600 .~ ceQa} s~.~3~0 ~aX ~) ?~6"74~ lilllllll 11!1111!!1 redwood RATi,II\TG - INSTALLATlUN Need to find an EverGrain® .Enter Zip Code,~~ Select Mlles: 10 `;Y ,~+~5~_~~t:3?~r~~L+'c~ +~E.@~5~~~' E~,ti~9~ s~~c4~aA~~~F±r 9c~; ~s~s€ 2. Uo nc~t J.lSE' E~~ef~~raJn~ )`Gr;~igt~. 3. Drill pilot holes before screwing. To achieve the best appearance, countersink before screwing. Scr~ must tie a. rnin.imum of 1" frc~rn encl of aourr,',s. ~. Use #ti or #10 2-11?" gal~~Gnized ar st:airl,~ss steel screwy>. 5. PlEase consult with IoCal building code for rraximurn allowable space between balusters. F'rast ~eiaii St~~:tior~ ~, Es4J14jy~er uetail5ectlon ~ 1. ~`!~'ood laast sl7oulcK be spacer! at ;a rrJaxirx:LlJ-n ~f ~i feet on Center. ~._.~ ..-.._.r,w~. -.-~. - d ,. i ~~ ~ ~ ' • M ~ ~~ t r ' ~ ~ 1 ` ` ~ L i' ^ '~ `y` ~ ~ r . K ~ a ~ ~' ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ..-.i 4' ~~ ~ ' '., - ss ~ '~ V ~ J ~~ r ? ~ 1~ ~ ~+''W ( jjj ~ F Q ~ 1 ~ ~` ~ l~ y .~4 .. .w.r.n~ ` ~ ~ . {: }~_ ~. - ~_ r~ ~,~ _, ~ ~ ~ _ , ; ; . ~ , i ~ r by ~ '1~ ti _, ~ - ` ' : .i r F F ~ E _ ~ ~ I e ' { , ' Y f _ t ~ t r ~ ~ l F t ~ .' ~ 1 „ ~r f s t 6 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v F ~ ~ ~ ~ C E` i ~ -~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~( ' . ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ .3, ,~ ~ ~. - ~ ~ ~ . . f Lt _ r` S r F ~ r,s. I 4 .., C t f ~ , C ' ~t~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ { i 1 ~' + ++ ~~• ~ -. k __ y1 ~ __ - ~ ~ 1 W ~, ~. F r. ~ , 1, ~_~.,_ .. _... ..,..._ ~._. .... . .. ._ _ ~ ~V .~_ so- ..,ar -«+.~ ~-.wn.w-.._._~ _ t _ a[c.r,". --- _r_ ~ r .'~--~-. .{...- - ~ _ - ~ t, a ~ 1 ~'. ', - 1, ( ~~ 17 ~' 1 f ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~ _ _ ,,.f4 _ 1 ~ ,y~q J~ f 1_ ,Yy v `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ^'~ ~ t ,~ f _ _ _ T""-?fig _T, ~-Y ~' ' ~ ` r t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; C ` ~ rfi vS4 ~ .; ~,` ,ti Y ~; a y„ ~ 'w~ a~° - - ~~ r ;~ - =° ~ ~ ~ _ f `1 Y ',~V ~ n ! _ F._ _ _ ~ ~~ y { d, a f v ~, r l . ~ ~ t r C~ t . ~ - r 3_~y L.. L ~ ~ S S . y ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ `t i9 Y~~ ~' S ~ ` Y ' ' F ~~ ' .~ + - ` r , _- ` ~ ~ ~ - 7 ~ _~ .e r ~ ~ ~ rx '' ~. ~ '~ .1^ '+ ~h C` Ti :i` ~ ~~ -~, _ - t F y_ c r 1' ~ f . ~,. ~ ~ 1 >~. ~' r,, _ :. _ J ~ ~ c ~j1 "~'S ~ e ? ..'.-,~~- a r ¢ ~ 1 1 1 i Y d _14 ~ '~'_ ~ f 1. _~' v ~.-i ~ ,1 ~ ~ ~ C ,~~~~ -a r ~ ~''yt r` r inv., c ~~~ j ,.<r i~, ~ Y~_ ~ ~ > tix ~* -v.,,`+f ~ •T r. S'r My i, t~ ... ~ ~ { a`t S a .` _{~'~ '~-.~' %~"; ~i ..~ `" k''c C~,. 7 fb ~ r j, s ~ ~~ r ,l i ~, f`' x - ~ . ~ ~ _,`p~ ~ • ~4a -~ r ~ ~ f ' _ ~r, ~ ~ ~~~ - 1 ~~; J ,x„{,_ ~ ~ .1/1~I ~- ~ ~Y r ,i t ,,~}~ irk+~. 4'. Z .t' t j, r' I ~_.~ J f t .k ,J KT ~ J j y~ \ Y ~ ~ >y I f~ , 3 ~ r 1 7 r r _ ,I } 1 ',b t 1 s ~. ~`- ~' - ' ~~ fr ~`~ `~ J t ~~ r ~ , * •'~ay,. { ) J f ,t I y ~ t ~ v-- fem., 4. - x _ 3 S_- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 'i } ` tt1~ _ ~ ~ 1 r ~~ Cdr t "'~q ~ ,~Z _ F v ~ ~ s ~ y ~ r~ ° I~ ~~ .~ '. ~ a ,. ~ ~ f T z ~ . ~''E 1 ' c . ~ C ~r ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ! } ~ r „ t _i ~~ E ~ ~~~ i '. ~ { ~~ ~; a ,~ 1 rr ... t~ i .. i { .; ~ ~. c ~ ~ , J~ ~ 4~ n F~T l t _i 1 .~~ ~~°r ~~ ~ - ..1 fl~ ' ~ ' ~~ ;#f err ~>~ tix ,Vr} '~ f t ~ _ r , - _ ~a. , ; ~,~ _ ~ „T, cr. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~'¢~ T z Lam.-~../ y .1 ~ .1 ~ "._ •~j (1 hL~ k 7~1 , ~ A ` f "h " ri" 3 k ~~ 7 ~ a f:4 -0 ~`v ,5 ~Yt y~ Y ~'` ~~ ` ~ ,~' ~ G~-. ,$~ a YLy Mt ~~'.~,~M - r't \ .c ~1 ~ ~~~ r *,e' F p~ a ~ ~' •T~ ~V ~~ (~ f '~ tY 77~~ ~ ~ ^ l ~ 7 '~~ ~~~ `~ - ~~ .. T ~ {~j,~. ~ea. ~7. ,jr 5 -.~y ~ ~; `r~,~ ~ ,~ _ ~':, ~...~ Attachment: D _- ~ Department of Community Development lUi711 ~F ~~ a 75 South Frontage Road., Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com General Information: This form is required for filing an appeal of a Staff, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmerital Commission action/decision. A complete form and associated requirements must be submitted to the Community Development Department within twenty (20) calendar days of the disputed action/decision. Action/Decision being appealed: _ U S ~ ~G C,orn'DoS tsr~. r~ n ~ ~-\ ~ „r\ ca J v Dateof Action/Decision: ~ vq US-f--~ g' , 20 ~ L/ / ~ Board or Staff person rendering action/decision: Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (y~s) If yes, are you an adjacent property owner? (yes) (no) Name of Appellant(s): ~VS~.r rr~c, ~nr' ~ocy ~o~c'1LS 9aliii,g Address: 2CD C1~ G..~ ~~`~o ~~~-~.\ (1 ~~.~ y a~ ~, (~,0 ~, (o S~'`7 Phone: ~~~ ~ ~7l0 / %g Z Physical Address in Vail: ~ ~ ~'~ ~cz /mil ~~ t~~ -~-~ i y~ ~Qq, d _ Legal Description of Appellant ) Property in Vail: Lot: 7 Block:? Subdivision: Ua~ ( Ur ~la~yG .>~~ lea ~ l.~ Appellant(s) Signatures . ~ - ~ ~, ~ _ 10~ ttach a list of signatures if more space is required). 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". 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. 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). Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.). . REGEBVED PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS T0: `'°°•~ ~ ~ ~~u`I TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. _ - For Office Use Only: Date Received:. Activity Nor: Planner: Pro~ei~t No.:; F:\Users\cdevlFORMS\P,PPLIC\P,ppeals.doc On August 18, 2004 the Design Revievr Board denied our application for a deck railing using a composite material called Ever grain. The reason we were given for denial was that guidelines set down by ordinance prohibited tl~e use of any material that imitates another material.- We were not informed of this ordinance before the meeting and were therefore unprepared to address the issues. The DRB also failed to do a site visit to view a sampie of t'ne raiiing that we proposed. Because the decking material was staff approved we didn't think there would be a problem doing a railing of the same material. It only made sense to us that the railing should match the decking. The ordinance given for denial was No. 25 Series 2001. Section 1 gives the purposes for the ordinance. One of those purposes was "to allow the Development Standards to be adaptive to changing building material•technologies." Composite materials for decking and railings certainly seem to be a "changing building material technology". Section 2, paragraph 1 gives guidelines for building materials. It is clear that the use of aluminum, steel, plastic or vinyl siding that appears to imitate other materials is prohibited but the use of these materials for trim, decking, or railings is not addressed. There is no specific prohibition against composite materials for such uses. We believe that if the composite decking material can be staff approved, then it must meet the other criteria of the ordinance and therefore tl~e railing should also meets the guidelines. Real redwood will remain the predominate exterior material with only the deck and railing being composite. The colors blend well and the composite will withstand the elements much better~hza-n real w-0od, which is why were replacing the wood decking in the first place. It is not our intention to put up a railing that would be incompatible with the rest of our home or one that would detract from its appearance. It is also not our goal to save money using this type of railing. It is actually much more expensive than other railings that could be staff approved. We feel that other materials would not blend with the overall appearance of the deck. Our goal is that the railing blends in with the deck and the general appearance of the house. Enclosed please find pictures of the sample railing. I think you'll find that it meets all the criteria and intent of the ordinance. Thanks for your time and consideration, 9/%~ Don and Susan Marks ORDINANCE NO. 25 SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL TOWN CODE, TITLE 14 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HANDBOOK, SECTION 10 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, D. BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of these amendments at its September 10, 2001, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Vail Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within the Town of Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments will make the Town's development review process less problematic and more "user friendly"; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council. finds that the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Town Code to clarify the existing regulations regarding the use of building materials, to create review criteria for the proposed use of building materials, to codify existing unwritten Design Review Board policies irito the Development Standards, to allow the Development Standards to be more responsive to the requirements of building and fire codes, and to allow the Development.Standards to be' ;:adaptive to changing building material technologies' Section 2. Title 14 Development Standards Handbook, Section 10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines, D. Building Materials and Design, is hereby amended as follows: (Text that is to be deleted is s#~iEkes~. Text that is to be added is italicized.) . i~4~es;- ,arad llaTive-.'7YeTle. l~riG~ i6 CTF.GT.~tC~b ie. Vifl'icTC°-~t~CGV iT.CTiTSTii~nr-I nrncc +ny+~ ~rnc ~nr~. c~.J~~ayo_fc~~~ti~T~p.pnnnrt.-,+a n+hnr mr++nri~+lc ch~+ll ho n„nirlorl (`~n~~z~ of irf~+nnc chr.ll hn +rn-~++nYrl ~eii+h~~_n~n+~ o on.-1 r•nlnr if ~ ~cnrl hn~em~~nr nvnn nr7 r+rrnrnna~~ ~ ~ ff~~e-a{3~,e'~tohln +h~n roger nnnrrn+n~ei+hnr oli imini ~m c+onl nnr r~lnc+i r• cir~inn nnr ,~~` 7. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used within the Town of Vail. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, wood shingles, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and EIFS maybe permitted. Concrete surfaces, when permitted, shall be treated with texture and color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use of stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface features that appear to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of simulated stone or simulated brick shall not be permitted. The exterior use of aluminum, steel, plastic, or vinyl s~dng~~that appears to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of plywood siding shall not be permitted. The exterior use of any building material, including those not specifically identified by this Section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this Code, where the Design Review Board finds: a. that the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural style, design, color, and texture; and, b.. that the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this Code; and, c. that the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the Town of Vail. hi iilrlinnc Thn i ico n~ ~.~r.rJ r•h.,l..,r• ~~nr~l mn+nl rnnfc is or•nnn+~hln hn~nro~mr in nn inc+~nr~n ~niill mn+~I rnnfc ~eihinh rn'~ei~+ rlirn r•+ ci inlin h+ n~~~~nn~_r__t~nT non~~r4~_~~hc ~~rm~{i~++nA {If m^n+i~~ ~.`y ~r+ll hn i ~rf-+ro~_o ii+h n In~ei nlnco fini hnr spa-ble~f-VV@athefiF}n +n o rl~ ill finicH~~~yt~~{-~~€c chs~n~~nnrnll~i hn~in'n c+~nrJinn corm Ff-}-OF~er +~n~r~oiirlo cmm~ mlio~~he rnnf ~ ~,~~^~-a,^d-be a he~v-~a~Qe. ^-rs~ft-a-nd- ~.-~~,-,-~-,z.,n, #j}Zprnlac c~c~.h~in~~o~ c~~~p~prmi++or! nrn~iirlo~ho+ +~~~irrh nn Inc +hr+n +hfe~ ~~,^^l~"`'{-~~d~r~ey, r-I /Qfl(1\ ~~~~~~y~regfi" 1~" nn cn~ ~'+rn fnn+ nnrl oro of n rlncinn nnr! r•nlnr to ho C_Q~nn+°i h~l°o°~~°iiT+h tho-rcq~~S~ir'ric`i-v~nccivr,. 6. The use of wood shake, concrete tile, slate, metal, asphalt shingle, fiberglass shingle, and built=up tar and gravel roofing. maybe permifted. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall not reflect direct sunlight onto an adjacent property and shall be surfaced with a low-gloss finish or be capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal roofing, when -~- permitted, shall be of a heavy gauge and designed to provide visual relief to the roof surface (including but not limited to a standing seam). Asphalt and fiberglass shingles, when permitted, shall weigh no less than three hundred (300) pounds per roofing square. The use of rolled roofing shall not be permitted. The use of any roofing material, including those not specifically identified by this Section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this Code, where the Design Review Board finds: a. that the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural style, design, color, and texture; and, b. -that the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this Code; and, c. that the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the Town of Vail. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day of October, 2001 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16th day of October, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 16`h day of October, 2001. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ~- Totivn of I~ai.l Development S'ta~~~aJ'~-s nw~u~~~~~ flues and chirrrneys may project not more than four feet (4') into a required setback area or into a required distance between buildings. 2. Porches, steps, decks or ten-aces or similar f ct not moretthantten. feetd (10')lnor ~~~ within five feet (5') of ground level may pro]e more than one-half (`/z) the rrrinimum req tired diomemoontha ° one-fourthd (/a) the . area, or may project not more than .i~ e fee ( ) minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. 3, Balconies, decks, terraces, anal other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a height of more than five. feet (o'ne b alf (/~) n hee nun mumrorequired more than five feet (5') Igor more than ension into a required setback area, or may pro]ect not more nhantoi a required dun nor more than one-fourth (i/.~) the minimum required dimensro distance between buildings. 1t balcony or deckiproucriicasei hall not be deemed a may extend over a lower" balcony or deck but roof for the lower balcony or deck. e esca es or exterior emergency exit staiiv,~ays may projgfeet 4' any required 4. Fir P setback area or distance between buildings not more than four 5 .Bay windows and similar, features extending th ntota ieque dloetback area or a structure may project not more than three feet (3) required distance between buildings, provided that the total of all such projection does not exceed ILiore than ore-tenth ('/to) the area of the wall surface from which it projects or extends. , Towers, spires, cupolas, chirrineys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not 6. useable as habitable floor area mays extend ahei ht limitinor lmore thant fifteen feet more than twenty five percent (2510) of the ~ ~, (15'). D. Building Materials and Design: 1. Building materials shall be predominantly natui~eiehstuccoroodutildized, glosds shakes, and native stone. Bizck is acceptable. textures and Surface featiires that appear t h texturte and color fused, howevbe avoided. Concrete surfaces shall be treated wit . ex osed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. I~Teither alumrnum, steel, P nor plastic siding, nor simulated stone or brick shall be permitted. Plywood siding shall not be permitted. The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures 2 . and any accessory stnrctures upon the site. 3, Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. 26 - Liv Suerre 2730 Bald Mountain Road Vail, CO 81657 Council Members Town of Va i l 75 So. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 wept L, 2UU4 Dear Council Members, I'm writing in support of the composite railing that is proposed for the Marks home. I see no way that it would detract from the neighborhood. It would be a great improvement over what existed before. It looks like it would retain its appearance for a long time. Sincerely, I ^_ ~~~~~ vV N Liv Sarre Scott Hoffman 2665 Bald Mountain Road ' Box 3389 Vail, CO 81658 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 So Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 September 1, 2004 To whom it may concern, My home is directly west of the Marks residence and'has a direct view of the. .proposed railing. I have examined the prototype railing for the residence and have no objection ~O itS appearance ciilu iiild ~liat i~ bleild5 Weii in7til the deck and the house in general. If you have questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours tr-~, r ~~ l./ S ott Ho c .) Attachment: E TOWNOFVAII, THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Council of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-3, Vail Town Code, on Tuesday, October 5, 2004, at 6:00 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In considerafion of: ITEM/TOPIC: An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a. design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to approved plans; located at 352 East Meadow .Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Stan Cope Planner: Elisabeth Eckel An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a design review application, pursuant to Chapter 12-'11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration, located at 2685 Bald IVlountain Road/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Susan Marks Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2114 voice or (970) 479-2356 TDD for information. List of adjacent property owners: Booth Creek Family LP c/o William Lane 2700 Calvert St. NW Vdashington, DC 20008 Garel, Miry Beth 9710 E. Progress Cir Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Pierce, Crawford Roger & Liv Suerre 2730 Bald Mountain Road A Vail, CO 8]657 2665 Bald Mountain Rd LLC c/o Scott Hor`~man Box 3389 Vail, CO 81658 Town of Vail c/o Finance Dept. 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 2705 Bald Mountain Road 2754 Bald Mountain Road 2730 Bald Mountain Road 2665 Bald Mountain Road Tract C c MEi\IiORAIVDUNi TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: An appeal of the August 18, 2004 Design Review Board denial of an application for changes to approved plans, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Appellant: Stan Cope Planner: Elisabeth Eckel 1. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is zoned Public Accommodation and is located at 352 East Meadow Drive, Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. II. STANDING OF APPELLANT The appellant, Stan Cope, has standing to file an appeal as the property owner of the Vail Mountain Lodge. III. REQUIRED ACTION The Town Council shall uphold, overturn, or modifythe Design Review Board's denial of a changes to approved plans application regarding the enclosure of the Terra Bistro restaurant at the Vail Mountain Lodge located at 352 East Meadow Drive, Tract B, Vail Village 1 St Filing. Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-C5, Vail Town Code, the Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with the 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 (Zoning Regulations, Title 12) have or have not been met. IV. BACKGROUND On August 18, 2004, the Design Review Board held a public hearing on a design review application for a request for changes to approved plans at the Vail Mountain Lodge, located at 352 East Meadow Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 1 Sc Filing. The design review application included a request for a change to previously approved plans for a restaurant expansion and the enclosure of an outdoor dining deck at the Terra Bistro restaurant in the Vail Mountain Lodge. The application was identical to a previous application submitted by the applicant and denied by the Design Review Board. Upon review of the application, the Board again voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the request finding: 1) that the proposed changes were incompatible with the existing architecture of the Vail Mountain Lodge, and; 2) that the proposed changes created conflicts with the design and constructability of the proposed enclosure and the existing building resulting in awkward architectural characteristics. Specifically, the Board found that given the highly visible and prominent location of the enclosure along Vail Valley Drive, the conflicts in construction and lack of consistent and compatible architecture could not be approved. The applicant stated that the following issues warranted the most recent application: • The change in the shape of the deck adds almost no additional, usable. square footage to the restaurant. • Additional digging would have to occur to build the structure as requested by the Design Review Board. • The roots of several nearby spruce trees will be threatened if the existing deck must be demolished and rebuilt as requested by the Design Review Board. • The approved shape of the deck would encroach too much from the southeast side of the building, affecting the amount of landscaping that could be added as a buffer to the new townhome entrance, currently under construction on that lower side of the building. • The financial implications in constructing the new design will be severe, particularly because the entire area was completely remodeled in 2001 /2002, and included the stone walls and framework that would need to be demolished to accommodate the Design Review Board's previous approval. V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OE THE TOWN CODE Section 12-3 Administration and Enforcement (in part) Section 12-3-3: Appeals (in part) C. Appeal Of Planning And Environmental Commission Decisions And Design Review Board Decisions: 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. 5. Findings: The Town Cauncil 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. Section 12-11 Design Review (in part) 12-11-1: INTENT: ', A. Attractive Attributes Recognized: Vail is a Town with a unique natural setting, internationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of manmade structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a 2 significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming permanent residents participating in community life. B. Area Character Protection: These factors constitute an important economic base for the Town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the Town as a precious physical possession. The Town Council finds that new development and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Otheraspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the Town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgment in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new development and redevelopment, the Town Council has created a Design .Review Board (DRB) and design criteria. C. Design Review: Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the Town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and property; for the promotion. of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this Section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing development shall be subject to design review as specified in this Chapter. D. Guidelines: !t is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be as follows: 1. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors. 2. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the Town as defined by the guidelines herein provided. 3. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape. 4. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the Town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. 5. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, 3 1~ and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1) VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council upholds the Design Review Board's denial of the appellant's Design Review application in accordance with Sub-section 12-3-3-C5, Vail Town Code, subject to the following findings: 1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) have been enforced correctly by the Design Review Board, pursuant to section 12-11-4-B.2.b, Vail Town Code. Staff's recommendation for upholding the Design Review Board's decision is based on the following: 1. .The proposed restaurant addition and enclosure are located in a highly visible and prominent location along Vail Valley Drive. That said, contrived roof forms, inconsistent architecture, and lack of an architecturally compatible design cannot be approved. 2. While the roots of several trees may be impacted by the construction of the addition, mitigating measures can be undertaken during the construction process that will lessen the longterm impacts of construction on the trees. To date, the applicant has successfully utilized such measures to preserve other trees on the site. In instances where mitigating measures were ignored by the contractors, the applicant has simply requested the removal of the trees. 3. Ample area remains on the site to successfully screen and buffer the expanded restaurant use from the residential .uses currently under construction. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Appellant's appeal form and fetter 8. Public notice and list of notified properties C. Photos of the site D. Reduced site plan/survey 4 RESOLUTION NO. 20 Series of 2004 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GORE CREEK PLACE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT") BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL (THE "TOWN") AND THE VAIL CORPORATION, D/B/A VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION ("VAIL ASSOCIATES"), WHICH AGREEMENT PERTAINS TO CERTAIN RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TOWN AND VAIL ASSOCIATES IN RELATION TO THE GORE CREEK PLACE DEVELOPMENT SITE OWNED BY VAIL ASSOCIATES AND AFFILIATES WHEREAS, the Town, acting through its applicable ,departments and agencies, including the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board, has previously approved design development plans proposed by Vail Associates for its intended development of the "Gore Creek Place" residential project (the "Project"), the site of which is located in the Town of Vail on the north side of and proximate to Gore Creek and bordered on the west by Forest Road (the "Gore Creek Site"); and WHEREAS, the Town, acting through its applicable departments and agencies (including the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development), and Vail Associates, on its own behalf and on behalf of its applicable affiliates as the owners of the Gore Creek Site, have negotiated terms and conditions for the Agreement to govern certain matters related to the development of the Project, and also the Lionshead "Core" redevelopment project, and the respective rights and responsibilities of the Town and Vail Associates in connection with those matters; and WHEREAS, the approval of the Agreement is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and its inhabitants; and WHEREAS, the Agreement complies with all applicable laws and regulations of the State of Colorado and the Town, and the Town has the authority to enter into the Agreement pursuant to such laws. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO as follows: Section 1. The Agreement is hereby approved, and the Town shall enter into the Agreement and perform, observe and discharge its obligations under the Agreement. The Town Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Agreement, on behalf of the Town, with such terms and provisions as the Town Manager, after consultation with the Town Attorney, considers to be necessary or appropriate in furtherance of this Resolution. Resolution No. 20, Series of 2004 Section 2. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 2004. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk, Town of Vail Rodney Slifer, Mayor, Town of Vail Resolution 20, Series of 2004 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT d/b/a VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 5:00 P.M. Tuesday, August 24, 2004 Town of Vail Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT Peter Cook, Nino Licciardi, Scott Proper, Michelle Hall STAFF PRESENT Dennis Stein, Jody Blackburn, Amy Ludke, Irv Gladstone, Mike Ortiz, Ken Smith TOV MEMBERS Kent Logan PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Mike Cacioppo (Speakout), John Donovan (Men's Hockey), Shawn Boris (SCV), Ben Kleimer (Men's Hockey), Betsy Keel (Women's Hockey), Brad Cohn (Men's Hockey), Members from the Committee for Valley Wide Ice (Laurie Mullen, Stephen Connelly, Dawn Ristow, Peter Kyle, Laurie Kleisinger) Members of the Men's Adult Hockey Teams, Women's Adult Hockey Teams, Skating Club of Vail .Members and Vail Junior Hockey .Members. CALL TO ORDER Nino Licciardi called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Peter moved to excuse Julie's absence. Scott seconded. Approved unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC INPUT OF ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA Nino moved to approve the minutes from the July 27, 2004 Board Meeting. Nino noted that there was a name that needed to be corrected. Correction was. made.. Nino moved_to approve. the corrected July 27, 2004 meeting minutes. Peter made a motion. Michelle seconded.. Approved unanimously. Nino began by reading a thank you note received from the newly married Wendy Armstrong for the Pottery Barn Gift Certificate the Board had given her. He also congratulated Peter Cook on winning the Senior Golf Open, hosted by the Vail Golf Course. The Committee for Valley Wide Ice. presented their case for a third time Tuesday on the need for a second sheet of ice in the Valley. Stephen Connolly, spokesperson for the committee, stated the reasons why the Dome should be put up on the Vail Golf Course Driving :EZange for the Winter Season of 2004/2005 (St" season of operatio~l). He stated that Laurie Mullen would present a spreadsheet of estimated ice usage and estimated ice revenue for the 2004/2005 Season at the Bubble and Dobson Arena. He stated that when reviewing her numbers he believes that user groups would be capable of filling both facilities and could very easily see the VRD coming away without a loss of revenue. Laurie's spreadsheet was presented to the Board. The Board stated that they needed to review the spreadsheet with her figures and ice usage and get back to the Committee with a possible decision by the next meeting Tuesday August 31, 2004. Cook stated that the Board needed to reevaluate Laurie's numbers before the Board could make any decision on the Bubble. Scott stated that the spreadsheet that Laurie created was easy to read and was impressed with the work that she had put into her analysis. Scott asked if we were not to put the bubble up would Dobson be able to accommodate all the teams Laurie had listed? Irv, Arena Manager stated it would be possible. He stated that he would like to compare Laurie's figures and usage with the VRD's figures and usage to see if they were indeed accurate. It was requested by Dennis that all user groups have a signed ice contract and deposit into Dobson immediately to guarantee their ice time and to see the demand for two sheets of ice. Irv stated that he had received a couple of signed contracts from user groups already. User groups also stated that they would put a deposit down, sign contracts and pay higher rates to guarantee that the bubble be put up. Cacioppo suggested that the VRD get a 50°lo deposit from all user groups before renting the ice,'due to the current financial situation that the Vail Rec District faces. Board members discussed a possible deposit percentage that would be charged to user groups upon renting the ice, working as a guarantee of payment. Board members could not conclude on an exact percentage and asked if staff would guide them on what the appropriate amount would be. Cook also asked staff to evaluate Laurie's schedule to see how it compared to Dobson's schedule. Irv agref;d on evaluating the schedules, getting contracts and 2 deposits, and coming to a recommendation based on the new data, contracts and deposits, and past ice use. Kent Logan agreed that it was in the best interest of the VRD to evaluate Laurie's figures to come up with an accurate conclusion. He too agreed that if Laurie's spreadsheet is realistic, that we give the user groups a chance to justify their numbers to us. Dennis reminded Board Members and the Public that it is in our best interest to confirm that these numbers are indeed accurate and legitimate before we come up with a decision on the Bubble. Dennis stated that we also needed to consider the amount of money that the Town of Vail is willing to pay to put the Bubble up as well. Both Michelle and Nino agreed that they are worried about the risks involved in putting. the bubble up. We, are not in the right financial situation. that would allow us to put the bubble up. We do not have the money to support the bubble or money to hire staff to run the bubble, we cannot afford the bubble. Peter and Scott stated that they would like to see if Laurie's figures are accurate before they make a decision on resurrecting the Bubble. Dennis stated to the Board that Dobson Staff would be able to get numbers together, at the latest by noon on Tuesday, August 31, 2004, Board concurred. NOVEMBER BALLOT ISSUES a. Resolution of Agreement Peter made a motion to propose that an Intergovernmental agreement be made with Eagle County as drafted by Attorney Collins to submit a ballot question for the November Election by September 3, 2004. Scott Seconded. Nino asked for discussion. Cook asked how much we needed to pay and if we were penalized if we took the Ballot Question off of the November Ballot, Jody stated that we would not be penalized if the ballot question was taken off by the deadline of Sept 8, 2004. Nino made a motion. Peter seconded. Approved unanimously. b. Discussion and Determination of ballot question(s) Dennis stated that September 8, 2004 is the deadline for filing the exact wording for the ballot question(s). Board options include a ballot initiative. to build a new clubhouse at a cost not to exceed $5.5 million as well as consideration of possibly going after a mill levy increase for general Vail Rec District operations. Dennis explained that he has not discussed the general Mill Levy increase with the Board but believes along with Attorney Jim Collins and Staff that it is the answer to long term financial strains and will allow us to improve operations, manage capital, address personnel, avoid cash flow problems, avoid lease arrangements on purchases, pay for ADA repairs and allow the enterprise funds to be revisited into enterprises (i.e. -golf, etc.). Cacioppo suggested that each ballot question must state exactly how the Recreation District would spend the money given from the tax increase for the New Golf Clubhouse Facility or Mill Levy increase.. He went onto state that it is the right of the taxpayer to know why his/her taxes are being increased. Dennis stated that he feels that it is in the best interest of the Recreation District to see the Mill Levy increase on the ballot; this ballot question gives the Vail Rec District the opportunity to spread the funds throughout the District rather than the Golf Course exclusively. Hall agreed that we the Board needed to look at the overall general picture; the Mill Levy gives other Departments the opportunity to develop and grow. We cannot rely on golf for revenue anymore. Cook also agreed in that he believed we need to get "the house in order first" before we even consider a new Golf Course Clubhouse. We have to get out of our debt situation first before we take on any new projects. Dennis stated that we needed to look at producing a capital reserve for repair on our buildings, ADA repairs and a vehicle replacement program. Hall agrees that we must include an explanation on the ballot question, in detail about what the tax increase will be going towards within the District. It is the voters right to know how their dollars will be spent. Dennis stated that the Board would need to make a decision regarding the ballot question by the next meeting Tuesday, August 31, 2004. Board Agreed. FUTURE MEETINGS SCHEDULE To be determined at next Board Meeting Tuesday, August 31, 2004. 4 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dennis commended Laurie Mullen on the figures done to reconsider the resurrection of the bubble. Because the figures got to the Boazd and staff late, staff will need to reevaluate Laurie's numbers and come back to the Board with a conclusion on the figures. We will discuss numbers at the next Boazd meeting Tuesday August 31, 2004 and hopefully come to a decision then. Dennis stated that Mike Ortiz would be in Europe over the next two weeks promoting our running races overseas and inquiring information on how they organize their races over in Europe. Dennis also hopes that the warm weather continues for golf and believes we still have warm days for revenue flow at the golf course. BOARD MEMBER INPUT Cook commented on the golf course staff and what an exceptional job they were doing this summer. He commended their hazd work and believes the new staff works very well at the golf course. He went onto state that this summer season has been one of the best at the golf course. Hall thanked Irv for putting a schedule together for them to understand how scheduling is done at Dobson. She also commented on what a fabulous job Youth Services has done promoting and running their programs this summer. She stated that she thought Youth Services has had another successful summer season. Proper stated that he agreed with Cacioppo in including a description of the ballot question. He believes that we need to let the voters know what they aze voting for and what the ballot question means to. the voter. ADJOURNMENT- Nino motioned to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. and Hall seconded. Approved unanimously. ~'' ;~ Peter W. Cook, Secretary Amy Ludke, Assi ant Manager a/04 BOD/8-24-04 minutes.doc 5 F': MINUTES REGULAR MEETING VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT d/b/a VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 5:00 P.M. Tuesday, August 31, 2004 Town of Vail Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT Julie Hansen, Peter Cook, Nino Licciardi, Scott Proper, Michelle Hall STAFF PRESENT, Dennis Stein, Jody Blackburn, Amy Ludke, Irv Gladstone, Ken Smith TOV MEMBERS Diana Donovan PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT TJ Conners, Scott Miller; Vail Daily, Committee for Valley Wide Ice (Laurie Mullen, Stephen Connelly, Peter Kyle, Laurie Kleisinger, Ginny Crowley, Jerry Sibbly) Members of the Men's Adult Hockey Teams, Women's Adult Hockey Teams, Skating Club of Vail Members and Vail Junior Hockey Members. CALL TO ORDER Julie called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES N/A PUBLIC INPUT OF ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA TJ Conners began by commending the Board on what a fabulous job the Board has done on Dobson's Debt relief and the golf course, including its staff. The golf course is in the best shape ever. Board appreciated the comment. VAIL ICE DOME AND DOBSON ARENA 2004/2005 The Committee for Valley Wide Ice presented their case for a fourth time Tuesday on the need for a second sheet of ice in the Valley. Stephen Connelly, spokesperson for the committee, stated the reasons why the Dome should be put up on the Vail Golf Course Driving Range for the Winter Season of 2004/2005 (Stn season of operation). During the last Board Meeting (August 24, 2004) it was requested from the Board that all user groups needed to hand iri signed contracts and deposits to reserve their ice time for the 2004/2005 winter season. If Irv, Dobson Arena Manger, received a sufficient number of contracts the Board stated that they would reconsider operating the Bubble. Stephen Connolly stated that he had received contracts from the Skating Club of Vail for ice rental at Dobson for the 2004/2005 winter season but had no deposits. He handed a copy of the ice rental contracts to Irv and to the Board. Scott asked Irv how many signed contracts came in for ice rental at Dobson Arena since the last meeting. Irv stated that he had about six signed contracts, but no deposits were included with the contracts. Scott, again asked Irv for his advice; if we were not to put the bubble up would Dobson Arena be able to accommodate all the Adult Hockey teams Laurie has listed? Irv said, "Yes". Scott Proper went onto inquire what happens when Dobson Arena hosts Special Events, where do these teams go for ice. Dennis stated that the teams will be able to utilize the ice rink in Eagle. Dennis stated that he has met with representatives from Eagle Ice Rink and they would make an effort to accommodate any teams that are displaced due to Special Events at Dobson Arena. All Board Members stressed that they and staff would exhaust every effort in making special events change over quicker to ice at Dobson Arena. Julie asked if Vail Junior Hockey registration has taken place yet. Laurie, Kleisinger stated that it has not. Julie then asked if they knew what the number would be for Vail Junior Hockey and how much ice would they really commit to renting. Laurie did not know. Julie asked at what times Special Events were typically booked at Dobson. Irv stated that they are scheduled typically during the week when Junior Hockey has no games scheduled and when Junior Hockey is away during holiday tournament play. Special Events are planned around Junior Hockey's slow times. 2 I Michelle stated that we have to make sure Dobson Arena continue with signed ice contracts and deposits for the year. We need people to commit to the ice so we do not loose. Each representative from the Committee for Valley Wide ice got up to speak one more time to defend the need for a second sheet of ice before the Board made their decision. Mullen concluded that the committee did put a tremendous effort into bubble usage and asked the Board again to really consider putting up the bubble this season. .Peter began by stating that he was impressed with all the work Laurie put together on bubble numbers. Although he stated that he did not see contracts, an adequate amount of contracts that would make the bubble go up, the effort was lacking in that area., He also stated that the Rec District. would be accommodating. such small increments of recreation for such big dollars; dollars the District no longer could. afford. The golf course does not support us like it did in the past; we no longer have the funds for projects such as these. Michelle hung onto her vote for not putting the bubble up for the 2004/2005 Season. She explained that the Rec District does not have the funds, and has many projects coming up in the future that we already have planned. Hall stressed for a second time the importance of ice time contracts and deposits at Dobson when renting ice that policy must be set in stone. Julie made a motion to reiterate the previous position of the Vail Recreation District taking the responsibility to bare half the cost of storing the bubble for the 2004/2005 season with the Town of Vail at a maximum cost of $5000.00/each. Hall Seconded. Discussion, motion carried. NOVEMBER BALLOT ISSUES Dennis educated the Board on the new revised Ballot questions that Jim Collins, VRD Attorney had put together. These questions had been revised because it had been requested by the Board to make the General Mili Levy Increase list where the money would be used in.the Vail Recreation District. The Board stated that they wanted the voters to know exactly where their tax increase would go. The Board had the option to choose from three questions that Attorney Jim Collins put together. Two Questions illustrated a General Mill Levy increase and the third question explained the 3 increase in taxes for a new golf course clubhouse/Nordic Center Facility. BALLOT ISSUE SA-1: The effect of a 1.213 mill levy increase per $100,000 of Residential value would affect the taxpayer by $9.66 per year. BALLOT ISSUE SA-2: The effect of a 1.713 mill levy increase per $100,000 of Residential value would affect the taxpayer by $13.77 per year. The basis of this calculation starts with the residential assessed value percentage of 7.96%. Thus, for each $100,000 of residential value, the assessed value is $7,960. This amount is multiplied by either 1.213 mills or 1.713 mills, which is equivalent to either 1.213 thousandths or 1.713 thousandths. Each ballot question would include the following general operating purposes: o DEVELOP AND FUND A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. o DEVELOP A POSITIVE CASH FLOW TO AVOID ANNUALLY ISSUING TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES AND LEASE PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS. o FUND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITMENTS FOR GOLF COURSE, RED SANDSTONE GYMNASTICS CENTER, WATER CONSERVATION AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS o REDUCE DISTRICT'S DEPENDENCE ON WEATHER SENSITIVE REVENUE OPERATIONS, SUCH AS GOLF AND TENNIS, INSTEAD OF CUTTING PROGRAMMING. o FUND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERALLY MANDATED AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUIREMENTS o ALLOW ENTERPRISE FUND OPERATIONS TO RETAIN ITS REVENUES FOR REINVESTMENT IN THE ENTERPRISE OPERATION, AND OTHER OPERATIONS 4 TO BE UPGRADED TO PRESERVE THE INVESTMENT TO DATE. BALLOT' ISSUE SB: Funds for' BALLOT ISSUE SB would be a general tax increase FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO DISTRICT FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING, IMPROVING, OR EQUIPPING; • ANEW GOLF/NORDIC CLUBHOUSE, TWO BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS, • NORDIC SNOW GROOMING EQUIPMENT, AND • ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND ALL OTHER NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL, APPURTENANT, AND CONVENIENT FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS. The Boai•d concluded that they wanted BALLOT IS5UE SA-2 and BALLOT' ISSUE SB to be included on the 2004 November Election Ballot. The Board feels comfortable asking for these tax increases, they feel that these extra tax dollars will better the Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities for the Vail Valley Community. • Cook made a motion to include both Ballot Issues SA-2 and SB to be worded as separate questions on the ballot for the 2004 November Election. Nino Seconded. Approved Unanimously. FUTURE MEETINGS SCHEDULE Meetings discussed: Town of Vail Council Meeting (Capital Improvements Discussed) Thursday, September 2, 2004 at 2:00 PM. Dennis Stein and Scott Proper will attend the TOV Council Meeting. The next. VRD Board Meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday September 21, 2004 at 4:15 PM at Dobson Arena. The Vail 5 r ,. Recreation District Audit will be reviewed by Dan Cudahy. The originally scheduled meeting on September 14, 2004 will be postponed to the date of September 21, 2004. VRD Board Meeting dates for October: October 12, 2004 5:00 PM Town of Vail Council Chambers October 26, 2004 5:00 PM Town of Vail Council Chambers (Presenting Budget) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR None BOARD MEMBER INPUT None ADJOURNMENT Julie motioned to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. and Peter seconded. Approved Unanimously. Peter W. Cook, Secretary .~ .~~ Amy Ludke, Assi ant Manager a/04 BOD/8-31-04 minutes.doc > `'~ 6 LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING LINE LENGTH BEARING L7 11.47' 507'27'12"E - l30 41.15' 515'47'04"E L2 5.63 SOi' 7'12'E L31 10.00' 574'12'56"W L3 173.76' N8626'30"E L32 41.15' S15'47'04'E L4 32.14' S63'S6'30"W L33 75.11' S74'12'S6"W L5 66.04' 541'26'30"W l34 53.36' S12'30'S0'E L6 54.89' 575'11'30"W l35 12.37' 577'29'10"W L7 79.01' N81'18'30"W L36 52.65' 512'30'50"E l8 45.97' 585'58'53"W L37 37.13' 574'12'56"W L9 91.46' N04'01'07"W L38 59.32' S77Z9'10"W LIO 10.00' S85'S8'S3'W L39 15.03' S75'S1'44'E L11 86.96' N04'01'07'W L40 30.05' S77'29'10"W L12 63.29' N73'36'34"E L41 41.43' 575'51'44"E L13 65.40' N76'04'34"E L42 1.43' 531'40'14"E L14 33.00' N23'13'10"W L43 3.15' N75'46'41'W L15 20.19' N10'34'02"W L44 30.00' 583'59'19"W Lib 10.00' N79'25'S8'E L45 23.04' 502'26'31"E L17 19.08' N10'34'02"W L46 3.12' S83'S9'20'W L18 33.53' N23'13'10"W L47 39.92' SO6V0'40"E l19 2160' N76'04'34" L4B 24,87' N81'78'30"E L20 103.34' S66'S4'19'W L49 49.77' N7511'30"E L21 38.76' 523'05'41"E L50 76.37' N41'26'30"E L22 10.65' 566'54'19"W L51 84.59' N83'S9'20'E L23 40.68' S23'OS'41"E l52 116.79' N87'31'43"E L24 10.17' 566'54'19"W L25 77.41' S74'12'S6'W L26 37.68' S15'4T04"E ~ . L27 10.00' 574'12'56"W ~ ~ \ l28 37.68' 515'47'04"E ~ . - '~ L29 97.65' S74'i 2'56"W _ CSEST UgVSHEAD gRCLE 0 ~~ A ~~~ '_-_--~,~ L4 .1 `~ ~ ~ L42 2y10"E'~ N77 ~~' 9. 2 i ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ I / / / / / ~ ~/ /~ -----~ 1 / // ~-`----~ 1 1 /~ /// /// \ I ~~I //// ice/ ~1 \ \ / ~~ ^~\~ / SCALE: 1 " =200' (50' R.O.W.) ~~i ~ / \ ~~- -~ // 99 1------ // PARCEL 3 \ / ~ \ ~ LIONSHEAD \ / ~~ i. \ ~ \ EN THOUSES \ // 1 ( 1 1 ~3~ \ LOT C \\ \ /ANTLERS CONDOMINIUMS \ \--/ I I \ (MORCUS SUBDIVSION) ) / / (BOOK 226, PAGE 820) \ / ~ I ~~Q~ LOT A \ / ANTLERS CONDOMINIUM - / I (MORCUS SUBDIVISION)\ i~ ASSOCIATION T / I ~~j ~ THE VAIL CORPORATION\ I I I \ ~.\~~/ I N87'31'43"E - 117.28' I I ` \ ~ ENCROACHMENT I I TRACT q I _ _ _ LEASE AGREEMEN -~ ---,~ ---- - \\ (RECEPTION No. 872454) I I L52 L1 ---~__-- - A \ \ ~ 239.94 583'59'19"W - ~ ---------L ---- / I LOT B E \\ (MORg15 91801NSIOPI) \\ N7fi3 ''~, / N 135.94 l3 ~\ (Vq,< ~qCT I I / ~ (MORCUS SUBDIVISION) THE VAIL CORPORATION \ \ \ L46 L51 ~\ F\~/0 H I > 4 \ R3T F7V HFg0 L--// I I N4~i'S2'35"E - 63 84' \ \ \2 ' ~ L ) // C S01'2T12"E - 118.50' (~ ~q / ~ . I \ J ~ \9 L13 \ 14 ~~i L48 RS /~SFge ~~ AO I S04'OS'S3'E - 101.50' ~ L43 L18 1g 564'42'55"E - 142.00' NC) r l17 L ~ L16 L70 4 0 5 E 57B'11'S5'E'- 80.00' NT;p000 J 2,E l f 7.2 ~ 1~ 26 L23 1"12 1RAGT TB111RD FlLING) N81'S8'31"E - 151.03' ~ 50 / ~~~ o T 89• `3'1 N \ ` Vpll/LIONSHEAD, ( 41 E r l3 ' ~ ~ S@)3 6954 N I 4 L39 ~ L35 '1 I 3 E' I \ L40 I \\ i I / ?@s@O. N70'47'48"W - 69.28' I I I I I / o I I vgiL wLLADE, s1x7N FlLwo I / o ° I I ~ N I I \ 1 I ~ / I I ~ / N8835'37'E - 208.90' j 1 / FOREST PLACE SUBDMSIO?1 J-----1-- i \ - -- _~_` 557'34'23"E - 50.47' -- -- --L------L----- 1/ ~~~ / --- --- Fa~sr RogD _--------,'~ _ -- EXHIBIT A (~}, (~ .~ Eagle County Regional Airport _ ~_ ,_ _ .~, . .~ _ - _ t N ~~ ~ ~ ~ F a~yly. b~~,'lxalYit /• ~ ~~ `_ ~.. _,~P - uG ~~ ~71~f'- } ~~. [A~Lr". COUNTY hIRPORI Air Service Overview Flight Schedule o Winter 13 major h u b-cities 6 major airlines Additional flights from charlotte & Philadelphia S l,! I''1''1:1'1'1 e r Daily 757, non-stop from DFW & Denver Three daily DH2, non-stop from Denver -~. EiJ.aLC:000N7YhiRPOlI1 Air Service _^~ Ov~c~~~v~ ~on~o o Surnrner m 59006~/o Tncreas~ 0 6/03 m x/03 X4,513 0 6/04 ~ 8/04 23,05 N f~V.ilf COUNtt AIQPOR7 Finances '03-'04 Winter Air Service 3 YearAgreements Delta, Northwest, Continental, N6esa (United Express Carrier) County Incentive $300,000 1 Year :Agreement with US Air American Airlines Agreement (expires '06) Concessionaire Revenue Share $393,000 __ _ __ [i1GL%COUNiYrJ~PORi c Finances ~'A4 Summer ~~~ ~~rvi~~ ® ~'Ba~~t ~~a~an$ee~ ~Jnited $261,000 (757 service Only) American $200,000 ~n~~anements American - ®ecrease 5023% 0 6/0..3 - 8/03 10,550 n 6/0;4 - 8/04 9,998 lJnited (®~02) - increase 39082% 6/03 - 8/03 3,963 a 6/04 - 8/04 5,541 lJnited (757) n 6/04 - 8/04 7, 546 n ®verall - gncrease 59006% 0 6/03 - 8/03 14,513 0 6/04 - 8/04 23,085 ~~_ __ fhGLt COUNtYhIRPORT Finances ECAT (Eagle County Air Terminal) Bond Payments Past 4 Years an additional $1.32M Remaining Debt $22.15M ('96 & '01 issues) Rental Car 3 Year Agreements -additional. $500,000 ~. ~ EA!?l COUNiYAIRPORT r_ _., 4 Finances Other ~~6~ ~5~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ St~tIStICS. 14037®/® ~~~~e~se 16052®/® ~~c~ease ~_ ,f, Ei~GLE COUNTY hIRPORt Tower $23M ___ Radar $6M o Instrument Landing System $1JM o Runway Extension $24M o Taxiway Improvements $SM o Lighting $88,000 New Fire Truck $860,000 New Snowplow $367,000 ^~ F~~ility Enhancernent~ ~o~t~ Winter','03-'04 Season (Colorado Powder...ASAP) $1o,Qoo Direct Mail, Print Ads Summer '04 Season (Fly Vail Summer) $54,000 Direct Mail, Print Ads, Radio Spots, Bus boards, Rack Cards Additional $25,000 for general marketing, not specific to one program ~~ ~~;.N~ ~~stomer Service ~'', . fi~LE COUNtt /UoPOfii --~ Community Partnerships ~= c h a rr~ b,e r Fly Veil Summer Small Air Service Grant Va i I Resorts Small Air Service Grant business Community Fly Vail Summer Aspen Chamber Summit County Chamber .,~ .. . ___ Fi1GL',: COUNiYhIRPC?Ri ~~~ st~~ ~, Ei~Cils. COUNTY hIRPORT r Key Staff cont. Additional Finances: Leibowitz ~ Horton Legal: ]ack Gardner, Hogan ~ Hanson, Fd Dolan .Marketing: Hill & Company, Chamber(s), Vail Resorts, TIGA .Construction: Bill Payne and Associates, Caner Burgess, FAA Master Plan: Bernard and Dunkelberg, Fred Isaac Other: Linda Daschle, ]et Center, BOCC ~ fAGlf COUNiYNRPORI r. IC~y Statistics o ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ o $~7~~75 o ~ob~ fog Community Approximately 747 positions directly .Thousands Yndirectly Economic Irelpact o $76e9M Multiple Entities/Staff _ ., _.. _ Eh(iL[ COUNTY AIRPORT EGE Summer Airline Update September 23, 2004 Listed below are the five airlines contacted regarding air service for Summer 2005 • American -Waiting on a request for Summer 2005 service and then will look the results from Summer 2004. AA only has 757 aircraft (187 seats) which can serve EGE from DFW and maybe ORD. • Continental -Interested in service from Houston with a 737 (124 seats) or a Regional Jet (50 seats) • Northwest -Investigating aircraft of a Regional Jet (69 seats) with service to Minneapolis and/or Memphis • United -Interested DEN service and maybe open to other service options like ORD. UA would use 757 or 737 aircraft. • Midwest Express -Investigating aircraft performance of a Fairchild 328JET (32 seats) with serve to Kansas City or Milwaukee. I have no discussion of contracts, service dates or financial caps. The priorities (in no particular order) are to have more service from TX with feed from the SB o ORD ;on-stop and feed from the NE. C 0 1 /, f. September 28, 2004 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: August Sales Tax On the reverse side, please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $44,000.00 in August sales tax to bring August collections to $982,603.00. If so, we will be down 4.55% or $46,843.00 from August 2003 and down 5.50% or $57,210.00 from budget. Attached please find two worksheets that report on the conference center tax collection. onth 993 894 ' 995 996 ' 997 998 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 9128/04 1999 2000 2001 002 003 udget 004 Collectlons udget Variance % Change tram 2003 Change tram Budget _.. _. - January 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 1,997,091 2,017,203 2,225,017 207,814 11.41% 10.30% February 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 2,111,163 2,132,423 2,362,000 229,577 .11.88% 10.77% March 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 2,372,942 2,396,839 2,343,267 (53,572) -1.25% -2.24% April 864,303 794,668 791,092 966,993 ~~ 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 871,468 880,244 992,393 112,149 13.88% 12.74% May 257,248 287,315 324,681 318,920 .329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 433,238 410,126 (23,112), -4.38% -5.33% June 475,161 548,820 590,685 594,907 '630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 750,235 731,808 (18,427) -1.47% -2.46% July 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 1,075,532 1,086,363 1,113,294 26,931 3.51% 2.48% August 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 '1,029,446 1,039,813 938,603 (101,210) -8.82% -9.73% ' ,., , - , Total 8,906,424 9,[80,057 9,317,068 10,005,223 10,674,877 11,051,817 10,700,552 11,114,424 11,670,985 11,127,092 10,629,316 10,736,358 11,116.508 380,150 4.58~~, 3-54% September 560,535 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 686,048 October, 400,525 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 513,209 November 553,681 594,491 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 597,223 December 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 2,171,098 2,192,962 _- ~4 , Total 12,395,718 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,747,419 15,030,386 14,509,42115,232,588 15,411,044 15,106,801 14,578,983 14,725,800 r ®nth Tolfl/n of Vail ~®nfereo~ce tenter ~.®dging Tax Q1.5%)VV 9/28/04 2004 Budget 2003 Budget Collections !lariance orkshee~ Change from 2003 Change 6om Budget January 258,035 263,236 304,069 40,833 17.84% 15.51 i=ebruary 314,645 320,987 354,088 33,101 12.54% 10.31% IWarCh 342,984 349,897 332,935 (16,962) -2.93% -4.85% April 64,246 .65,541 87,119. 21,578 35.60% 32.92% Allay 15,964 16,286 17,999 1,713 12.75% 10.52% June 54,153 55,244 56,634 - 1,390 4.58% 2.52% July 84,422 ~ 86,124 94,380 8,256 11.80% 9.59% August 81,820 83,469 78,938 (4,531) -3.52% -5.43% Total 1,216,269 1,240,784 1,326,162 85,378 9.04%. 6.88% September 42,569 43,427 October 25,131 25,638 ldodember 29,089 29,675 ®ecember 260,232 265,476 - f Total 1,573,290 1,605,000 onth Town of Vail Conference Center Retail Tax (. 9/28/04 2004 2003 Budget Collections 5%) Worksheet Change Budget from Variance 2003 Change from ' Budget i January 233,274 . 227,706 266,964 39,258 14.44% 17.24% February 250,236 244,?.63 283,431 39,168 13.27% 16.04% March 283,013 276,?_58 284,498 8,240 0.52% 2.98% April 99,694 97,315 115,671 18,356 16.03% 18.86% May 46,376 45,269 45,984 715 -0.85% 1.58% June 83,981 81,977 83,875 1,898 -0.13% 2.32% July 122,562 119,637 128,315 8,678 4.69% 7.25% August 119,843 116,983 110,150 (6,833) -8.09% -5.84% Total 1,238,979 1,209,408 1,318,888 109,480 6.45% 9.05% ,, September 78,107 76,243 October 57,330 55,962 November 67,602 65,987 December 253,449 247,400 Total 1,695,467 1,655,000 ~ ~ ~~ll~ Q.1~~~1~~~° ~ :~~: ,~ ~bll~llIIIl~~~ ~~~®tCllall~ll®Illl Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 September 30, 2004 Dear Council members: 24~ ~. lF'r®aetage ~oaat E., ~eaite B ~Yaii!, Cell®ract® ~g~57 stn®~ne: 97®.477.®075 ~'~~: 97®.477.®079 ]E-r~nai9: e~n$'®@v~ilCVna~unb~u'.®a~~ Web Site: www.v~illclln~~nbe~.®a~~ We'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the time we were given on Tuesday to make our presentation on the management of the Vail Visitors Centers. While we are aware of your concerns regarding awarding this contract to us based on our lack of experience, we feel, however, that we perform these functions on a daily basis already. And given our track record with undertaking a wide range of projects with little or no money and in the early days, no staff, we feel more than confident that we can manage the Visitors Centers with ease. Additionally, we were able to lower our bid to $170,000 with the elimination of an 800 number, the removal of costs for parking passes and a decrease in postage as a result of a subsidy the VLMD provides for mailing summer brochures. As we said during the interview process, the operation of these Centers is not rocket science. Clearly in our mind, the most serious mistake that can be made is sending business out of town. This is something you can be assured will not happen if the VCBA is given the management contract. Something that we failed to raise in Tuesday's meeting refers to that topic. Enclosed please find two documents distributed by the VVCTB that have muddied the waters on what is appropriate for inclusion in the Vail Visitors Centers. One of these documents was part of a Vail Daily ad indicating that one of the reasons for joining the VVCTB is "6. Exposure to 105,000 guests annually at the VVCTB visitors centers." The same information was included in this year's VVCTB "IVew Partner Guide" which is used to solicit new membership. The representation of VVCTB ownership of these centers causes concern for us as indeed it should for the Town of Vail also. Again, thank you for your consideration and we hope that our proposal will meet with your support of the VCBA as the best choice for management of the Vail Visitors Centers. Sin rely, Kaye Ferry VCBA Executive Director .Vuimr. o '~` a o~fS c i W PARTNER ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~j~ 20042001 Chamber ~TOUrism Bureut Celebrating 40 Years As Yoer Sssccrss Connection. ~",,",,~~ 0 ~Vr~ T~ 1~ ~S~S F® ®INIlVG T'~E ~I~ ~AL~IJ~ cC I~IE1~ T®jJIZISIVI LUAU l.Discounted Health Insurance Program 2.Valuable 1Vlonthly Educational ~z. Networking opportunities 3.Discounted Cooperative 1Vlarketing ®pportunities 4.Eligibility for 1VV[erchant Ski Pass program S.Presence in select V<ICT~ publications /6.Exposure to 105,000 guests annually in V~1CTB Visitors Center 7.Eusiness Description and link to your website on wvwv.visitvailvalley.com B.Eligibility for ~T+Torkers Compensation Dividend program 9.Eligibility to sell lodging and activities on www.vailonsale.com 10.Exposure to x,725 group visitors r ~~. ~"~~ V ~ :~ r y~,,,,h, ~a. ~),,,~, l ~~~~"_1 ma~yy'~+~ r+ `, . ~- s~. ~ is '+.~.rS,tl~ ,~i~~s~s anp~~aa~b i!~ Y 1~,TC~'~ +fis~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ft3eSS i{$,$r~I 4. _p~' ~rt~~ ,r _. p~~,c~n c~ ~.Ir~k tc; .~-~~,r '~~'~sjtE ~.~ era r~rv~~de~~l p;a~ ry "- ::,~ ~E~ ~a~~ ~~~w~~~~ :~~-„~~~3.~ • ;may q y~~ . l l~~i ~.~F~s~j ~-~~.ZaJ~i~1 ~3y~. ~+~.~y f fuN. H~L ~C~~fl 1$ ';r•'~ a ; .. } r 3~ 4 ~ u _ W ... .. _ . _ i. ~~ f K r Eagle County Regional Airport ~~ .. '.~ ' .. _ ... . ,'_ . _. ~ _ r~ ....._.... .rr.._.. .__ ~~:. CCUUrr;vfPORI Air Service Overview o Flight Schedule o Winter 0 1 aj®r hub®citis o jr irl~n~s o ~t~®~~ ~I~ht~ ~rr~ ~hr~®tt~ ~h~~ ~~h~ o ~hr~~ ~~~ ~~D ~®~~~t ~r~ ~~~v~r ~~~ Ei~GI^`. COUNTY id?FORT Air Service Overview cont. o Enplanements Annual ~ 10074% Incre~s~ 0 9/02 ~ 8/03 168,829 0 9/03 ~ 8/04 186a96~ o ~~~~o~~ ~ ~~o~~~/~ ~~~~~~~~ 6/0~ ~ x/03 f~~~~3 0 6/04 - ~/0~ 23005 filf~lc COUNTYnIRPORi Finances '~_ '03-'04 Winter Air Service 0 1 Year Agreement with lJS Air o ~~~~u~~~ ~s~~e~~~ ~r~~ca~~~~ ~~a~~a~~~ °~~~ o ~~nce~~o~~~ir~ Reven~~ h~r~ ~~3a~~ rAGLx COUNi'rnl.?PO.rii Finances '04 Summer Air Service o F9ight Guarantees ® United $261,000 (757 service only) ® American $200,000 o Enp9aner~ents a American - ®ecrease 5023% a 6/03 - 8/03 10,550 a 6/04 - 8/04 9,998 o United (DH2) -Increase 39082% 0 6/03 - 8/03 3,963 0 6/04 - 8/04 5,541 United (757) ~~ 6/04 - 8/04 7,546 ® ®verall -Increase 59° 06% n 6/03 - 8/03 14,513 p 6/04 - 8/04 23,085 ~~ fi~G' L"i COUNiYfdRPCjRT Finances ECAT (Eagle County Air Terminal) o fond Payments t 4 Years n ~t~n I ~o~ Rt~inin et ~a 1 (' 1 issues) o Rental far o ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~°ee~e~ts o ~~ld ato~~~ D ~~~o~~® _~ -- . EAGI: COUV iY idHPURi Finances Other (Sourced Aviation Internationa9 News) o ~~~tisti~~ o ~~~~8 ~~~~ 5~~~~ o ~/®~ - ~/®~ vso ~/®~ - ~/®~ o S~r~ ~r ~~~9 S~~s 0 6/®~ _ ~/®~ vso 6/04 _ ~/®4 ~40~~®~® I~~re~s~ ~~o~~®/® I~cre~se ~: ci~lE COUNTY nIRPORT '~ ~~, y~: ~_ ~ ~_ _rfh 'Y i. ~.ir - ~ - ~~ o Instrument Landing System $1071 1 o Runway Extension ~24NI E Ei~GIE COwtr rU4PORT Facility Enhancements cont. ~, Ei~Gli CCkINiYiviceaRl Marketing /inter '03'04 Season (Colorado Powders o °ASAP) o ®irect M~~lo grant Ads o ~rnrner °04 season ~FEy V~~~ S~r~ e~~ ~4®~ o ®ar~~t ~~o~a Pront A~~o I~~~u® ~~®t~a [~~~ ~®~r~~o f~~~~ ~~ r~ ~ o Additio~~~ ~~,0~0 for ~ener~~ ~~rk~ti~~a ~~t ~pecifi~ t~ one progr~r~ ,~ ~:~u couvtr%iseaet ~ ~ r Real tirx~e flight status an terenal ~C websete free war~les~ web access throughout ter ~na9 ~u~to~r ~er~i~~ Repre~~ntat~ve~ ~A~ _~ _ _ /~fl.e" COUr1i T /~Q~F.1 Community Partnerships Ch~rnber Fly it S~~r o rill Air i~ rt ^ \/d I I ~eS01"~S o Smell Air S i~~ ~r~~t o ~~~~~~~~ ~o~~~s~y Fly ~~iB S~r~m~r Asper ~h~r~ber o Sumr~it ~~~nty ~h~mber w ._ f%+GIE COwrrraeeOR~ ~. Key Staff ~~~ Ei+~il£ COON iY htRPORI D ~,,~ „ _. ^v~CaLE CCiUNi r r'4~RPC)R7 ,, D -~ Key Statistics o ~o~nty Dollars ~~ Work ~~~~~5~750 o Jobs for Community App~~x°srnately ~4~ positions d~re~tly Th~~~~n~~ ~~der~~~~y o $76e~N1 Multiple ~ntaties/°~taff ,. fr\Gli COUNTYi~L°,PORT EGE Summer Airline Update September 23, 2004 Listed below are the five airlines contacted regarding air service for Summer 2005 o American -Waiting on a request for Summer 2005 service and then will look the results from Summer 2004. AA only has 757 aircraft (187 seats) which can serve EGE from DFW and maybe ORD. o Continental -Interested in service from Houston with a 737 (124 seats) or a Regional Jet (50 seats) o Northwest -Investigating aircraft of a Regional Jet (69 seats) with service to Minneapolis and/or Memphis o United -Interested DEN service and maybe open to other service options like ORD. UA would use 757 or 737 aircraft. o Midwest Express -Investigating aircraft performance of a Fairchild 328JET (32 seats) with serve to Kansas City or Milwaukee. I have no discussion of contracts, service dates or financial caps. The priorities (in no particular order) are to have more service from TX with feed from the SE, ORD non-stop and feed from the NE. ~~~0 ~ouvn o¢ !fall: Corvarvtisslon on Speclai Ev ®nts: 2004 Funding Allocations Year 20®4 COntraC$ ®B' C lndlbideeal ~®n$PaCt Funds Available: $565,000 per proposa l Con$rac$ Sta$us Funds Paid Ou$ Rollover from 2003 $11,000 +~ Total Funds Available in 2004: $576,000 $576,000 _ Event: Dates: month/date/ r 2004 Funds Awarded: Report Received 3 on 3 Soccer° 8/6-8104 $25,000 Com lete x 9/10/2004 $25,000 Lacrosse Shootout 6/28-7/04/04 $10,000 Com lete x 4/10/2004 $10,000 9/28/2004 Teva Mountain Games° 6/3-6/04 $65,000 Com lete 6/25/2004 $65,000 8/24/2004 Oktoberfest/Hi hline S orts° 9/10-12 & 9/18-19/04 $60,000 3x3 1/30/2004 $20,000 America Da s" WCTB in '03 07/04/04 $40,000 Com lete 2x 7/2/2004 $40,000 8/24/2004 Vail Film Festival° 4/1-4/04 $40,000 Com lete 3x3 4/8/2004 $40,000 American Ski Classic 3/19-21/04 $20,000 Complete 1x° 1/30/2004 $20,000 5/18/2004 Vail Arts F®stival°' 6125-27/04 $15,000 Com lete 3x3 7/2/2004 $15,000 8/24/2004 Taste of Vail 4/7-10/04 $5,000 Complete 1x 3/25/2004 $5,000 6/22/2004 The Session 1/14-18/04 $20,000 Complete 1x" 1/30/2004 $20,000 5/18/2004 Bi Wheel, Brews 'n Chili° .06/26/04 $26,400 Com lete 3x3 7/2/2004 $26,400 8/24/2004 S rin Back to Vail` 4/8-10 & 4/15-17/04 $40,000 Com lete 3x3 5/14/2004 $40,000 7/27/2004 Vail Jazz Festival 6/27-9/26/04 $9,000 Com lete 1x 1/30/2004 $9,000 Holida s in Vail° WCTB in '03 11/26-12/31/04 $20,000 x Vail Art and Wine Faire 7/3-8/14/04 Sats. $14,000 Com lete 3x3 8/20/2004 $14,000 9/28/2004 Street Entertainment 6/25-8/29/04 $55,000 com lete 3x3 x 8/20/2004 $55,000 9/28/2004 King of the Mountain Volleyball 6/18-20/04 $7,500 Com lete 3x3 6/29/2004 $7,500 8/24/2004 Leadville Loo Memorial Ride 09/11/04 $3,000 funds moved to Vail Classic 1/30/2004 $3,000 Vail;.S e•Snowa'Show ,. ,,. ? ~ '2/1.9/Q4'" canceled `. Refund?;1x° :Invoieed:6/28 .,'1/30/2004.`. $1.,500 Brid a Street Jam 2/13/04 $1,500 Com lete 1x" 1/30/2004 $1,500 Famil Carnival 3/19/04 $1,500 Com lete1x 4/23/2004 $1,500 4/20/2004 Y05" New Year's Eve for Youth 12/31/04 $5,000 1x Western Regional Softball 7/24-25/04 $1,400 1x Ashworth Junior Golf Tournament 9/10-12/04 canceled 2x Vail Classic" 09/04/04 $7,000 Complete 1x x 8/9/2004 $7,000 Subtotal: Event Funds $491,300 $426,400 Administrative Contracts: Administrative Services $33,350 x thru 8/31/04 $20,877 Event Recruitment Research/Event Evaluation Miscellaneous Ex enses °$15,000 contingent on erformance $35,000 $16,000 x x 2/6/2004 7/2/2004 $20,000 ~ $11,000 Subtoaa/: Administrative Contracts TOTAL ALLOCATIONS: FUNDS REMAINING: *Events that have been desi Hated for interce t surve s $84,350 $575,650 $350 $51,877 $478 277 $97,723, 2004 Contract Reconciliation 9/15/2004 . ~. "~Y'stir D~nc~van Pavil~®r~ V A I L l ®isc®UIVTE® USE CATEG®RIES Eli ibility for Discounted_Use will be based on the following criteria: 1) Is the sponsoring organization physically based in Vail? (+) 2) Does the sponsoring organization collect dues for membership in their organization? (-) 3) Does the sponsoring organization exist on contributions only? (+) 4) Is the sponsoring organization a civic or social services organization? (+) 5) Will the sponsoring organization charge a fee for admission to the function? (-) 6) Is the function a regular meeting (-) or a special event (+)? '7) Is the function "civic" in nature? (+) 8) Is a more appropriate space available? (-) 9) Direct Vail benefit? (+) 10) Meet Council mission? (+) i 1) If fundraiser, the benefiting organization must be present. (+) VAIL-BASED: FREE USE ~ 50% OFF PRICE Dues/fee-based Vail Public Schools VCBA (except where budget exists} ~ VVCTB (BMHS, MSS, RSES) Ski Club Vail TO ~ ~~5id.(,~ Wle-~.avi vk s Vail Mourtain School Children's Garden of Learning Vail Symposium Vail Junior Hockey Vail Jazz Foundation Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability Vail Mountain Rescue W Rotary Club ~GI.I r 8~ Cr~.yi~e~'~M ~ • c~cc~s~r wi ~c2 EAGLE COUNTY-BASE 50% OFF PRICE Donation-based The Youth Foundation Snowboard Outreach Society Gore Range Natural Science School The Literacy Project Resource Center Salvation Army Food Resource Center Humane Society Eagle Valley Community Fund Habitat for Humanity United VVay Vail Valley Community Fund Meet the Wilderness ~i ~~ b Grp ~j yr,4 G, •~ I ~ • ~ C4~, ~.~, z (~. 25% OFF PRICE Dues/fee based Ducks Unlimited Friends of the Dance Elk Foundation Trout Unlimited