Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-07 Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionTOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. ITEMlTOPIC: Citizen Participation. (10 min.) 2. Kim Ruotolo ITEM/TOPIC: Introduction of Mt. Buller guests. (10 min.) 3. ITEMlTOPIC: Consent Agenda. (5 min.) a. Approval of 01.03.06 & 01.17.06 Minutes b. Sculpture for Bighorn Park. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Vote to approve AIPP expenditure for the "Community Stone" sculpture. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Art in Public Places board voted unanimously to appropriate up to $35,000 for the purchase of a sculpture for Bighorn Park by environmental artist Patrick Marold. The "Community Stone" sculpture will be a 6 foot high glacial boulder, from a local source, bearing the handprints of Vail residents. The exact location within the park will be determined by TOV project managers in collaboration with AIPP and the artist. 4. Bill Gibson ITEMROPIC: An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's approval of a separation request application pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's approval of a separation request application, pursuant to Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to allow for the physical separation of a primary and secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (45 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, overturn, or modify the Design Review Board's approval of a separation request application pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On December 21, 2005, the Design Review Board approved a separation request application, pursuant to Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to allow for the physical separation of a primary and secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The Vail Town Council "called-up" this Design Review Board action. .Additionally, H.R. and Margaret B. Perot, Susan R. Frampton, and Forest International, LLC have also filed an appeal of this Design Review Board action. Please refer to the staff memorandum dated February 7, 2006, for additional information. 5. Greg Hall ITEMlTOPIC: Review and approve the recommendations for minor modifications of the Parking Task Force for the remainder of the 2005-2006 season. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the recommendations of the Parking Task Force and approve the changes to the parking program for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town Council established the parking task force to provide direction to the Vail Town Council regarding parking operation policies for each year. The task force meets annually after the Martin Luther King holiday to evaluate the results of the operational changes implemented, review trends and see if 'any significant changes need to be addressed and to recommend tweaks to the operating policies if needed. The three areas focused on were the number of shopper parking spaces, the lack of the number of value pass spaces and oversized vehicles in the village value lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Parking Task Force recommended the following changes to the parking policies for the remainder of the 2005-2006 season. a. The number of shopper spaces be reduced in the Village from 60 to 40 and the number of shopper spaces in LionsHead be reduced from 30 to 20. The pricing structure implemented for the shopper parking created greater turnover of the spaces and decreased the number of spaces required to meet the demand. b. That vehicles over 19'-0 be restricted from the village value lot. The value lot was designed with less than adequate dimensions when it was built in 1990..Limiting the size to 19' will accommodate almost 98% of all personal vehicles. The vehicles which exceed this dimension are the largest of the 15 passenger vans and the oversized pickup trucks with crew cabs and full beds. 6. Stan Zemler ITEMlTOPIC: Discussion and direction from Council on pursuing a joint Vail Recreation District (VRD) and Town of Vail (TOV) Comprehensive Recreation Master Plan. On January 10th, the VRD approved an expenditure of up to $30,000 to jointly fund w/the TOV a comprehensive recreation master plan. If Council wishes to move in this direction, supplemental appropriation from RETT of $30,000 is suggested by staff. (15 min.) 7. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of f=ramework for Process Involving Judy Camp Disbursement of Conference Center Tax Collections. (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss initial review criteria and provide ideas for a citizen outreach process to be used to create community consensus regarding the various options available. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: In November 2005, Vail's electorate defeated an increase in the lodging tax to supplement taxes approved in 2002 to build and operate a conference center. The ballot question also contained a provision to rescind the 2002 taxes if the issue failed. Therefore, on December 20, 2005, the Vail Town Council approved second reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2005, which rescinded the 2002 taxes, ahalf-cent sales tax and 1.5 percent lodging tax, effective January 1, 2006. The remaining action required to bring closure to the issue is to determine a refund methodology for disbursement of the remaining $7.7 million in conference center funds or prepare a ballot question to determine how such revenues shall be used. 8. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006. Text amendment (Commercial Service Center/CSC Zone District) for Crossroads. (15 min.) ITEM/TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, an ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use to the District and to add a definition of a "bowling alley" to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006 on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 23, 2006, the Town of Vail Planning and. Environmental Commission voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use and to add a definition for a "bowling alley" to the Vail Town Code. STAFF .RECOMMENDATION: The Community ,Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, on first reading. 9. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (2 hrs.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 23, 2006, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on a request to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads. The purpose. of the new Special Development District is to facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive. Upon review of the request, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 5-2-0 (Viele and Lamb opposed) to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. Please refer to the staff memorandum to the Vail Town Council dated January 23, 2006, for further details (attached). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, on first reading. 10. Matt Mire ITEMlTOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006 - an ordinance vacating a certain part of .the system of Public Ways of the Town of Vail, Colorado, i.e., a parcel of land located within chute road right-of-way, Lot P-3, Vail Village Fifth Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado as recorded March 17, 2004, at Reception Number 871030 at -the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Approve, approve with modifications or deny on second reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail received this portion of right of way with the creation of the founders garage plat from Vail Resorts. The western portion was then to be deeded to the Mill Creek condominium association. The streetscape design for the Mill creek Court property has been completed and the cost sharing agreement is completed. It is now known how much of the western portion of the property can be vacated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve on second reading Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006. 11. George Ruther ITEM/TOPIC: ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006, an ordinance amending Chapter 4, Districts Established, Section 12-4-1, Designated, Vail Town Code, to allow for the establishment of the Public Accommodation - 2 (PA-2) district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 9, 2006, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission voted 6-0-0 (Gunion absent) to forward a recommendation of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Vail Town Code. On January 17, 2006, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 upon first reading. The only requested change to the ordinance is a typographical error. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the , Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006, on second reading. 12. George Ruther ITEMROPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006, an ordinance amending the official zoning map for the Town of Vail in accordance with Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning Map; .Rezoning Lots 9-12, Buffher Creek Re-subdivision, from Public Accommodation (PA) district to Public Accommodation-2 (PA-2) district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Approve with' modifications, or Deny Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006 on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 9,' 2006, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the request to amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission unanimously approved a motion recommending approval of the rezoning request to the Vail Town Council. On January 17, 2006, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006 on first reading. No revisions have been made to the ordinance since first reading. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006, on second reading. 13. ITEMlTOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) 1. Peer Resort/Communityrrips Update. 2. Update on Vail Recreation District (VRD) Repayment of 50% Cost share for 2001 Dobson Door Expansion. In September of 2001, the town's Chief Building Official notified both the Vail Recreation District (VRD) and the Town of Vail (TOV), that the previous occupancy load for the Dobson C~ 3,000 had been calculated incorrectly and a list of improvements to bring the building back to that occupancy level was attached. Following this notification, board minutes from both the Vail Town Council and the VRD Board of Directors reflect approval was given to proceed w/the addition of doors on the south and west side of the building. This mitigation was to cost approximately $100,000 and would provide occupancy up to 1,500. Both boards agreed to this improvement and to jointly fund the improvements, with the town paying the up-front costs and billing the VRD back for its co-share. The total cost came to about $106,000. A balance of $53,068 was first billed to the VRD in February 2002 but no payments were made. Staff met with VRD's new director and finance consultant during the spring of '05 and an agreement was made to proceed with the payment of this balance in a 10 year, no interest note (identical to the gymnastics arrangement). The '05 payment has been received. 14. iTEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (10:55 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 FEBRUARY 21, 2006, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. . ; Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 3, 2006 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers Council Members Present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Kim Ruotolo Greg Moffet Kent Logan Kevin Foley Mark Gordon Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Representing Architectural Resource Consultants (ARC), Chris Squadra stated that in 2004, financial rankings used by the firm for determining a potential builder for the conference center, had potential for misrepresentation. Squadra then apologized to David Viele, of J.L. Viele Construction, for any harm the financial ranking system may have caused his company. Due to the circumstances, he said ARC has since reevaluated its financial ranking system. Squadra then thanked Council for its support throughout the conference center process. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. A.) 12.06.05 & 12.20.05 Minutes Approval. B•) Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) Grant. The Police Department received a grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation for increased Driving Under the Influence (DUI) enforcement during calendar year 2006, under the LEAF Program. This $12,000 grant will fund overtime for police personnel to conduct DUI patrol and appear in court for related cases. C•) Annual appointment of newspaper of record for Town of Vail publications and notices for 2006. Appoint The Vail Daily as the newspaper, of record for 2006 for the Town of Vail publications and notices. The town annually establishes a newspaper of record for all public notices. This year, a bid was requested from Eagle Summit Publishers, owner. of all the newspapers in Eagle County, and requested a bid for The I/aii Daily publications. D). Resolution No. 1, Series of 2006, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, PEC Design Review Board (DRB), and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. C.R.S. as amended, provides that local public bodies must give full and timely notice to the public of any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance. After Foley asked that item D be discussed separately, Moffet moved with Foley seconding a motion to approve items A, B, & C. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Foley then expressed concern over posting of Council agendas as it was inconvenient for many to travel to town hall to view the physical postings. He recommended placing public notices at supermarkets or bus stops. Zemler reported all Council agendas were posted on the town's web-site. Public Information Officer Suzanne Silverthorn said she would provide an update on the number of hits on the town's web-site that Council agendas receive. Zemler suggested discussing other posting options at an upcoming meeting, but limiting the legal requirement postings to town hall. Moffet then moved to pass Resolution No. 1, Series of 2006 with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was an Appeal of the Town of Vail DRB's Denial of a Design Review Application Pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Change to Approved Plans regarding Architectural Alterations (existing skylights) to an Existing Residence, located at 1220 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Village Filing 7. Council was requested to table this appeal to the January 17, 2006, Council hearing. On November 2, 2005, the DRB denied a request for a change to approved plans pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a change to approved plans regarding architectural alterations (existing skylights) to an existing residence, located at 1220 Ptarmigan Road. The appellants, Donald and Ronne Hess, owners of 1220 Ptarmigan Road, appealed the DRB's denial. Ori December 20, 2005, Council tabled the Hess Residence appeal to January 3, 2006. Staff recommended Council table the Hess Residence appeal until January 17, 2006, per the appellant's request. Hitt moved with Moffet seconding a motion to table. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was a request from the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability (EVAS) fora $15,000 donation and review of supporting documentation regarding the county wide recycling program.The EVAS proposed to take over and operate the Eagle County recycling program. The Community Development Department recommended Council approve the funding request. In the 2006 budget, $15,000 was earmarked for recycling under Council contributions. Hitt clarified the expense was budgeted. Matt Scherr, EVAS Executive Director, confirmed recycling services within the town would be enhanced. Hitt moved to approve the funding with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fifth item on the agenda was an emergency preparedness update. Police Chief Dwight Henninger reported the town has always taken emergency preparedness seriously and has reviewed prior incidents in an attempt to capture lessons learned for future improvements. Hosting the World Cup Championships in 1989 and 1999 was also the impetus for building upon the town's level of preparedness and emergency management capability. Previous history indicated the training and expectation for management responsibility had fallen on the public safety agencies and had not included the. remainder of the staff. Although these systems have worked fairly well, the events of 2 September 11, 2001, and the sink hole incident in June of 2003, revealed some deficiencies in the town's potential ability to handle a major incident, particularly with the town's ability to staff logistical, planning and financial tracking functions, according to Henninger. The federal government mandated philosophical changes in emergency management and has tied Homeland Security Grant funding to adoption of these changes, which the town has embraced. Henninger went on to say over the past three years the town has embarked on a significant program of developing skills to manage a critical incident, including many members of the civilian staff, in addition to police and fire department personnel. Henninger says the town has reviewed and prioritized potential natural and man-made incidents affecting the area as follows: Highest Likelihood: Severe weather; debis flow/flooding, materials slide, structural fire, wildland fire, hazardous material release, civil disturbance, structural collapse, transportation accident (roadway/lifts), mass casualty incident and utility service failure Lower Likelihood: Aircraft accident, dam failure, earthquake and terrorism/weapon of mass destruction Henninger then described public safety goals for 2006: • Review and update the Emergency Operations Plan to include new Homeland Security directives which are based on the use of Emergency Support Functions (ESP's). • Conduct quarterly training exercises to continue to develop our preparedness skills. • Complete a majority of the NIMS/ICS training. • Complete the development of a mobile command/communications vehicle for deployment to incidents and to provide aback-up to the communications center. This is currently being done on a used bus platform from the Transportation Department. • Work with the County to develop an Incident Management Team, which would assist the Town with any prolonged or complex incidents. • Continue to develop alternative communications systems in the event of failures of our primary systems. • Complete and educate citizens on an updated evacuation plan. • Develop a Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) with volunteers. to help neighborhoods learn to be self-sufficient in the event of a large prolonged incident. • Continue to develop messages to encourage preparedness activities for our citizens and the lodging community. • Collaborate with other special districts, Vail Resorts Inc. and non-governmental agencies to integrate them into our emergency preparedness planning, training and exercising. • Establish and formalize aCounty-wide Public Information Officers group to be available to assist during large-scale incidents It was reported Council would receive information on their duties and responsibilities during a critical incident from Steve Denney of the Colorado Division of Emergency Management on Jan. 17. This training is part of the plan for the town's compliance with the National Incident Management System and Incident Command System. The sixth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2005, an Ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2003, providing for the Major Amendment of Special Development District (SDD) No. 36, Four Season Resort, and Amending the approved Development Plan for SDD No. 36, in accordance with Chapter 12-9A, Vail Town Code. Town Planner Matt Gennett reported on July 10, 2001, Council approved Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001, adopted a development .plan for the establishment of SDD No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, on the Chateau at Vail site. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001, approved a development plan for the SDD which included 15 dwelling units, 116 accommodation units, 40 fractional fee club units, and 14 Type III employee housing units. The approved deviations from development standards of the underlying zoning included an increase from both the maximum allowable height and maximum allowable site coverage standards. On October 7, 2003, the Council approved Ordinances No. 9 and No. 10, Series of 2003. Ordinances No. 9 and 10 adopted an amended development plan for SDD No. 36, Four Seasons Resort and rezoned a portion of the development site to the Public Accommodation zone district. The amended development plan allows for the construction of a mixed use hotel development to include 18 dwelling units, 118 accommodation units, 22 fractional fee' club units, and 34 Type III employee housing units. On August 8, 2005, the PEC forwarded a recommendation of approval to Council of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for SDD No. 36, Four Seasons Resort. The major amendment consists of the following modifications: the total number of proposed Dwelling Units is reduced from eighteen (18) to sixteen (16); the total number of proposed Accommodation Units increases from one hundred eighteen (118) to one hundred. twenty-two (122); the total number of proposed Fractional Fee Club Units is decreased from twenty-two (22) to nineteen (19); and the total number of Type III Employee Housing Units decreases from thirty-four (34) to twenty-eight (28). On November 28, 2005 the PEC upheld stafYs approval of a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 36, Four Seasons Resort, to allow the applicant to shift the building footprint one foot (1') back from its approved location. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance with Hitt seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-1, Foley opposed. The seventh item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2005, An ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1998, providing for changes to SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse, that concern the elimination of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) within the District and the number of lots. On September 26, 2005, the Town of Vail PEC held a public hearing on a request to amend SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse. The purpose of the amendment to the SDD is to eliminate the GRFA limitations within the Grand Traverse residential development. Upon review of the request, the PEC voted 4-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to amend SDD No. 22, Grand traverse, to the Vail Town Council. On December 6, 2005, Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 25, Series of 2005, by a vote of 5-2-0 (Hitt and Foley opposed). Moffet moved to approve the ordinance with Gordon seconding. Foley and Hitt stated there would be other ways to do it. Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont pointed out what can be changed one way can be changed again in respect to GRFA. Mire clarified public recourse could be initiated by town staff. The motion passed 5-2, Foley and Hitt opposed. The eighth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance 29, Series of 2005, an Ordinance amending Title 11, Sign Regulations; Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook; Vail Town Code, for proposed Corrections and Clarifications to the Vail Town Code (Housekeeping Ordinance). A work session for Council was held on December 6, 2005, where a report outlining the details of the proposed text amendments was distributed. Council members asked questions regarding the proposed text amendments and no changes were made. On December 20, 2005, Council approved Ordinance 29, Series of 2005 on first reading, with a vote of 7-0-0. Since the first reading, additional text amendments were included to allow Type IV Employee Housing Units as a permitted use in the HR, SFR, R, PS, RC, LDMF, MDMF, HDMF, PA, CC1, LMU-1 and LMU-2 Districts. Moffet moved with Foley seconding a motion to approve. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The ninth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2005, an Ordinance Amending 5-3-2, Public Health and Safety, Vail Town Code Section 5-3-2 of Chapter 5, Public Health and Safety, Vail Town Code, defines a solid fuel burning device as follows:SOLID FUEL BURNING DEVICE: Any fireplace, stove, firebox or device intended and or use for the purpose of burning wood, pulp, paper, or other non-liquid or nongaseous fuel. The applicants proposed to add the following language to this definition (added language is shown in bold type): Solid fuel burning device does not include cook stoves in licensed commercial eating and drinking establishments in the town. Staff recommended the proposed text amendment based upon the intent of the subject regulation and the proposal not having a negative impact upon the purpose and intent of Section 5-3-2, Vail Town Code. Ruotolo moved to approve the ordinance with Hitt seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The tenth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2005, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2006, Cascade Village, amending and reestablishing the approved Development Plan for Area A of SDD No. 4, in accordance with Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of_ eleven new dwelling units. On November 14, 2005, the PEC forwarded a recommendation of approval to Council of a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for SDD No. 4, Area A, Cascade Village. The requested amendment amends the total number of allowed dwelling units in Area A, SDD No. 4, from ninety- four (94) dwelling units to ninety-eight (98). Moffet moved to approve the ordinance with Gordon seconding. The motion passed 6-1, Foley opposed. The eleventh item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Council Retreat Take-Aways. Zemler reviewed the following topics with Council, looking for approval and direction on how to most appropriately proceed with action. 1. Environment 2. Forge Better Relationship with Business Community 3. Housing 4. ParkinglTransportation 5. Public Facilities 6. Assess Town's Financial Condition 7. Recreation 8. Cultural/Special Events 9. Peer Resort/Community Trips 10. Leadership 11. Reaching Out to International Homeowners & Destination Guests 12. Develop Berm on South Side of Village Transportation Center Across From the Austria Haus 13. Informal Social Sessions/Ski Day with the. Mayor/Council, Including Both Community and Staff Staff has proposed to address the topics in the following manner: 2-7-06 Work Session --Following parking task force (week of 1.23.06), discussion of parking, transit (to include: some neighborhoods "underserved" by buses) -Greg Hall (30 min.) --Discussion of dispersion of $7.7M Conference Center Fund proceeds 2-7-06 Evening Meeting --Peer Resort/Community Trips Update -Suzanne Silverthorn 2-21-06 Work Session --Housing Discussion to include pay-in-lieu, inclusionary zoning and case studies from other communities who've had similar situations 7-18-06 Work Session --Discussion of redevelopment of berm on south side of Village Parking Structure into retail (across from Austria Haus) Will occur if Timber Ridge redevelopment is resolved. Vail Community Plan Community Development Director Russ Forrest asked Council if they agreed with developed goals proposed to be used while developing the town community plan. Brandmeyer then reported Rex Keep would be in attendance at the Jan. 17 meeting to take Council photographs. She said staff continued to discuss how to better manage vehicles left overnight in the parking structures by drivers who end up having too much to drink. She also made known the Town Council and Beaver Creek Resort Company joint meeting would be held Jan. 10 at Grouse Mountain Grill in Beaver Creek at 6:30 p. m. The twelfth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved with Foley seconding a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0, at approximately 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: 6 Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers Council Members Present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Kim Ruotolo Greg Moffet Kent Logan Kevin Foley Mark Gordon Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Steve Isom and Helmut Reiss asked for Council's support of an issue regarding residential expansion of square footage. County Commissioner Arn Menconi reported he had recently met with Vail's Assistant Town Manager and Town Manager to discuss the town's recent retreat take-aways. "I think we can work together on recycling and use of diesel buses...We need to explore mutual housing opportunities and expand the county's trail system." He then applauded the town for its transparency 'in the presentations provided at the town meeting on Jan. 12. David Viele and Tim Moffet expressed support for a smoking ban in Vail. The second item on the agenda was an Update from County Commissioner Arn Menconi. County Commissioner Arn Menconi and Avon Town Council Member Brian Sipes encouraged Council to pursue atown-wide smoking ban. Chris Sherwin from the Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance (CTEPA) discussed the dangers of second-hand smoke on bar staff. Colorado Public Health Association Chairman Don Parson recommended analyzing apost-smoking ban study performed in Pueblo. Ruotolo stated Vail should be a leader in promoting a healthy lifestyle. During a pause for public comment, Vail Recreation District Chairman Scott Proper recommended supporting a smoking ban. The third item on the agenda was an appeal of the Town of Vail DRB's Denial of a Design Review Application, pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to Allow for a change to approved plans regarding architectural alterations (existing skylights) to an existing residence, located at 1220 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Village Filing 7. On November 2, 2005, the DRB denied a request for a change to approved plans pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, regarding architectural alterations (existing skylights) to an existing residence, located at 1220 Ptarmigan Road. The appellants, Donald and Ronne Hess, owners of 1220 Ptarmigan Road, have appealed the DRB's denial. On January 3, 2006, Council tabled the Hess Residence appeal to January 17, 2006. Staff recommended Council overturn with modifications the DRB denial of the Hess Residence design review application and accept the modified design submitted by the appellant. Donald Hess expressed he was .pleased to have had the .opportunity to deal with Council and staff. Moffet moved to overturn the DRB finding. Hitt seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was a Vail Community Plan Discussion. Community Development Director Russ Forrest reported staff had recently met with Kent Logan and Mark Gordon (council representatives) to develop the scope of work and schedules for the Community Plan. It was determined two resources were needed: a highly qualified facilitator and a resource to assist with the graphics and writing the Community Plan. A Request For Proposals could be issued rapidly for these services, according to Forrest. In addition, it would be possible to obtain competitive bids without a formal RFP. Logan indicated the project would take approximately eight months to complete. Hitt stated he was not in favor of the project taking longer than 12 months. Moffet suggested making it an objective of the process to enfranchise as many residents of Vail as possible. "Vail Tomorrow was an incredibly productive exercise ten years ago." Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont stated his association was very interested in becoming part of the process and noted his interest in presenting the association's ideas for Vail's future. Zemler encouraged the association to participate as a stakeholder. Moffet moved with Foley seconding a motion to move forward with the planning. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fifth item on the agenda was a discussion of first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006 - an ordinance vacating a certain part of the system of Public Ways of the Town of Vail, Colorado, i.e., a parcel of land located within chute road right-of-way, Lot P-3, Vail Village Fifth Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado as recorded March 17, 2004, at Reception Number 871030 at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Town Attorney Matt Mire reported the town received this portion of right-of-way with the creation of the Founders Garage plat from Vail Resorts. The western portion was then to be deeded to the Mill Creek Condominium Association. The streetscape design for the Mill Creek Court property was completed and the cost sharing agreement is completed. Moffet moved to approve the vacation with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The sixth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006, an Ordinance amending Chapter 4, Districts Established, Section 12-4-1, Designated, Vail Town Code, to allow for the establishment of the Public Accommodation - 2 (PA-2) District. On January 9, 2006, the PEC voted 6-0-0 (Gunion absent) to forward a recommendation of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Vail Town Code. The Community Development Department recommended Council approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006, on first reading. Ruther explained the amended zoning district allowed kitchen facilities in public accommodation units located within this zone district. Moffet moved with Ruotolo seconding. Foley then clarified the rezoning would not be considered an "up-zoning." The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2006, an Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map for the Town of Vail in accordance with Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning Map; Rezoning Lots 9-12, Buffher Creek Re-subdivision, from Public Accommodation (PA) District to Public Accommodation- 2 (PA-2) District. January 9, 2006, the PEC held a public hearing on the request to amend the Official Zoning Map of the town. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission unanimously approved a motion recommending approval of the rezoning request by Council. Hitt moved to adopt the ordinance with Logan seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The eighth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. TOV Web Site "Hits" Community Information Specialist Kris Friel announced that during the Jan. 3 Council meeting, a discussion took place regarding Resolution No. 1, Designating a Public Place for Posting Notices of Public Meetings, in which a question was raised regarding the adequacy of distribution. In addition to the legal posting requirement in the Vail Municipal Building, town council agendas are: • Published on Mondays in the Vail Daily in the "Weekly News". ad, • Emailed to 112 "Vail-Mail" subscribers, and • Posted to the Town of Vail web site. Foley expressed concern the town was not doing enough to reach out to the local community. Looking ahead, the Council identified July 11 (changed from July 4) and July 18 as its public meeting dates for that month. The ninth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved to adjourn at 7:30p.m. with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 7, 2006 SUBJECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's approval of a separation request application, pursuant to Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to allow for the physical separation of a primary and secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Vail Town Council, H.R. and Margaret B. Perot, Susan R. Frampton, and Forest International, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is 95 Forest Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1. II. STANDING OF APPELLANT Pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council has the standing to "call-up" any action taken by the Design Review Board.. Additionally, the appellants H.R. and. Margaret B. Perot, Susan R. Frampton, and Forest International, LLC, have standing to file an appeal as neighboring property owners. III. ~ REQUIRED ACTION The Town Council shall uphold, overturn, or modify the Design Review Board's approval of a separation request application, pursuant to Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, to allow for the physical separation of a primary and secondary residence, located at 95 Forest Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, 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 have or have not been mef." IV. BACKGROUND In June 1995, the Design Review Board approved a separation request at 95 Forest Road to allow for the construction of an uphill unit accessing Rockledge Road and a lower unit accessing Forest Road. The Design Review Board based this approval upon the presence of a natural stream, a rock.outcropping, and existing trees. This approval expired and was re-approved by the Town Staff in August of 1998. In June 1999, the Town of.Vail issued a building permit to allow the demolition of the original house on the site and for the construction of a new uphill unit accessing Forest Road. The approved separation request was valid at the time this new house was constructed. The previous owner of 95 Forest Road did not build the downhill unit accessing Forest Road and the previously approved separation request has since expired. On November 16, 2005, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to review a separation request application for the Ryan Residence located at 95 Forest Road. At this public hearing the applicant's representative, SumanArchitect, presented an overview of the request, and the appellants' representative, Wear, Travers, & Perkins, noted their objection to the proposal. The Design Review Board asked Staff to further research the history of this property and tabled the separation request application for further review at a future meeting. On December 21, 2005, the Design Review Board held another public hearing to review a separation request application for the Ryan Residence located at 95 Forest Road: The Town Staff presented a brief overview of the history of the subject property and entered information from the Town's archives into the public record. The applicant again presented an overview of the separation request proposal. There was no public comment. The Design Review Board approved the requested separation request by a vote of 4-0 with the condition that the approval shall expire on December 31, 2007, rather than the standard one-year approval period (i.e. December 21, 2006). The applicant requested a longer approval length to facilitate a spring 2007 construction start. As part of its approval of this separation request application, the Design Review Board made several findings (see transcript from Design Review Board Meeting, December 21, 2005.) • That the applicant has requested a determination by the Design Review Board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project has been presented. • That a natural drainage, mature trees, a.rock outcropping, and slopes present on Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing are significant site constraints. • That the determination that significant site constraints are present on Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing has been made at a conceptual review of the proposal based r on the review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot, a preliminary site plan of the proposed structures, and additional evidence and testimony. • That significant site constraints (i.e. natural drainage, mature trees, rock outcroppings, and slopes) on Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of the lot. • That the applicant is proposing a unified architectural and landscape design for the development. •~ That the construction of separated units will protect more existing trees than ' connecting the units. • That the construction of separated units on this site is in keeping with the ,general character of the neighborhood. • That the approval of this request is not precedent setting. The Design Review Board 2 also found, after reviewing the chronology of development history of the site, that there was not an effort to circumvent the development review process. The applicant designed the existing building in good faith that a previous approval for a separation request would be honored in the future. The provisions of the Vail Town Code allow the applicant to construct a secondary dwelling unit at 95 Forest Road. The Vail Town Code also allows the applicant to construct one driveway access for each unit from each adjacent street, with a maximum of two driveways. Therefore, the Vail Town Code allows the applicant to construct a new downhill secondary dwelling unit at 95 Forest Road with access from Forest Road. The separation request approved by the Design Review Board only determined whether or not the applicant must physically connect this new secondary dwelling unit to the existing uphill primary dwelling unit. With this appeal, the Town Council must determine if the Design Review Board correctly applied the Vail Town Code when it approved the proposed separation request for 95 Forest Road. V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN CODE Section 72-3 Administration and Enforcement (in part) Section 72-3-3: 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. 2. Initiation: An appeal may be 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 may be 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; of 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 fhe 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 3 shall. be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for the appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filing of such notice of appeal will require the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board to forward to the Town Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting a summary of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the Town Council on the appeal within forty (40)`calendardays 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 fo exceed an additional thirty (30) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver, of any rights under this Chapter to appeal any interpretation or determination made by the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board. 4. Effect Of Filing An Appeal: The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay all permit activity and any 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. Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines (in part) E. Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development: 1. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that duplex and primary/secondary development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsection 2 below, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. 2. The presence of significant site constrainfs may permit the physical separatiorrof units and .garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the Design Review Board. Significant site 4 constraints shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees natural drains es stream courses and other natural water features rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separafion of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the Design Review Board as fo whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final desian work on the project is presented This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). 3. The duplex and primary/secondary development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than .one structure if the Design Review Board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the Design Review Board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. VI. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Appeal by the Appellants Attachment C: Applicant's Request and Associated Documents Attachment D: Town of Vail Archive Documents Attachment E: Transcript of Design Review Board Meeting, 12/21/05 5 ~.,~ ,. q -. ~ t __ -- ~r _ ~~'~ ~ Ran Residence Lot 32 Block 7 Vail Vilfa a Filin 1 ' ~~ ~ ;.. 95 Forest.Road ~`~~ ~ 4 e ~' ~ Vail Town Council - Februa 7, 2006 - ~ o ~ ~' rY -~ __., .~.T a ~ --- ~ ,~ - - - - _ _ ~~ ~~1 ,~ ~ _ ~, f t ~ ~, ~~ ~ ,~~ „~; '-. vi ' ,r ~ _ J_' 71 T4F 1 , ~ y ~' ~ R}r: .yak ~'~.: _- ~Y^.~. ~ ~ ~` 4l ~ ! 1 ~~ 9,. I '.fit V;~" .,~1-a .! F 1 y *i1:y. l -' l ~ l~~I~9~1Y ~M 1 yk -.~ry,~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~ ~ ~~~ {r ,~~~ .. ~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~._„ S 1 ~. ~ ; ~, ® ~ 50 0 50 Feet 1 " = 1001 _• w i ~ ~-;y cil-1~, L4`~ 1~ `Jly`~ti1f ~' L f~ :~ ~L 1~ ~ ~ T ~i~ ~T ' ~ _ *!_ _ i 3':l~ ~ s ~ y ,~ 4'' Yes - ~ - .w <~~x ~ ~~ ~~ It ~'~ ;~, ~ ~~ K `~ ~ This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only. The Town of Vail does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein. (parcel line work is approximate) , Attachment: B January 6, 2005 Department of Community Development 75 South. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Appeals Form Requirement 1 As the owners of lots immediately adjacent to, and one parcel away from Lot 32, the Design Review Board's decision to allow Lot 32 to build an additional residence on the Lot adversely affects our interests in many ways. First, it will it detrimentally affect the value of these two lots by adding density to the area. It will also fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. In addition, it will set a dangerous precedent for the neighborhood where anyone with an eye toward development can buy or build a primary unit on a particular lot and then claim that "site conditions" require them to build a separate residence on the opposite side of the lot from their primary unit. January 6, 2006 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Appeals Form Requirement 2 The purpose of this appeal is to object to the decision of the Design Review Board (the "DRB") to approve the Separation Request submitted by the owners of Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1. As the owners of lots immediately adjacent to, and one parcel away from Lot 32, we believe that the DRB's decision not only ignored the original intent of the Town of Vail Code's zoning provision and misconstrued the Town of Vail Development Standards, but also could set a dangerous. precedent for development in this area as well as adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. The Town of Vail Code (the "Town Code") Section 12-6D provides that the purpose of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is to provide sites for single-family houses or for two-family residential uses in which the second unit is "a smaller caretaker apartment." The plain language of this provision indicates that if a second residence is to be built on a single residential lot, then that second residence must be of the diminutive, modest nature of a caretaker apartment.. It may be that the concept of a "smaller caretaker unit" as originally envisioned by the Code has been replaced with several two-family, second home, expensive attached units due to the growth in real estate values. However, if the Town of Vail now permits separations between these units tc freely occur, this trend of building two houses on a single lot will accelerate as well, ultimately moving the area's development even further away from the Code's original intent. By allowing the separation of the residential units on this property, the DRB is effectively allowing the applicant to create two single-family homes and divide the lot into two separate lots, one with access to Forest Road and one with access to Beaver Dam Road. Not only would this be tremendously profitable for the owner of this property, but it could set a dangerous precedent for developers and other current owners to follow suit. In addition, it provides the owners of extremely large houses with a convenient argument that due to "site constraints," they can never attach a secondary unit to the primary unit, but rather must always build a separate unit on afar-reaching area of their lot. Ultimately, each of the currently single lots could be subdivided into two separate lots, each with its own single family home. Adding density to the area, this could adversely affect'the owners of neighboring properties who choose not to construct an extra house on their lot. The owners of Lot 32 were aware, prior to purchase of their lot, that they did not have entitlement to build an additional residence on the lot. Indeed, we supplied the now new owners with written notice of our objection to the proposed development of the lot prior to its purchase. The new owners had actual knowledge that the neighbors believed that such a development could have a devastating impact on the character of the neighborhood and that should the new owners proceed with their development plans, they would be vigorously opposed. While a separation request for Lot 32 may have been approved in the past, any such approval has expired. The decision to approve the separation request must now be evaluated with an awareness of the current real estate values in this area. It is clear that real estate values have soared since the original approval was granted. If developers are now able to freely purchase lots with the knowledge that they can easily utilize the "site constraint" argument to build a separate residence on the other side of the lot, and then sell it as a separate property, the character of the neighborhood will certainly decline. In conclusion, the DRB's decision to approve the Owners' separation request must be reversed because it violates the Town Code and Town Development Standards, it sets a dangerous precedent for development in the area, and it could have an extremely detrimental impact on the character of the neighborhood. Wear, Travers & Perkins A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE GLEN LYON BUILDING 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST, SUITE 200 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 JAMES R. WEAR RICI-IN2D D. TRAVERs GREGORY W. PERHINS AMY J.BOATNER SARAH J. BAKER ELIZABETH C. GROSS RUTH B. JOHNSON, counsel VIA HAND DELIVERY January 6, 2006 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Re: Lot 32, Blk. 7, Vail Villa eg Filing Dear Sir/Madam; TELEPHONE: (970) 476-7646 FACSIMILE: (970) 476-7118 E-MAIL weartrav@weartrav.com Enclosed herewith are two Appeal Forms submitted on behalf of our clients, Susan R. Frampton (owner of Lot 34, Blk.7) and H.R. Perot and Margot B. Perot (owner of Lot 31 Blk.7) regarding the approval by the Design Review Board of the separation. request on the above-referenced property. By your signature below you acknowledge receipt of all required documents for the appeal process. If you should require anything further or have any questions regarding the enclosed, we request you contact this office immediately. Very truly yours, 'ERS & PERKINS, P.C. JRW/skg RECEIVED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ~ DAY OF JANUARY, 2006. TO By: J~4N U ~ Zoo ~ T~7~-~®P-69a®~V. Wear, Travers & Perkins A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE GLEN LYON BUILDING 1000 S. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST, SUITE 200 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 JAMES R. WEAR RICHARD D. TRAVERS GREGORY W. PERKINS AMYJ.BOATNER SARAH J. BAKER ELIZABETT-I C. GROSS ------------------ RUT'H B. JOHNSON, counsel' January 10, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVER' Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Re: Lot 32, Blk. 7, Vail Village Filing No. 1 Dear Sir/Madam: TELEPHONE: (970) 476-7646 FACSIMILE: (970) 476-7118 E-MAIL: weartrav@weartrav.com As owner of the lot immediately adjacent to Lot 32, the Design Review Board's decision to allow Lot 32 to build an additional residence on its lot adversely affects my interest and I hereby seek to join the appeal filed by Susan R. Frampton and Margot B. Perot and H.R. Perot on January 6, 2006 in opposition to this decision. I believe that the DRB's approval of the separation request will detrimentally affect the value of my lot by adding density to the area. This approval will also fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. In addition, it will set a dangerous precedent for the neighborhood where anyone can buy or build a primary unit on a lot and then simply claim that "site conditions" require them to build a separate residence on the opposite side of the lot from their primary unit. If you should require anything further from me regarding my request to join the appeal filed in opposition to tl~ie DRB's approval of the separation.request granted to Lot 32, please contact tt~le office of Wear, Travers & Perkins, P.C. Very truly yours, Forest International, LLC, a Colorado limited liability Company, by WEAR, TRAVERS & PERKINS, P.C., it's authorized agent by: Ruth B. Johnso ~. _: NQ~ ~~L , A~~e~~~ F~~~ Department of Community Development 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 Environmental 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: 172SL,~~n '~-e~n-~W ~~~5 ;~r~yal" a,~' -fie. ~.oran-a~ ~ ~ea t,R.es~'.. ~ a n bLt ~l7 ~ ~'eSt ~oa~ " Lo-I- 32 ~ ~i~lo ~.Gc~ ~ ~~: l Vi L ago fir` ~i.~ d . DateofAction/Decision: 1 ~~2-~-1~0~ Board or Staff person rendering action/decision: ~ R~ Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (yes (no) If yes, are you an adjacent property owner? (ey s) no Name of Appellant(s):.. `1U` S CU/1 ~• ~~ClyyU~~151r1 Mailing Address: ~.o, ~r'r~~,u.e,+' ~.7"?C~ -}~Vt~n, C~'> `d ~ ~2b Phone: ~~ `f~ - ~~~~ Physical Address in Vail: i `~t ~P.Ct;V-eX t70-.~ ~R~cx~. Legal Description of Appellant(s) Property in Vail: Lot: 3~lock: ~ Subdivision:VCt~I Vll~l~q-~ ~~1 Appellant(s) Signature(s): 5u~rxtn ~ra~t~bt ~O~~trayears~P~?evk~~s ?.c (Attach 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". 2. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal.. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, intervening barrier). 4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.). ~/^`t~ v ~ i, or other f ~, 909 U 6 ' ~ ~' PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS T0: TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. For Office Use Onf~~: ~~~ C~ Q Date Receiyed_: 1 ~ ~~~ ~ A~~ti~!i~a No:: ~~ J V Planner: Project No.: 1~0 A~~e~~~ F~~i~ - ~= ~ ~- ~ Department of Community Development Q~ ~~ 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 Environmental 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: y ~aQXt'~1 `S 5 ~ r-e ~I ~ 32 Dateof Action/Decision: ~ 2' ~ ~ 2~ ~ ~ Board or Staff person rendering action/decision: ~ ~-.~ Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (yes (no) If yes, are you an adjacent property owner?: (yes (no) Name of Appellant(s): •R • .r~fi aM-~ fi ~ . •~~ Mailing Address:7.0. ~oX a,(D~J~I'-~ pC~~.~ T~ 75i7~.f~ -~~ 0~~ Phone• Physical Address in Vail: ~~ ~eClt,~" ~,JQ,1M 1'~.0~ Legal Description of Appellant(s) Property in Vail: Lot:3~.Block: ~ Subdivision:Vat~ Vl11Qa ~-r~~~ ~i~~~ Appellant(s) Signature(s): ~,r~.~Ferer~' oi.~d Maraca' u"i~ra-'r~,., ~,,c,Ti~,zyu^; pp2,•Y.,,,s;p,c"'2GU8,,Dr~,Pr~r,t~na~-iO„' (Attach 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". 2. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal.. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent properly owners (includin whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, stream, intervening barrier). 4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.). PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS T0: TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. g owners or other .SAN G 6'D(O For office Use Only: Q / ~ T C ~ S l _ ~ _ }~ V J Date Received; •Acavity_,No:: _ _ Planner: ~ Pr~~ert No.: -~~~~ _.. ~~r ~tT ~~ e4p~e~~~ Fs~r~ Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road., Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 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 Environmental 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: ~-~Sl~iO ~~Vlyw ~~rd~S fliDr7~Va~ X15 ~nV~e~-~ ~ ora r~ /Lbt 32~ ~I veil ~ '11a. "fit ~ ~ . .. Dateof Action/Decision: ~ al ~-~-~ ~~ Board or Staff person rendering action/decision: ~7 R Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (ye) (no) If,yes, are you an adjacent property owner? yes (no) Name of Appellant(s): t~v~eS~- L/1}-~Gt,-~-i~ii1~! t-I--C~ `L t/D ~D~n lt~vt~~ ~llh.~~i (,tom., C.S~~"'`~ Mailing Address: ~Jy ~i1t-e.U~r, l1'1~~5 (~~ ~-2,t~.thS ~ ~,C. J~-t{yl° ~lk}lh,o~VlSa~ Ii7UO S~Fvo-n~ge~~-' ` 5u~~4-e eon Phone: ~D •- ~ • (o -~I~ f~ ycut,c;a Yf~S~ Physical Address in Vail: ~•{ ~ ~ r~5~ '~~. Legal Description of Appellant(s) Property in Vail: Lot:33 Blocky Subdivision: UQl1 Vil (~ii>/ ~t f3~ >ci'~ I~ Appellant(s) Signature(s): r~resi- tn}r'i v>,a-ho4~~~1 t_LC:~Q ~c~oruc~~ lltv~t~e.d (t~(~t(,~,~., c.vn-u, ~,~ W~,TrAV~~ l~`~T.t,. C-.~t5 i (Attach a list of signatures if more space is required).Q,~}lnor;zed aye,~+ Ivey: ~ u~> /~ . Am-lirvs-ori~ Submittal Requirements: ,2u-Eh 3, hSvirl 1. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person". 2. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal.. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of property who are the subject of the' appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, stream,. or other intervening barrier). 4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.). PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS T0: TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. For Office Use Onl~,t; Date Received: Fcnv t~/ IVo;: Planner: P~•~;ert iVo . Attachment: C MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Ryan Residence Separation Request: timeline clarification Applicant: Jack and Karen Ryan Planner: Bill Gibson The applicant has submitted a summary of the history of Lot 32 based upon the. Town of Vail files. To clarify, the building permit issued in 1999 was for "2" dwelling units. These "two" units were the proposed primary unit and a Type II Employee Housing Unit which were to be located within the same building structure adjacent to Forest Road. Based upon the Town of Vail files, the applicant did not submit a design review application or building permit ,for the "secondary" uriit contemplated as part of the 1995/1998 separation request. This "secondary" unit along Beaver Dam Road was never approved or constructed; therefore the separation request approval has expired and is now null and void. There is no record of the former property owner executing the required deed restrictions for the Type II EHU.' The Town of Vail files include a February 2002 Town of Vail letter indicating that this "EHU" would be considered a "secondary" unit on the site. This determination effectively precludes the construction of the "secondary" unit contemplated as part of the separation request. The current applicant contends that the former EHU, later determined to be the secondary unit, was .not constructed with kitchen facilities. .Therefore, the EHU/secondary unit is not defined by the Vail Town Code and is.considered to be part of the primary unit on the site. e,._ v~~ . ~~ ~.~h. _ ... _ _ ..,~~.,. , w ., . ~r_v_ A R G H I T£ G T December 20, 2005 Lot 32, Block 7 Vail Village 1St Filing 95 Forest Road RE: Connection of Units on Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing. The existing primary residence embodies the floor plans, architectural flair and quality materials that give the Forest Road neighborhood its prestige. This charm and character is very important to protect when we start to study practical ways to attach the new secondary unit. The layout of the residence has all the main living and.sleeping areas stacked on the east half, with the support functions of garage, mechanical, media grid guest suite making up the west side. The most practical connection zone is therefore the west half (on the north side) for two main reasons: one, connection to the garage gives direct access to parking; and two, the secondary would impact support functions and not the heart of the existing residence made up of the living and sleeping rooms. Another benefit of the west side connection is any outdoor decks and terraces of the secondary would have some separation from the existing primary decks and terraces. The site constraint of the rock outcropping is located in this exact location at the base of the building. The rock outcropping is not only significant in size, but is located near the building foundation. Therefore, the site constraint of the rock outcropping prevents connection to the most practical area of the existing residence. The west end and south side are.not.possible attachment zones because of the property setback lines. The site constraint of a deeded running stream on the east side of the existing residence prevents the secondary unit from being attached on the east end of the building. The last option for connecting the secondary to the existing primary is on the north side of the east half of the building. As stated previously, this is where all the living and sleeping rooms are located and gain egress and natural light. Connection at this location would significantly impact the function and quality of the existing residence: in order to access the secondary unit in this location from the Forest Road side, connection between the primary and garage would be severed; it eliminates egress from multiple bedrooms; it eliminates privacy for decks and terraces off the living and sleeping rooms; and overall it would create two lower quality residences. The parking requirement for the existing primary and the new secondary residences per the development code is seven spaces. This can not be satisfied on the Forest Road side of the building. At present, there is a three car garage and a maximum of three outdoor spaces in front of the garage. Given the location of the main entry; a living terrace over 12'-0" below Forest Road; and drainage,.it is not feasible to locate the necessary seventh parking space on the south side of the property. For all the reasons listed above of not being able to practically locate a parking space on the south end of the property, it is also impractical to get a drive off of Forest Road to the north side of michaeUc~r sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 n: 970.471.6122 H t 7,'E the building. This would destroy all the landscaping, stream beds, and trees around most of the residence. In order to attach the new secondary unit to the existing primary, the parking and access to the secondary should come from the Beaver Dam Road side. Based on the grades and the existing primary residence floor plans, the best solution is to hold the secondary unit as low on the site as possible while maintaining a practical distance from the primary to make the connection. This affords the least amount of impact on the windows and terraces of the primary living spaces while providing the actual physical connection by way of extending the secondary roof to the primary. However, this solution doubles the site impact of the separated secondary proposal. As seen by the orange area in drawing A 1.3,:much of the site is now impacted by trying to. make the connection. The new garage and driveway are necessary for parking and are the same for both scenarios. The construction and grading impacts of the raised secondary for connection purposes are however, a significant increase in site impact. As originally proposed the separated secondary unit is the most site sensitive solution to unifying the property. michael~n~sumanarchitect com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 j 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 8 ] 657 m 970.471.6122 Dec 20 05 10:24a PHIL HOVERSTEN (970) 47 AFFIDA V[7(' OF PHILIP lE-I04rERSTFN STATE OF COLORADO ~ COUNTY.QF EAGLE ) ss, Philip E-ioversten, being o£ sound mind and Iegal age, and first being -sworn upon oath, states and deposes as fu!lows: l- I have personal knowledge o£the facts stated in this affidavit. 2. In 1949 I was the owner of Lot 32 ,Slack 7 Vail Village first Filing, the address of which is 95 Forest Road, Vail, Colorado, and the lot was zoned primary secondary. . 3• A separation request had been granted by the Vail Design Review Board and [he extension of that request was still in effect so that.I could haue built a secondary unit on the lot that could have been accessed from Beaver Dam Road. 4. When the plans and building permit for the now existing ~~esidence were approved by the Town of Vail, the approved separation request was in effect and I could have constructed a separated secondary unit on the lot. ~. Shaeffer Construction built the residence that currently exists there forme attd I chose not Eo build the separated second unit at that time for economic reasons and root becaase of any zoning or regulatory impediments. ti. The granting of the separation request was not based on the house I built on the propcrty_ FURTHER AFFLANT SAY~I'H NOT p.1 PAGE 82/83 1 of 2 •Dec 20 05 10:25a PHIL HOVERSTEN (970) 47 ~^•u~5KUH1J5 Dated this ~-tf day of December, 2005, By: Phili Hov ten STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE ) ss. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Philip Hoversten. ----• daY of December 2005, by (se !} Notary public ~Y commission.exgires: P~2 WAGE 83!@3 2 of Z ~~. ;1- .... _ _ . r._SU.~IAN _ _ , . A R C H I T E C T TRANSMITTAL Date: 11/14/2005 To: Bill Gibson (970) 479.2173 Town of Vail From: Michael Suman, AIA Project: Ryan Residence, Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing Subject: Separation Request Information Enclosed: Plans, Summary, and Supporting information for Separation Request 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 michael @sumanarchitect.com 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970..471.6122 _.._,.~w_..~.__SUMAN.__.~.__.~~.,_._~.__._... A R C H I T E C T 11/8/2005 Bill Gibson Town of Vail (970) 479-2173 RE: 95 Forest Road Dear Bill, I have visited the primary residence at 95 Forest Road to confirm there is not a Secondary Dwelling Unit as defined by having separate and permanent provisions for cooking. Please firid the enclosed photograph and plan documenting the existing conditions. As is illustrated, there is a small under-counter refrigerator, microwave oven and sink that make- up awet bar area only within the Guest Suite. This as-built condition differs from what is in the Town of Vail's record set of approved drawings dated 6/1 /99. Therefore, the Town of Vail files for 95 Forest Road should be updated to reflect the current existence of only one dwelling unit on this property. Regards, Michael Suman, AIA 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 michael(a,sumanarchitect.com 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 .~~~.~.__.~~.SIJ~IAN.M .,...aw. w..,., ..w.w~....:. ~~...,...W..~~_~..w~.,._~n~_.w:~ ~ ,._.:..M ..Ty.._,.~...~..~~~..w~..~..~_~.v .~.~...,~~,.~~..~~.~.,~~~.~.~w..~.. A R C H I T E C T 11/12/2005 Bill Gibson Town of Vail (970) 479-2173 Dear Bill, Below is a Zoning Analysis for Lot 32, Parcel 7, Vail Village l5r Filing including calculations for existing conditions based on TOV record drawings and site confirmations. This reinforces the appropriateness of a separation between the primary and secondary units. Lot Size: .5525 acre = 24;067 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Setbacks: 20' Front 15' Sides 15' Rear Height: 33' Sloped Roofs 30' Flat Roofs Site Coverage: 4,813.4 sq: ft. (20% of Lot area) 3,610.0 sq. ft. (15% of Lot area) Existing Site Coverage = 2,645 sq. ft. GRFA Allowable: 4,600 sq. ft. (10,000 sq. ft./100 x 46) . 1,900 sq. ft. (5,000 sq. ft./ 100 x 38) 1,179 sa. ft. (9,067 sa. ft./ 100 x 13) 7,679 sq. ft. GRFA Allowed per lot size 3,072 sq. ft. Max. GRFA Allowed for Secondary (40%) GRFA Extg Primary: 2,053 sq. ft. 2,452 sq. ft. 1,420 sa. ft. 5,925 sq. ft. 960.8 sq. ft. 4,964 sq. ff. Lower Level Main Level Upper Level Gross GRFA existing for Primary Estimated Basement Credit GRFA of existing Primary unit 2,715 sq. ff GRFA Available for Secondary Unit Garage Spaces: (2) Spaces @ 300 sq. ft. each for each Dwelling Unit 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 michael cr,sumanarchitect.com 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 __ . ~,... ~..w.,K. ,,...r_,..~.~.,.~.w ~~ ..._ ,._..~.. .~.~.~_~.. ARCHITECT r .k._ -~,bw,~,. ~...,s...~, .w ._,.,.,. _ ,.... With the separation approval, we intend to build a 2,700 square foot roughly) secondary unit with a two car garage from the Beaver Dam side of the lot as shown in the enclosed Proposed Site Plan. The new unit will be roughly 1,900 square feet of site coverage. Thank you, Michael Suman, AIA 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 mi chael(a~sumanarchitect.com 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 S.1~1~AAN ~: ~. ._ _. ARCHITECT ' November 12, 2005 Lot 32, Block 7 Vail Village 1St Filing 95 Forest Road RE: The re-approval of a separation request for Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing. 1. Description of Separation Request The applicant is the owner of Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1St filing, which is located at 95 Forest Road and is bordered to the north by Beaver Dam Road. The property is zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential and has a primary unit presently existing on the site. This primary unit is accessed from Forest Road. Due to the presence of significant site constraints, the applicant is requesting the re-approval of a separation request that would allow a secondary unit to be constructed on the north side of the property with access coming from Beaver Dam Road. 2. History and Background A separatiori request was approved for Lot 32 on 6/7/95 by the Town of Vail Design Review Board(DRB) to avoid an existing group of old growth trees; to avoid the natural drainage course along the east side of the property line; and to most sensitively manage the greater than 40% slope of the site. Enclosed for reference is the original Site Development Plan dated 5/1 /95 and DRB action form dated 6/7/95 (Exhibit A). At the time the request was approved there was a different structure on the site than presently exists, which posed practical difficulties for connecting the primary and secondary units. Further into the development of the project it was decided to raise the existing primary unit and cohstruct a new one in it's place. On 8/6/98 the Town of Vail Planning Staff approved an extension of the previously-approved separation request. Enclosed for reference is the Design Review Action Form dated 8/6/98 (Exhibit B). The final proposal incorporated a new primary residence located where the previous structure existed, and a separated secondary residence on the north side of the property. 3. Analysis of Proposal The site constraints on Lot 32 for the previously-approved separation request still exist. In fact, the new primary residence that replaced the original structure creates even more practical difficulties in site planning due to it's location. Connection Scenarios (reference Proposed Site Plan A1.0) West and South The existing primary residence is located along the west and south setback lines. Therefore, it is impossible to connect the new secondary residence in these areas. East On the east side of the existing primary residence there are mature stands of trees; a natural drainage course; grades averaging 50% in slope; retaining walls; and lack of buildable area within michael @sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 . SUMAN ARCHITECT _ ~_. .. _ .. the east setback line, These site constraints make it impractical to connect to the east side of the existing primary residence. North On the north side of the existing primary residence there are mature evergreen trees and grades ranging between 40-50% in slope. It is physically possible to connect the secondary residence to the north side, but practically impossible based on access. Because of the site constraints on the west, south and east of the existing residence as outlined above, the access drive to the parking/garage of the new secondary residence must come off Beaver Dam Road. As illustrated with a heavy blue line in the Proposed Site Section A1.1, the steepest entry driveway allowed by the Development Standards gains approximately 13'-0" of elevation from Beaver Dam Road to the physical connection zone. This is approximately 40'-0" below where the practical location of the connected secondary residence should be located to fit the site. The shaded area represents the excavation that would occur in order to cut the entry drive back to the physical connection zone. Therefore, connection on the north side of the existing primary residence is practically impossible. The approval of the separation request allows the new secondary residence to most sensitively integrate with the existing site conditions. The current proposal is based on the criteria of the previously-approved separation request site development plan with significant improvements: a. The applicant has involved an arborist in order to protect as many healthy trees as possible. b. Using the enclosed arborist report, a path for the driveway was identified with travel around healthy trees and through dead ones, c. The canopy along Beaver Dam Road is protected by maintaining the trees along the road. d. The proposed driveway meets Development Standards, while minimizing retainage. e. The proposed driveway allows the house to sit higher on the site, thus minimizing visual impact along Beaver Dam Road, f. The garage is buried in the ground affording a garden roof and minimal site impact. g. The house is nestled into a clearing in the middle of the site to maintain trees and minimize site impact. h. Soil nailing will be used to reduce site disturbance. The architecture of the proposed secondary residence is illustrated on A1.2. It draws from the materials and forms of the existing primary residence so that the two structures are unified, The scale and attention to detailing support the level of quality consistent with this neighborhood. The separation request on Lot 32 reinforces and fits the character of the neighborhood. The Partial Town of Vail Map (Exhibit C), illustrates the predominance of subdivided property area between roads in the Vail Village 1 S+ and 3~d filings neighborhood. The separation of structures on Lot 32 will be an extension of this character. michael @sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 A R C H I T E C T 4. Approval Criteria :, The applicant is requesting the re-approval of the previously-approved separation request for Lot 32 based on the following criteria: A. A separation request has already been approved and extended for Lot 32. B. The significant site constraints identified in the original separation request still exist, including some additions. C. There are practical difficulties with any form of connection between the existing primary residence and a new secondary residence. D. The re-approval of the separation request for Lot 32 will allow the integration of a secondary residence that minimizes site impact; maintains the most trees; and unifies the site. E. The separation request allows the property to be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. michael @sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 TOWN OF VAIL ~Xy~~~t- A Category Number --- .._.__ Rate .....__.. `~' _ ~~ ~~ f?fi? 2~t Name: ~ ~ ~-~~v'~e..^. ' ~. ~ . :• _ ~ I r - i ^ ~~ J v - --~` '~ Imo' 1 ~~~ r.-~' Building Name: ~'~''_~~ (' . ~~`~ d:"` ~~,~~~,~ C . ,~-~~c.~.c.1 C: ~% Project Description: ~ .~ v -~. ~ ~---r ~~•.;~ l`~Ct ,~/~•.S' I~jt-- r~ ~` Owner, AddrQSS and Phone;-_.~~c?!~; t~~ (`r'i+~ ~ flr:~ __~ ~~Contact, Address anti Prone: ~ __ _ cC ~ ~~~ ~~ Ut%~~~~. ~r ~t~ ~ ~ ~~i J ~~% `~ 7'~ ~- ~ ~'s U Y' ~' C-,' i ,~ Le al Descri Lion: Lot f [ ~ [L 9 A ~ 61ack ~ Subdivision ~'~,~ ~ ~P~-.;~__ ..~5 Zflne pistrct ~ -s Project Street Address: c_•f ,~ f-~, f~' ~~ ~~~' G%~ -- Comments: Ir 8/oard ta#f Action t_.~/ Motion by: ~~~C~ ~ ~~!~tt7 rYt~P1L~~ Vote: a i_ Seconded by: ~-~ t ~' c~ /~o,~-~' ~ .... _.~ Appro+aai ~~ Disapproval !~ 5tafi Approval Conditions: ,_,_ ~.,....s.. _ - __.... ~ ..,.. _- ~. -. f_ ~,,~ ~, - - r {r~. ._ _ .- - . -.. To~,vri Planner Cate: ~' ~ ~--~ dj ~----~~. - DRB Fee Pre-paid,.„ ~'~---'~ I I I j tl It tl 11 't1 t 1 LOT 30 / ! / ~ ~ //// / ~ /I I I t ' i t 1 tt ~ I I I I I f I /! '/ I/ / / I c LOT 31 ron...Fw / I I g It 1 I~`I i l l 11 1 1 1 I l r l ~ l l It r ~ ± // /! ,...~ ~ ~ 1 .',, ~ i I1 I~y if 1 1 I I I I w lrsol a , less.6~ , 1\ ;.,.~. \ 1 I / / / // ///! / //!i/ I I 1 `~ / ~ / ~ ~ / / ! / 1/ / I I ! ~ ~` •.,~1t v 1 11, 1 I I I I _ I I I / I ) !! ~ / .,. ~ / / / / / / / / _L /~ / / ~ / ~ I' t l l I 1 I I i I 1= I f I I...°' i// / / / i/~ /.~.r / j I l I ... i•iw, I I 1 I 1 1.°.~~ I I I I- I I I ~' 1 1 I// ( o.° or / // ~°..~(' `/ J 1 ~w~ ~`~{"t~.' I_ ~•p II '. 1 1 ' •I, I I I I II / I I I li I\ ~ I ~ ~~ // l f i ~~~ ~N j I I ,i I I~ \ I L...b I I I. \\ / / It 11 w I i. ! 1 t. i t I f i t I I I I I! i t / / m i ~ l/ l tut t tm I, ~ 1 1 ~ 1 - r / •>",~/ / / / / / r TOV•COMM,UEV.UEPT. I I I ~ ..,.oql , I I I, ,~ I I.,.°~ 01 ~ I I o~ I i= I 1 1 1 1 t 1 Iw° /. I l r r ~or 3 I I ~'-~~" ` ~ I / i/ ~/ / / ,, •J / r/~ l J,.,... rn l I L 8~ I i I 1 I / 1// 1 I I 11 I I l l a I I \~ // / /, ,., /~~•~' a° ~! rn I I! c I 1 //// l ~~ // I I I i I I I r ~ l / / ,. / M•t is ;~Ij I I I I i ~ I I ~ / / / / / 1 !~ r I' r I ..1 // } r I,,.°.. _~.. / / / - / !' ~:~ ' +ol ~r m L..........y I ~ ' w 1 ~ l / // ~ l / I ! .. 1 / ' ~~ l I /~ 7 ..~.. ,,..• ~ ~\ ! 'l 1 j . I \ I Iwn,..tiR // \f I ~• ..., -t f 1/11 r f Fu~ae a~ev/,,ta~/^{~, ~ / ~ / ~ '" ! e ~ ~ ~ II j .°..% ; el li it 1 1 i ~ •,,~,.°^ ~W,°,~ ~ I i ~ ~ / ~ 1 ~ ~ // r / i ',r~i / /~~ ~ .r / / ~ / ~ / ~,~/ a O ....,I , / 1 / I \ ra<., F,„ I 1 / I f / / l l l 1 ~ q/ l / '~~ 1 , ~ I '~ ~, I/ I/ ~ I / ~ '~,°..~~ ~ rE I 1 /....r 1 1 4'/ / o ,~t~n,~i„ ~ / !~ ~tl2,~ 41 I ~ '! / j~ o I i I I I .°. oca 1 1 1 1 l..... `° q'rvf°rzl /i ~ kw~ d2LTLF11 1 I I! I I ~, I I I .mac "'6:1. '' I I f I / 1/ ' ~~ 13 I/ l I I~ I / I I 1 ei I I I ~ ~~ / t 'I I I r I I I I i' ~ ! I l 1 I I I 1 //. l 1 t/ 1~ y e•~. \ \ `°'~° I I / I I '' I r r l l r i I ...~.; w 1 ,~,,eobF~Je` 11~a~ I I j I I~.°..' //1 0 ~ ~9 1 11 !! f ! f !~ 1 1 1 1 I i 1 '•b.~ l 1~ 1 s~ nntl. I I ri )/ .~ o .•„°I I I r i• ~ 1 / J l t~ 1 K ets ATI ~. 1'~ ~ I _ f I ! I f I ~ 11 ~ , ..,~ ~ I F • I eetwdeu dl ~ ~ ~ - ntF I I I I m / / _I I I I f l I i h I~ / /~ / 1 ~/ ! I ! ,Jaxe~ I I I I // v I ,/ , ~ / /'/ • r ' ~ / / / / l / I r l l 1 + I \ I I r .r erpN,at /'~, I o .~ / / 1 / / I / / / / / / \ \ \ \ t t \ 1 I ~_ I rq~e~+~r.~ do*i~+t11L eo,ioa, / / / / (/ / ! \ ~ \ \ 1 1 IFtr iu nayr ~ { I i,i +' 1 ! gtoK vtyea• / /FeYn ufn~e I / / / / \ ~ \ I I I , wt4n ~_ I I ~ / , 1\ \ \ ~ 1 I I I erge thaol I ~\t 1 i / / ~ ~ / ~t / t l I \1 I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I 1 \ ~...I i t '/ // / E„wa., /~ v-'/ •'ea.l ~ „,,.,,, .o.,~~ \ 1.~ \ 1 I I I. I I I \ 1 I I r ~+ / I t i~~n.m I.. I C I I I 1 I I I I i I I...°r 1 1 1 // /. / r+om.. ..~- mo.:,..1 f I I I I I ( I I I I I I' I I I I I i I I I l l~ l i l// ~ !/~~-- vnFtam ,Fees to F.O.N. I ~ I 1 1: 1 i i~ l ! ! I I i I ( I! I I I I I ( I ~ 'I I I I I I 1 1// I /~/// ro ee Fewcaro of Fewtw ry*, III I,urtrm f ,1r 1 1 1' II I I I 1 I I ~ I I I ~ I1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I//t•10~0et ~/~ ~~ I \~ / i! 1 I 1 1~ I f I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1/ I! ~•e~so° ! 1 1 i J ..Fk ..n. // r, ;, , r ! t / ; , t i ~ I! ~ I r , ! I I ', ,. 1t t, 1 ` 1. 11 1 i ! ! 111 ! 11 I ! I ce:n~b ~• w 1 r l o _~ I /:. ~• ~, >.. ~~ I I I t t 1 1 1 I 11 o .,. ,F, •~„',~+w°tl.l / ; ' e ta•¢o•oo- u - te~.re ~ I I 1 1 1 I t ' / .~'nr..;•~:' la/ 1 r~•,a~,F.,.»,.°e. 1 4 1 t l l l/ •. •= 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 I/ LOT 33 / 1 t I I I/ ~ I I/ SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 ~~ :y°,.., W to 2-> wS (r ~ 0 U w a V a ~ ?•a. ~~ A a z~ U ~ w h N ~ a C~1 d ~ < O H ~ O O a a ~t '`'.~~~ i M... _. .__,'~' T04~,1~ CIF V•;ll,. liesign xeview Acton Form ~f%~-~'pj TOWN QF VA1L Prc>iec.t R•:ltnc: HahFerson Prirnar~•~Secondar~~ Prt~jcct Dcycrircitrn: Extension ofpreviously-approved separation request U~vncr. Ac~cires.r ,Ind Phone': 1{at•in HiL(l~ousc (et al), ~SQ4 L~,~vell St. NV4~', 11'ash U(' 2Q~16 Archit~evC'ont;sct. tlddress and Phone: 'fim Drisko, 143 F. h~learlitw Urivc t;`49k, fait 476-0075 Project Street Ac{dress: 51; ~'orE~st koad Le~,al De.criptic>n: poi 32, Block 7, 'fl'ail ~'i.(lage First r'i[ing Parcel \It~mber; 1~uildin~ vac: C'ornrr~znts: :litplication exterctled until August b, 1999. ' Board / Staff Action ~1~Iotion by: Action: staff approved tiec:ondcd bv; 1''t te: Conditian~: l) if this exiE~nsiort is not acted uponT Ifie apptic~ttinn kvill lie subject to revie~~~ by the Design ltevieti4.13aard before another extension is granted. To~~fn Planner; Rrent ~i'ilson ()t31e: August 6, 199 [)RL~ Fze ['rc-Paicl: $Q.00 F: ~1~I P.1`~~\1?.I?Ri',:'sP?'Rla~'~~!_'.f?h'~,N;1L~''IiRti~?.';:IIC.. ~~ti8ir c TRACT 232 @ g q 142 I 122 ~"Y ~ Holiday House 1 9B 100 100 1 212 182 182 13 < M 387 R ~ I H ARCA01 q 5 VAIL L S D FIUN 44 42 1s FASTAtEgppy ' ~ 352 6 VaIIFire t DF 392 2 ~ 330 33 TRACT B O 62 Talisman Condos @2 ~ 401 ~ y 41 408 Vl lla Cortina 1ST SONNENALP ~ IDGE 3 3@3 363 1 343 333 275 40A 265 223 36 193 37 153 36 123 ~ BAN G , / ra ,~ ga~rarya~ ~/ `\ H use ~ 4 AIL V{ GE 17 5E „ TOT LOT 4bg 3 RO 421 Off` .~R © 9 FIL 23 G 1 24 Vail Chapel 12~ ~ j.•,~` u iver• 5 B~ g 10 19 20A 254 184 27 154 2@ 18 houeE 3 473 4B 1 7 374 354 344 324 274 tI4 2 93 _ 6 394 42 25 26 31 64 63 W1 48 434 1 20 21 2d5 225 185 29 32 1 TR 493 5 3 4 375 425 2 365 355 18 325 265 285 165 30 115 5 H 43 WILLOW RD 4sa VAI E 11 9 @ FAST FOR 33 45 ~ 3s Tha 9 A 1 FIL G 3 Tract 27 8 12 224 186 166 E 6 S7 RO 14 Willows ~ ~ 1 3 307 267 266 146. 5 , @ 74 Ri 8 5 4 3 2 14C 267 126 3 VAII 466 466 424 416 366 330 18 15 227 13 6A BA 7 4 ROgp 298 278 _ 21 197 167. 147. 127 107 9 7 @7 1B 16 1A PARTIAL TOWN OF VAIL MAP >>.8.05 SwUMAN ° .,~ ~r 143 East Meadow Drive michael@sumanarchitec[.com Suite 300 970.479.7502 Vail, CO 81657 f 970.479.7511 OCKLEDGE ROA p CEL C LOCATION OF LOT 32 WITH PROPOSED SUBDIVISION YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS AREAS OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY BETWEEN ROADS m 970.471.6122 keiaowQ/~ Gtkn {~r,~v,~ ~or~ue~r 1 o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~fl \If Ii~~°~ ~~f ~~. ~ ~~ 11 ~ ~ ~ l~1 ~ ~ ~;`~ ~x~es~du~ sr uuf ~l ~~- _ y~~~ ~arf.~l~~l~c lc•~l~lst -t~c~s f; 95 Forest Road ~ o.a.o~ .4~U~AN- 143 ,,.nst <Ncaclow Drivc mi~aet~sumnn~hitea.cmn Suitr 300 470.479.702 Vail, CO 8165 7 / 970A79.751 l ~~ 97o,•r71.6122 Lot 3~, Block 7, Vail Village ~ st Filing Guest Suite Bar Areo °~ i o ~ o N O < w~~ ..F,,. w' ~u•li ~ .. -~ . rr. x e....1. ~ e=i,:. ~ ~~_ ' ~ ~ v J ° '.'/I •s, i ~:lTTi~ +i4iv; lOT 33 m.o n r n m ~~I I I ~ f t ~ I i ~ ~ /~ .6~ 1 ... ry IV JO' n wrt o. .wxx ~arn/q "'rc« w ~~on* tt,aw a II ~ » i'":~: rs"c ucweMO "" cone, n,w yr~eo~x GAYn ~ri':•,~':o~ '-,1 i ~ N i ~ ~ e,., a~ ,~onm~, ~c m ~. ,n , ~ovm;r..~, you • s [ ~~~~,~ ~ S,c,. ~ ,s• 8ai f ~ nw .~ ue~:~~ a:u a.m<~' ew~. Q e.r.~ ~.. 's s~ar » um a wa.un •x wuna+~ .a.nm~rs u. la a ~ ~ ~ './ a.R.a. ,.m asui.ccs ~. ;>.mv.r urn w~ ~~p~ +m ~s*e w .xo ~ ~ j ~ i ~ ® ~e ~ ss ..... ~: wR, ~w i i i. i ~~ , ~.. nrm n Ord,.. ~ ..~. ,aw ~.~~o Nnn~ ttx~w<.. ae. ~ 1 1 .1 1 F o I f ~...a ..~. ,.moa ne.w o.~.ni+ .. o~w.a rK+u ~~ ~ `~ ~ ~ - ' ti-°~'.^ - .110 ~ ~ r~S- i l -Ys': j I f n •• r e . oowa. add,ws +~a ..M •...o. a.ers. ~ i ~' ! ~ .:1 . 3. ~ / ` i o , ~e~0.o ~ ` 1 i i 1 i a° i e ~ ~~ r % ~ o. ~..... m ,~. j 4re9 u,~Wt .., ..,~ das.., ,r r ~ ~ ~4 q r`:'„~'~~~~P~e~ .tee c. ~ ~"row ,..3 iai:a .aM ../ra-f_. PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY' LOT 32, BLOCK 7 VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING TOWN OF VAIL - EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO dea rm. eoz ~ ~ ~ i ~ , I . ~ .. ---..__ _-- I I Ct L~ ci ~ ~ wt` JAB ~~~~ ~ ~ ..,~. ~ -- ~fi~r~ P9~w9 ~~ x +~a~- buke»t !~/f Ill lllli~I'~ ~ II ~ It S ~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN em mac r=+oa Ws Vs ~"_ W° o o = • ~ ~ n ~ ` I ~ aWs I ~ ~ > i Y U O O J LR6 f ~~. .A Cal ~~:: -- r ~ 1 vF ' ~e~ pp .~ti,~ i{ r ~~ ~r~Y4~f. F,~!! ~~.1 r`I', i '_ ,~ ~- ... ~`~`i.°"~vi +~i~` la 4416! Y~~~,' ~{'' ~ ~rF~v°~y4 C(~,3e r ~t ,el- ~~ ~ ~ .. ~~M~~S~n}' ~~~ _ 4' '' ~,hS~LFa'}_~ ~~''~Li^-E~i~,?~'a`~"X.~euS ~~ J~. 3 ~ .~ ~ .. `f~~ ~ t° ~ a ~ *xr-y ~,`4 C~ry..~~ t `s x 4 is ~.4.. EK r with ~. ~~ f? i~ W~+ ~ r ~ r£ ~ y i 1~~, -~'~ l'td' S~' ,'~ "~' ~~eyia 'xj ~1~);C ~ ~.:h'`r" ~ .. ~ - c ~~gi~ik,. ~ ~,.~. _ - ~ e l`~~ T1 ~=}y: ~''~-ay'r~~"~-r+~-~,~~; z }; ~F l r .e~sl a`C ~-. S -~ 4 ,. ~5{{Elc~ r fTM'*. _ f~r~\ , sta. 7 ~ t ~ ~.`~`.. ~i ~x°"Y~ P~ ~'+> t "µr'"~ ~ ._~t. ~-'4 ~ . ,,~~' J`. ~N f~ d~ ~ Tr'ite'` 4• d'' s~ ~y~t sh ~~ ~ '~ ¢ ~`l ~'~. 'rT .1 ~ t wa-'1Yh ~q ~ ~ .~'~, >~ "~i ar~ e ~` ~ t~!y~ ~tw5{,~,~' -+ 4 , w.. . i ~~~ . ~r.bvt;~~g+,W !~„~,a, .~R~''~ ~Y 'r ttl`.ti"'~f`..,,,j~i~<~, ,. ` a. ':,.~~ ~.~ }-- ~ ~ ~ ~ o i ~~~ ~r~i ~r~ ~ ~ ~ :. 1. ~ • ~~ ~ % / ~ ~, .,,..,mow . < ~ o ~ _ - , i .~ " o I ~`-= See - -PR~KIy~%N~ ~8 ~~ ~~ . W°~ ~o W off= ... `W3 =~~ am y'~ ~~ U - 31{~ Gt7wSfi'~tIM~ Zq~G ""x-CONSf/~.G~j'dM%~I.~ZOwG7tYCOgwCC~iieR . ,'' Nr w w M^' ~~ y ,.J~ -~~ --- , .ri ~/ ~ Byj0 --._- -- ~ .- ~_~ , ~~~ ~~ ---- ----( -- - g(ylpFd~3 ' ~01 ---- -._-- --- --- s --- _- -- aT-- .--.- _ ~ r., ~~ 1 ~ -1- gyp~l ---- __ --- ___ - __ - --1 r „ .J t' ~ -.. ..,,may . iw . ~ - ,,II 1--- - -- - --~-- _~~~- .. -- ---- ~ ~_-- ~ -rt ~~~ / ..~_~---. 1 _..:_---- ~-- -- - - .--_ ~~ e - ._ T 41t0--_--- ---- _ _~ -~~ r- $ T ~ - = 410-_-_--_ --- - ---- ---- -- ~^~ -- ~-- _- ~ --- -t - , .~ ~ ~ -T- ---r ~ --~ ~~-- 4-a ri T ~" . ~ _c--,-1 ~ - ~ "_•,~~,. _ _ .~ 4140 --'__'-- '"' ~~~ $'-- ~~ -- -_~-- -- _ ~-~~- -.__.-~- '~ ?.;,,-:~,''- . I f f t r ,~T aT,~ ,rE T~n_ ._ 'CiM•'iMi'Q' ... ---__ -______ r- t -__-~ I ~ ~I ~s~ ~ ?x ~ nu r-~--~ yl 8;C ~ I _ ~ ~Y"~ ° ~ 1 I MK. 61°.~C Av<Mfb kle.(nRy~J.c Y~ "S I ~ ~ ~~ i i ~ ~ ~ ° I I I I ' I ' ~. ww,ra µ«r ~ .1 ~flW~u~~CaNC~iW ta16~ _ ~ :~ ~I" ExuvafiaJRC~~~ ?0"O~ - ' j0~ YA ~ ~, ~frlLJfiNQC1MM'KJED pVfulA/(a ~ ~cvi~S Iti16~1[yAwe 99`.~/d¢ ttHRom ~ PROPOSED SITE SECTION - ~ A1.1 scuE 1' ~ 10'-0' ~~ ~~~ F ;-.. ~ ~~E ~L/t. :I~ WS ~o ~o e.e u W ~ ® u z ~~~p~ n V/` ~a Y r m ~~ I/.~ - -- --- {[~~ Epp N~j ~ FF ;~,~z7 ` {6LS~n ~y'!i'! Vii=. jj ~~ f . .' ~~~ R g t!! 35Y .~ Ws a g z~ w~ t NORTH ELEVATION SKETCH o All ,^• 'NTS C ~ _ K ~ ~ G W m ~ > a a ~u ~m ~~ .~ W .c.;,,, EAST ELEVATION SKETCH - Ail tcuE-NTS - -- - ~ i A112 ~recis~n Zee ~or.~s; November 7, 2005 P.O. 73ox:606 • yai! Eo~orado &:1658 • (970.) 926-3594 Mr. Michael Suman 143 E. Meadow Drive, #300 Vail, CO 81657 Re: Tree Report, 95 Forest Road, Vail Dear Mike, On Wednesday, October 26, 2005, I evaluated a portion of the trees at 95 Forest Road. This report will document my findings, provide you with tree preservation guidelines, and present my recommendations. Assignment 1) Evaluate the condition of existing trees which are in close proximity to the proposed house. 2) Identify dead trees and determine to what extent live existing live trees are at risk of future attack by insects/pathogens. 3) Evaluate impacts of the proposed driveway connecting to Beaver Dam Road. 4) Present tree preservation guidelines for use during the planning and construction phases of the project. Observations & Discussion The site contains mostly large mature conifers. The principle species is Blue spruce, followed by Lodgepole pine and Subalpine fir, in order of prevalence. The majority of trees have not had any major impacts, with the following exceptions: Past disturbances • Adjacent to Beaver Dam road, tree #22C has received and continues to receive heavy mechanical impacts to the north trunk and buttress roots. See "Attachment D". Use of sounding (striking with a mallet to determine wood density) revealed decay in the northeast trunk quadrant. Further testing by increment boring the trunk at a 4-ft height revealed at least a 10-inches section of solid wood. • Previous machinery activity in the center of the lot has caused buttress root damage and moderate-to-significant damage to the basal bark of trees #23, #24 & #25. Construction wounds at the base revealed the loss of bark amounting to 30% trunk circumference on tree #23 and 70% on tree #24, and numerous root collar tears on tree #25. ~~ A SC A ~ ,.~. _ ~~w~:~ a , n rn~s~e Mazk Stelle • Tree #4 is a small dwarfed pine that lost its apical leader (topmost shoot) several years ago. • Located just below the upper existing house, tree #9 exhibits excess fill buildup from prior construction. • This lot contains a total of 6 dead tree stems (3 spruce and 3.pines). Causal agents are Pine engraver beetle (Ips pini) in the pines and suspected root disease in the spruces. A116 dead trees are flagged with orange "Killer Tree" ribbon. Tree Inventory A total of 25 trees are inventoried (see Attachment A). These trees are flagged with a heavy duty, 1-inch wide, green ribbon. The date, tree #, species, trunk diameter, and dripline radius are all written on the ribbon. Surveying inconsistencies: After reviewing the 10/28/05 survey by Eagle Valley Surveying, I had to make another site visit to rectify the discrepancies between their records and my initial site notes. My 11-06-OS follow-up site visit confirmed the accuracy of my initial site notes. Here are the deficiencies in the survey: • Some, but not all of the dead trees were plotted. All 3 dead pine were plotted by the surveyors. However, none of the 3 dead spruce stems were plotted. See "Attachment D". • Tree # 19, measuring as one of the largest trees on the property, and a pivotal tree concerning the driveway placement, was not plotted on the survey. Accordingly, I hand-plotted #19 in its approximate location on the map. Insects & Diseases Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae); abbreviated as MPB. The inventoried pines showed no sign of present or past MPB activity. However, the majority of the massive mountainside browning of conifers above Vail is the result of epidemic levels of MPB attack on Lodgepole pines. MPB has actively attacked Lodgepole pines throughout the neighborhood over the last few years, and the pines on this property are highly susceptible. Spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis); abbreviated as SB. The inventoried spruces show no sign of present or past SB activity. SB only attacks trees from the Picea genus (spruce species). In Eagle County, this insect is present only in endemic levels. At this point in time, the risk of the mature spruce on this property becoming attacked by SB is relatively low. However, the threat of future attack does exist. Page 2 of 5 '1~~/'; . - ~reciszoia ; ~r,ee, v l!orks, I\ Engraver beetles (Ips spp.) Pines: Whereas MPB is a primary invader of pines, in this region Ips pini is generally a less virulent secondary invader. Ips pini often attacks smaller, understory and suppressed pines. It is also common to see attack initiating in the tree top, only killing the top. However, on this site, the 3 pines exhibiting attack resulting in death of the whole tree. Spruce: Although spruce is susceptible to its own species of engraver beetle (Ips hunteri), the presence of this insect in western Eagle County is very rare. The 3 dead spruces on the site did not exhibit any signs of this bark beetle. However, a definitive diagnosis cannot be obtained until the trees are felled, in order to inspect the tops. Root disease Conifers on this site are susceptible to a whole host of parasitic root diseases. Although root disease is the suspected cause of death in the 3 spruces on this site, no fructification (fruiting bodies) was detected. Further testing by lab analysis was not performed, since it is generally not practical to attempt control of soil-borne pathogens. Needle scale Needle scale is a small armored scale insect that feeds on needles. In recent years, conifers in this neighborhood have seen an explosion of needle scale populations. While this insect generally does not kill a tree, heavy populations can significantly defoliate the crown, resulting in a sparse and seedy appearance. The intensity of infection on this site ranges from moderate to heavy. Proposed driveway As I understand, the proposed driveway will run between trees #21 & #22A, with the proposal to save both trees. The width between these trees, along a fairly steep grade, is 24 feet from root collar to root collar. Tree # 21 is by far, the larger and healthier of the two trees. Unfortunately, tree # 21, being on the uphill side, would also undergo the most root loss. When faced with these parameters, I generally recommend removing the weaker tree to lessen the impact to the healthier tree. A better idea of the impacts to these trees is gained by exploratory excavation before site plans are finalized. Construction disturbance limits For planning purposes, a tree's dripline is generally used as the limit of construction disturbance. However, there are a number of factors suggesting that a tree's dripline may not be a sufficient limit to avoid irreversible tree decline and loss of structural stability. • The heights of these trees are above average. Due to additional wind leverage, the health of lateral roots and associated sinker roots becomes more critical to stability. • The larger size of buttress roots on this site implies that surface root diameters at the dripline will be larger than normal. Page 3 of S ": ~> ~, • Lastly, and perhaps most significant, is the fact that narrow crown diameters (resultant from greater tree density) on this site do not accurately reflect the critical root zone. In many cases, the critical root zone extends 1.5 times the.drip radius. Saving the critical root zone gives the tree a reasonable chance of survival. Conclusion Structurally weak trees Dead trees: A116 dead trees should be removed before any work is initiated on site. Tree #22C, has been weakened by past abuse. However, test results revealed that removal is not justified at this time. Tree #23 exhibits a 30% (circumference) trunk wound at the base, but this alone does not justify removal. However, if exploratory excavation reveals significant root loss as well, possible. removal will need to be re-assessed. Tree #24 exhibits a 70% (circumference) trunk wound at the base. This extent of damage on the windward side justifies removal. Tree #25 exhibits numerous machinery-related. gouges to the windward root collar. The tree also exhibits a genetic defect at a 50-ft height referred to as included bark with codominant stems. This defect predisposes this tree to wind-related structural failure. Tree inventory, map & survey Locations of trees are depicted on the map in "Attachment D". Inventory details are listed in "Attachment A". Tree #19 is missing from the 10/28/05 survey. Insects & Spraying The presence of needle scale in the foliage of all conifers and the threat of bark beetle attack justifies the start of an annual tree spraying program. Driveway Impacts & disturbance limits Given the extent of slope and the close proximity of large trees, the proposed driveway may have significant long-term impacts upon adjacent trees. Limits of disturbance amounting to 1.5 times the drip radius would not allow for driveway construction. Exploratory excavation will shed more light on the most reasonable location for the driveway and whether any associated trees are recommended for removal. Page4of5 ... .. ti' Tree preservation guidelines If long-term tree preservation is a priority, the guidelines are an important document for the construction company to follow and should be a part of the contract.. See "Attachment B". Recommendations 1) Remove 6 dead trees, tree #24, and tree#25. 2) Carefully remove (hand-shoveling by laborers) all excess fill within the dripline of tree #9. 3) Eagle Valley Surveying should add tree #19 and accurately plot its location. 4) Contract annual preventive spraying for both Spruce beetle (May 15th deadline) and Mountain Pine Beetle (July 1st deadline). Contract treatment spray for needle scale (window of June 1St to June 15th) 5) Prior to designing driveway, schedule exploratory excavation to determine acceptable limits of disturbance. 6) Prior designing size and dimensions of house and hardscapes, schedule exploratory excavation adjacent to critical "save" trees. 7) Retain a consulting arborist throughout the pre-construction,' construction and landscape construction phases. Monitoring the excavation phase is particularly critical. If you or the property owner need clarification of this report or have any further questions, I will look forward to your call. I look forward to assisting you with tree management issues throughout all phases of this project. Sincerely, Mark Stelle, Registered Consulting Arborist Enclosures Attachment A: Tree inventory (1 page) Attachment B: Tree Preservation Guidelines (4 pages) Attachment C: Limiting Conditions (1 page) Attachment D: Site map (1 page) Page 5 of 5 Attachment A Tree Inventory - Suman Report By Mark Stelle, Registered Consulting Arborist November 7. 2005 ~~`TrE~c # - Species - - Diameter (inches * ~~_ Drip radius ~ fleet ~' ~ ('onclition & ether ci~nunents 1 Blues ruce 20.0 10 _ Avera e 2 Subalpine fir 12.0 7 Average 3 Blues ruce 25.0 15 Average. Bottom 1/3 of crown is ve s arse on west side 4 Lodgepole pine 5.0 N/A Poor. Porcupine killed to several years ago. New to growth is horizontal. 5 Lod a ole ine 9.0 8 Avera e 6 Lodge ole ine 12.0 15 Avera e 7 Lodge ole ine 13.0 12 Average 8 Blue spruce 23.0 13 Avera e. Almost a full crown 360° down to ound. 9 Lodge ole ine 14.0 14 Average. Prior construction wounds (30% circumference .Excess soil on u hill. 10 Blues race 18.0 14 Avera e. Minor excess construction-related fill. One-side crown. S arse on west side. 11 Lod a ole ine 12.5 7 Avera e 12 Blues ruce 6.5 8 Above avera e. Branches extend to ound. 13 Lod e ole ine 16.0 9 Avera e 14 Lodge ole ine 12.0 13 Average 15 Lod e ole ine 5.5 5 Poor. Ve su ressed. Viable branches onl at ve to . 16 Blues ruce 21.0 15 Average. Hea branch load to NE. Sli ht lean to NE, but to '/2 of trunk exhibits eotro ism. 17 Blues ruce 12.0 14 Poor. Heavil su ressed b tree #18. Most of lower and mid branches are dead. 18 Blues race 20.0 12 Below average. Hea south lean. Ma'or crook to the east. No si s of root heavin detected. 19 Blues ruce 23.0 13 Avera e. Sli ht lean and crook to the SE. Ma'or buttress roots to the east. 20 Blues ruce 5.5 8 Below average. 90% of crown is on..west side 21 Blues ruce 23.0 13 Average. Slight E/NE lean. Lower 1/3 of branches are dead. Buttress roots oint to W & SE. 22A Blues ruce 13.0 11 Stems A, B, & C are all separate trees, but are likely connected by root grafts. A113 have sparsely foliated 22B Blues ruce 14.0 11 crowns. Stems A and B are below average condition. Stem C is in poor condition. Stem A leans slightly 22C Blue spruce 18.0 12 toward tree #21. Stem B has slight SE lean. Stem C has slight north lean. The root collar of stem C is only 4 feet from pavement. Stem C exhibits numerous buttress root wounds and a one square foot snowplow wound on the trunk at a 4-ft ht. 23 Blues race 16.0 12 Below avera e. Prior construction wound 30% trunk circumference on west side at trunk base. 24 Blues ruce 17.0 14 Poor. Prior construction wound 70% trunk circumference . Predis osed to failure. 25 Lodge ole ine 15.5 13 Poor. NE bark wounds. Root collar ouges. Codominant stems weak attachment at 50-ft hei ht. Trun k diameters. taken at 4S ft ahnve arar ~e_ are rnnnc~e~ to the nearPSt 5 inch ** Drip radius is rounded to the nearest foot. Page 1 of 1 Attachment ~ Tree Preservation Guidelines - Suman Report By Mark Stel.le, Registered Consulting Arborist November 7. 2005 ROOT ZONE PROTECTION Protection of the critical root zone is essential to insure long-term health and survival of the tree. Soil compaction can be just as damaging as root cutting and root removal. To protect the critical root zone from excavation and compaction, a fence should be erected before the onset of any topsoil removal from the site. The will provide a much needed physical barrier throughout the construction and landscape construction process. This physical barrier protects against adverse impacts such as excavation, trenching, machinery traffic, and attempts to temporarily store building materials. Fencing: An improperly installed tree protection fence is as good as no fence at all. Specifications are as follows: The fence should be installed at the dripline of all save- trees, aminimum of 6' tall, and installed with "T" posts on 4' centers. The fence should remain, undisturbed throughout general construction and initial landscape construction. Fencing Alternative: Should the fence require temporary disassembly for temporary access, a consulting arborist should be contacted to approve alternative trunk/root protection. The trunk can then be protected as specified in the "Trunk Protection" segment of this report. Mulching: If not already mulched, all save-trees should be mulched before initial site excavation. The mulch layer should be 3" to 4" thick and cover the entire critical root zone (from the trunk to the dripline). The material can be wood chips, bark, or straw. Benefits are as follows: • Reduce evaporation of ground moisture. • Reduce eroding effects of supplemental water. • Moderate soil temperature. • Mitigate soil compaction. • Recycle trace amounts of nutrients (only a benefit of organic mulch). Construction Material Storage & Dumping: The critical root zone (area within dripline) should be void of stored materials. In addition, storage (even temporary) of any fuel/oil containers, or other chemical contaminants within 20 feet of the dripline of any significant save-tree should be strictly prohibited. Once spilled liquids contaminate the root zone, remedial leaching procedures become extremely expensive and chemical uptake by the root system often results in irreversible tree decline. Page 1 of 4 . Attachment B Tree Preservation Guidelines - Suman Report By Mark Stelle, Registered Consulting Arborist November 7, 2005 TRUNK & BRANCH PROTECTION All tree trunks that are subject to runaway boulders or scraping from machinery should be encircled with straw bales. The bales should be positioned vertically around the entire trunk perimeter and tightly bound with twine. Under no circumstances should wire/string encircle the trunk directly against the tree bark. Straw bales will also protect any exposed root collars'. Where possible all branches adjacent to constant machinery traffic should be identified by the general contractor/excavating contractor and pruned or tied out of harms way by an arborist. The tree inventory identifies several trees on this project that need professional pruning to allow for vehicle access and minimize unwanted branch tearing. EXCAVATION When removing topsoil, to the extent possible, all excavation adjacent to the root zone should be cut radially away from the trunk. The operator's machine should always be facing the trunk when the shovel severs the root. This procedure minimizes damage to the residual root system. Exploratory Excavation: This is a procedure for determining the actual location, size, and volume of roots before the excavator operator disturbs topsoil adjacent to the dripline of a significant save-tree. This procedure must be monitored by a consulting arborist. Root pruning: Prior to machine excavation cuts, apre-excavation hand-dug trench will reveal critical artery roots which can be sawn by hand to minimize damage to the residual root system. Onsite monitoring and root pruning by a consulting arborist is suggested at this point. Any time a soil cut remains exposed to the sun for an extended period, the cut should be covered with a porous protective barrier such as landscape fabric, burlap, or plywood. Tree & Stump Removal: Trees scheduled for removal that located adjacent to the dripline of save-trees should not be toppled by an excavator. Rather, removal-trees located adjacent to save-trees should be felled by an experienced arborist, and the stumps should be sawn flush to the ground or treated with a stump grinder, leaving the stump's root wadi and adjacent save-tree roots undisturbed. 'Root collar (root flare or root crown) - A point at tree base where the roots and trunk merge. 2 Root wad -The mass of soil and large structural roots immediately below the trunk. Page 2 of 4 Attachment ~ Tree Preservation Guidelines - Suman Report By Mark Stelle, Registered Consulting Arborist November 7, 2005 Excess Soil Storage: Excess soil should not be stored (even temporarily) within the dripline of any save- . tree. The adverse effects of this excess soil are as follows: • Compaction irreparably damages the critical root zone by inhibiting critical gas exchange and water percolation. • Compaction often kills beneficial soil microbes that are associated with root health. The cleanup process of removing excess soil by machines often introduces further physical damage to surface roots. If temporary placement of fill soil within the dripline of a tree becomes absolutely unavoidable, there are two prudent protective measures. . • Encircle the trunk with vertically place straw bales. • Cover entire area inside the dripline with landscape fabric prior to adding fill dirt. Aeration System: If permanently adding extra soil over the root zone becomes an unavoidable option, an adequate aeration system should first be designed and installed under the guidance of a consulting arborist. Once an aeration system and trunk protection has been installed, the excavator may commence with the addition of fill dirt. Soil Retention: Any time a proposed excavation cut and the associated over-cut would violate the dripline, vertical shoring such as soil nailing should be considered. Water Stress Mitigation: A tree on a construction site can become water-stressed from several influences. • Physical root damage or destruction. • Increased exposure from the drying effects of sun upon soil and foliage. • Reduced availability of ground water, due to the wicking effects of an exposed hillside excavation cut. • Soil compaction can adversely affect the availability of rainwater Supplemental Watering: Supplemental watering of all critical save-trees during this construction project should be scheduled. Prior to initial excavation, a supplemental water source should be secured. If hydrant water is not immediately available on the site prior to construction, a water truck should be scheduled. Page 3 of 4 Attachment B Tree Preservation Guidelines - Suman Report By Mark Stelle, Registered Consulting Arborist November 7, 2005 Water Frequency. and Volume: This is a customized program which varies greatly between each tree depending upon size, slope, exposure, and weather patterns of a given month. Specific needs must be monitored by the consulting arborist at the time of initial excavation. SUBCONTRACTOR BIDDING SPECIFICATIONS The roles of a consulting arborist are to review proposed impacts to save-tree candidates, provide guidance, and to monitor (dependant upon the project budget) construction impacts. The creation of tree preservation guidelines is an important step in a tree preservation program. However, the people truly hired to save trees are the contractors and subcontractors who are onsite every day. In addition to denoting on all future site plans the physical location of the tree protection fence, the bidding prospectus for all subcontractors, particularly excavators, should clearly reference the "off limits" tree protection zone. This is absolutely essential since the positioning of the fence limits the size of machinery allowable, the access for backfilling, scaffolding size, and general working space between the structure and the tree dripline. Subcontractors must understand that the tree protection fence must remain unaltered throughout the construction and landscape construction process. Page 4 of 4 Attachment C Suman Report November 7. 2005 Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Due to the limitations of the assignment, not all trees on this site were evaluated. The only trees evaluated were those within the corridors identified by Mike Suman on October 6, 2005 and numbered on the map "Attachment D" of this report. 2. The scope of this report is limited to the trees and conditions specifically mentioned in this report. Mark Stelle (consultant) and Precision Tree Works assume no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. The consultant assumes no responsibility to report on the conditions of any tree not specifically requested by the. named client. All inspections were limited to visual examination of accessible parts, without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, boring or other invasive procedures, unless otherwise noted in the report. 4. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that further problems or deficiencies of residual trees may not arise in the future. 5. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. 6. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. 7. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Page 1 of 1 Attachment D Site Map Tree Number Designations - Suman Report By Mark Stelle, Registered .Consulting Arborist November 7, 2005 $~+ •~ ~k~ --r-- g8 ^ ~:: '~ r tl ~i t': Y:`. a 4 ,~ . a N '/ '~ V -__:_ • i yy Y ~ - t ~ ri-} - d;,; ,:: ~ : ,_ ~= ", 1 i. , ~ ^p ~'" t 7 ' . .lei-'. ,-•-~\ R .. `_~~- ~ . ` ~.~_ :~ ~. .. z`~'>`i~~.. 1 ~.~_... r;` F',.;`: I 4.1 '. fit / M~~P "~ ~ s ~,~i ! ~ .. a.,..... ;..~ -. c - ;,; . =~- - -'""'i-~ _ _ - `. Irr., ..-,. - - -- ~..' e~'ithi'-- _ _ lY-~~~ _ \\\ ~-_... - _ I ' ..-.. -`_~ ~- __-~•~_~- 1 ~ v ~' _ _. -- - e -- j ~ ;:,lip.:.. ~. , ~1 ~ ; ~ 15 . ~~ e -'.4 ~ ':'.1' jl ~?''~ ...` C I , 6~4 ~' 6.-~ :1 t' ~1 ,5 ' ` pad p ~~ ®~~ ~-`---- _ _ ; F~he F t1 „,.~. 'll l~~• ~,.. Jn .t b C ~~ 8 b " ~ ~ ~~sE ~ ~ £6;~~ ~~gaa ~ ~ `~fi~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3@s~n S ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ s~~~ a lF~ .. ; ~ A Pq ~°~~ ~ g a ~€@@ ~ ~ r ~~ i a ~ ~~ ~P ~ Attachment: D CHAPMAN, DRISKO AND BISHOP, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Bruce D. Chapman Of Counsel Timothy j. Drisko David F. Rock Ann Reilly Bishop (Admitted in Colorado April 10, 1994 and Georgia) M. Barry Leitz (Federal Tax Matten- ToWn Of Vall ~ Admitted in Georgia) Design Review Board Vail, CO 81.657 RE: Application for conceptual analysis by DRB for physical separation of Primary/Secondary units due to significant site constraints. Dear DRB, . Pursuant to section 18.54.050 I (1) "Design Guidelines" of the TOV zoning ordinances, because of significant site constraints on lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, an application has been filed for a conceptual evaluation of the feasibility of separation of the primary and secondary units. The Halvorsons desire.to sell the rights to the secondary unit on their property. There is existing an older home on the lot which will remain the primary side. Because of a running stream on the east side of the existing house and rock outcroppings on the west side of the existing house, there exists significant constraints to building an attached secondary side to this home. Therefore we would like the DRB to look into a possible. separation of the units with an entry off Beaver Dam Road to access the secondary unit . The existing primary side would continue to be accessed off Forest Road. The Halvorson's architect, Steve Riden, is' drafting a site plan of the proposed secondary unit with access off Beaver Dam Road. This will be filed with you within two days.. The lot extends between Forest Road and Beaver Dam road on the south side of the lot.. There is'good access off Beaver Dam Road to the proposed secondary unit. At this time only a site plan is being presented because detailed elevations of the proposed unit may not be necessary until there is conditional approval of the concept by the DRB. I will be present at the. May 3, 1995 meeting to present the proposal. Very Trul Yours, ~-~_ Tim Drisko - j:\wpd oc\Itrstjdld rb2477.1 143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 498 Vail, Colorado.81657 Telephone: (303) 476-0075 Facsimile: (303) 476-0078 rovlaad 8/17/94 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION -TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADp DATE RECEIVED: RECD APR 1 0 1995 DATE OF DRB MEETING: xrr*,r,******.I,,:, , INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS MAY`NOT BE1SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW. ,r ,r****«**,r I. PROJECT INFORMATION; A. DESCRIPTION: a lication is for _a conceptual approval to a ation of units in a primary secon ary zone nstraints. B. TYPE OF REVIEW: New Construction ($200.00) Minor Alteration ($20.00) Addition ($50.00) _~Conceptual Review ($0) ~-'. ADDRESS: QR 'Fnrc~} R A \7 '~ (`nlnrarin R1Fr,7 ' , D, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: >Lot 32 Block _7.. Subdivision Va~ill_aae. First fling If property is described by a meets and bounds legal description, please provide on a separate sheet and attach to this application, E.. ZONING: Primarv/Secondarv F. NAME OF APPLICANT: Thor Halvorson Karin Hillhouse Si rid Free 'e Mailing Address: 3500 Lowell Street NW, Washin ton DC 20016 Phone 202-662-5432 G. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Tim Drisko Mailing Address:_ Chapman, Drisko & Bishop, LLC 143 E. Meadow Dr., ~F4y8 Vail CO 81657 Phone 303-476-0075 H. NAME OF OWNER(S): Tho/r Halvorson, Karin Hillhouse, 5i rid Free 'e OWNER(S) SIGNATURE• ( $.P ~~IIn~..~nr, o g.Q~ Mailing Address: 3500 Lowell Street NW; Washington DC 20016 Phone ~m_~~~_~Q~~ APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED WITHOUT OWNER'S SIGNATURE I. Condominium Approval if applicable. J. DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at the .time of submittal of the DRB application. Later, when applying for a building permit, please identify the accurate valuation of the proposal. The Town of Vail will adjust the fee according to the table below, to ensure the correct fee is paid. FEE PAID: $ CHECK #- DATE gy FEE SCHEDULE: VALUATION FEE $ 0 - $ 10,000 $ 20.00 $ 10,001 - $ 50,000 $ 50.00 $ 50,001 - $ 150,000 $100.00 $150,001 - $ 500,000 $200.00 $500,001 - $1,000,000 $400.00 $ Over $1,000,000 $500.00 DESIGN .REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL EXPIRES ONE YEAR AFTER FINAL APPROVAL UNLESS A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION IS STARTED. 1 . ~~ ~7,Y TOWN OF VAIL 7 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 TM August 14, 1998 NLr. Mark Cadmus Brandess-Cadmus Real Estate , 281 Bridge Street ~ , Vail, CO 81657 Re: Lnt 3z, Blnck 7, Vail Village 1st Filing Dear Mr. Cadmus, On August 6th of this year; the Town of Vail Department of Community Development granted an extension of apreviously-approved separation request for the primacy/secondary residence located at 95 .Forest Road. This approval was extended due to the physical constraints existing on the property and it may be transfeiYed to a future owner. Please be advised, however, that the extension deadline (August 6th, 1999) will remain in place regardless of ownership. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at (970) 479-2128. Sincerely, Brent Wilson Planning Liaison Officer ~~ RECYCLED PAPER Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects, P.~: ~- . 201 Gore Greek Drive 970 476-2201 Vail, Colorado 81657 FAX 476-7491 Town of Vail 12/11 /.9.8 Dept. of Community Development 100 So. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 R.E.:Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing (95 Forest Road) To planning staff: The owner of the above ,referenced property would like to request the inclusion of a Type II EHU into the plan of a proposed primary/sec- ondary zoned property. At .present, an existing dwelling(to be removed) is located on the property. Built in the late sixties and without a garage or reasonable square footage; the .building is to be removed. In its place, the owner is proposing(already with the PEC approval) a split primary and secondary residence development. As part of the ,primary residence, the owner is requesting a 485(approximate) square foot one bedroom Type II EHU apartment. As shown on the attached drawings, the EHU is an isolated unit with an independent exterior stair. Also shown as part of the proposal is a 3 car garage (allowing 1 space for dedicated interior parking per section 18.57.020 (A) of the T.O.V. zoning code.) As part of this request is a required review and approval by the T.O.V, PEC. As with other properties in the Forest Road/ Beaver Dam Road area, this provides the property owner of the primary residence to have on-site caretaker availability. Consistent with the Town of Vail development objectives, this provides for the opportunity of employee housing as part of the residential fabric of the neighborhood. Because of the units' location on Forest Road, it is within walking distance to most services, therefore, not burdening the valley infrastructure. By providing both garage and on-site parking, it allows the existing parking(in the Forest Road R.O.W.)to be removed and improve.traffic, snow removal, and pedestrian safety. H, FEE -SEETHE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROPRIATE FEE. SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. Fnr flfficr rise OnIY: Fec Paid: Ck#: By' ~ _ ~/ - `t9 PEC Meeting Date: Application Date: Rcviacd 6/96 = a~z TO~JN OF vAll ONSTR~CTION ~~RMIT AR ,ICATION FORM 1NF~JRMATION Mi1ST BE CaMPLETE OR TIE APPLICATION WILL BE REJECTED Contact the Eagle County Assessors Office at 970-328-8640 for Parcel # Date: C 2.l Permit # ~q - 013q ' ., Job Name: Building (~ Legal Description: Owners Name: Architect: "JY1st~ Description of Job: Job. Address: ~~~'~y~S ~ ~v~ Plumbing ( ) :Qt ~2 Block L i N.oh 1~-/'D~lll~/. ~ Electrical ( ) Mechanical ( ) Other ( ) _ Filing V V ~ Subdivision ~~ ~ . l_.O , Address: ~ni ~ [.t - ~c V' j~ ~ `~5c. ~ ~ Phone# ~1'1~ 8 8 2 `~ Address: _ 20( Ua"t C v~e2G ~f Phone# 7 ZZ ° 4 < <_ Work Class: New (,~ Alteration (•) Additional ( ) Repair ( ) Other ( ) Number of Dwelling Units: ~ >7 ~" ~ r~~, y.J /~o,~,~Number of Accommodation Units: G Number and Type of Fireplaces: Gas Appliances ~, Ga~Logs ~ Wood/Pellet VALUATIONS BUILDING: $_ _~) ~~~~ Dd~' ELECTRICAL: $ .PLUMBING $ MECHANICAL $ ~TIO Zvi ~ rru - i General Contractor: ~ ~ G~3,~~Q , Town of Vail Registration No. ! 2,~ ~ (~ Elextrical Contractor: Town of Vail Registration No. Plumbing Contractor: Town of Vail Registration No. Mechanical Contractor: Address: OTHER: $ TOTAL $ Phone #_ 8 ~'rJ S l~ 5 Ce 3 g Address: Phone #_ Address: Phone # Address: Town of Vail Registration No. Phone # ®a~e Receive FOR OFFICE USE N ~; 1999 TYPE GROUP SQ. FT. VALUATION BUILDING: SIGNATURE: ZONING: .~~,~rt.Jrc~ SIGNATURE:~~„ ~,~~rc~r~ CLEAN UP DEPOSIT REFUND TO: _ ; ~ A~ TOWN OF VAIL (% Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 F,QX 970-479-2452 www. ci. vail. co, us Memorandum To: Legal File -Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing From: George Ruther, Chief of Planning Date: February 21, 2002 Re: Development History of the Primary/Secondary Residence The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the recent development history of Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. According to information contained in the file, a separation request of a primary/secondary residence was approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The intent of this request was to save a stand of existing vegetation on the property and to allow access to the site from Forest Road and Beaver Dam Road. The separation request was approved in 1995: This development configuration was never constructed. The approval has lapsed and become null and void. In 1999, a revised set of plans was approved by the Design Review Board. This set of plans did not include a separated structure. Instead, the plans showed a primary residence with a second dwelling unit that was intended to be a Type II EHU. A conditional use permit for this EHU had been approved by the PEC. The conditional use permit was required and a deed restriction was to have been recorded to allow the "third" unit on the site. Staff has concluded that deed restriction is not required. The allowable density on the lot is two units with the availability of a Type II EHU. The constructed residence is a primary/secondary residence. The third unit was never constructed. The development complies with zoning as a primary/secondary residence. A third unit could only be constructed if a new conditional use permit were approved and a deed restriction were recorded. ~a RECYCLED PAPER Attachment E Design Review Board, December 21, 2005 Re: Ryan Separation Request Margaret: We have reviewed the letters submitted by the neighbors, have looked at the plans and listened to the arguments of both parties ......... Voice: ......we have not set a precedent ........... this is not the first one... I know this is very sensitive and that's why I've asked licensed professionals to come in and answer the questions. That word keeps coming up and ... Margaret: Precedents is something that we are concerned with on the Board and it comes up frequently and people come in and say, for example, we want to put up a fence, and you let this guy put up a fence and you let that guy put up a fence so you should let us put up a fence as well, and what I wanted to say about this case is essentially two things. First of .all, we always review every. application thats on there and so, although precedent is important in the sense of maintaining consistency of our decisions overall, the circumstance of each particular application is such that we will judge the application based upon the facts that are presented to us in that application, and so I'm not terribly concerned about precedent per se as being something we should use to deny this application. Second of all, at our last meeting we actually looked at a .................. survey -:'the address map - ........ .... - it showed all the lots .................. my recollection of that address map showed the neighborhood, and in fact many of the lots in that neighborhood are in fact ( ? ) ~to the house in the Forest Road side as well as on the side, an so by having a split Primary/Secondary on this lot, contrary to being, setting a precedent that would be negative, I think in fact it makes it very consistent with the way houses are constructed in that neighborhood. So .I don't believe this is going to set a negative precedent which is a concern that was addressed by Mr. Perot and also one that was presented by Mr. Frampton. Mr. Frampton also urges us to apply the most stringent requirements .before allowing the separation agreement, that's something I also want to address. The statute here that we are about to follow; requires that Primary/Secondary developments be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with a unified site development and the part you're most concerned about says that dwelling units and garages be designed with a single structure, except for, as set forth in the 2nd paragraph which provides exceptions to the general rule, so we come to this with the presumption against separation agreements. And it is your burden, ah, that is what I'm looking for, .......... (inaudible) there are only two halves that are basically one building as opposed to two. This is a matter of ................. the burden that you have, is to show us that there are significant site constraints, one, and two, that the site constraints create practical. difficulties, and you maintain a unified structure. In my opinion, you have shown that. Now everyone gets to say their peace. You get to respond and then we'll give you. a ruling. But the thing I looked at primarily which is extremely important to me is that you went and did your homework on this and you found that in fact the prior separation agreement that was in effect did allow the prior owner to build a secondary unit separated from the primary unit. My primary concern at last session was that, it would be easy to circumvent the rule by having someone come in and build a house and then come in to us and saying Ican't - I want a separation agreement because I have this house which is an existing structure which significantly impedes my ability to develop the lot as a single unit, and that, basically that if kind of thing happened, it would have completely wiped out our rule. But because in fact, the original owner could have built a structure at the lower end of your lot, based upon the separation agreement, I'm convinced that this was not the situation where the house was built in order for you to say I want a separation agreement, because it's also true what Mr. Perot and Mr. Frampton have said, that the property could be more valuable when you've got .two separate; dwellings, then you've got a duplex in the traditional sense of the duplex. The site constraints that were present the first time around are still there. The rock outcroppings and the stream haven't changed. We've had people come in and asked for separation requests and in fact have moved streams and created obstacles in order to create their own reason for a separation request and we routinely deny that. On this lot, however, the lot has, and has had for 100 years, the rock outcroppings and the stream. And so these are not something that you've created to create your own problem. And I think that they are, that they meet the first requirement which is a significant site constraint. The second prong of this test however, is whether that significant site constraint creates practical difficulties in site planning and you know you almost did too good a job. I cannot visualize a secondary unit actually at that location that could have been built in the way that you describe it, I understand it and so you know, this made me think maybe you can do that. Mike Suman: It shows on there but it's not practical to build it. .Margaret: The reason that I think it's impractical in fact that you would have to remove so many more trees and you would have a negative impact on the entire lot by doing this rather than putting the house on the lower end of the property. (Inaudible talking) Margaret: But I do believe with respect to the lot, the impact on the lot would be so much more significant by doing that, than -putting the lot down where you propose it, that I think it it's probably the best thing for this particular lot is to go ahead and build the secondary unit on the Beaver Dam side, as you had originally proposed.. In order to achieve, however, the architecturally integrated structure requirement of the statue, we are going to look very closely at the design of the building and make sure that it is consistent with the design of the existing home, which is really a beautiful design, and, we're going to be very clear that we're going to expect a unified design as well as unified landscape plan. So, when you come back at that stage, this is something we're going to look verb{: closely at, and of course we're going to want to see the landscape plan and we want you to try and save as many trees as you cari in this whole process. Sherry: I basically agree, first of all, that these are significant constraints, that it's impractical to try and work around them by attaching the units. In saying that, I want to point out particular impracticalities: the steepness of the slope, the extent of cut fill that would be required to get up high enough from the lower road to park, the accesses are awful. In my mind, trying to, it would be a an intolerable burden on the owner of the primary residence to ask him to attach it and essentially change the way the house works... you can't put it on the east end -you have all your living, the view, big glass and everything there, and to have a secondary unit access through the primary doesn't make sense to me. And I also feel that the character of the neighborhood, there was some co'ncerri in the two letters we received on the impact in the neighborhood, when you go through that neighborhood,. you see plenty of landscaping, plenty of mature trees, a few residual small houses, lots of house with access off the lower road, off Beaver Dam Road, it's a very kind of semi-rural feel, and when you try and attach it, you cut this swath through the lot you damage the lot entirely, so I definitely feel this is a difficult site, I know what it's like to try and work on a steep site and this make much more sense to access it separately and put the house down ? much more appropriate for it, so I think that both the character of the neighborhood and the character of the primary residence benefit by separating them. I think every site is unique it would be a rare owner who would come in and try and circumvent this, use this as a loophole but I think this is a relatively unique, completely unique circumstance so I'm not worried about that: I think the fact that the preexisting site features that we're trying to work around are still there and are not being affected, is key to the character of the neighborhood. It's really tough business to recreate a new stream somewhere else. Easier said than done, so I'm in favor of this separation agreement. Pete: I agree that the site constraints that resulted in the approval in 1995 of the separation agreement and the re-approval in 1998, have not changed. I see no reason why we should not.......... I also agree with both Margaret and Sherry that the character 'of the neighborhood is not affected by this continuation ............. from the west and I would finally say that I would accept that this does not have to be precedent setting it is a unique application and we should not use that as an argument to deny. _ Joe: I agree with what all three members have said and believe that nothing has changed in the conditions that created the need for separation in '95 -it's all the same, rock outcropping and creek. I think when you get into building this second unit, you'll be scrutinized heavily because of, if you're going to do something like that, you make sure it will be the same quality of architectural integrated style ..... for that, I do believe that separating on the site will be less detrimental to the neighborhood, existing vegetation and it's impractical to put it around the backside without damaging the side. I would be in favor of the separation request. ~: i Mike Suman: One thing - we understand that this is a one-year approval. If you look at the development of this, and we want to do this right, so we want to take the time, there's engineering, the architecture is going to take some time, this basically puts us about a year out from today, to have all the approvals and start construction, etc. We're wondering if you'd put a condition of approval. for a year and a half so we can start next spring of 2007.... they put a condition on that of 3 years. Margaret: Can we do that? Ok. I'd like tej add one thing: given that your neighbors on either side have written letters, I would be most cognizant, if I were you, of the views, they get of this house, and keep it as entirely natural as possible .... It's hard for me to tell exactly what they'll see .... Mike Suman: We are intending to plant additional trees, so we're going to have to replace those that are removed, and your point about the landscaping and integration of that is very important to Jack and his wife, as much as they want their privacy from this new residence, he wants ............... Ryan: Just to clarify we're asking for approval of the separation request ...............a year and, a half ....... to begin our construction. in spring of 2007 ............... Margaret: I have no doubt of that -you've already made that requirement to yourself by making your primary residence as nice as it is, so we're not going to accept any less than that. Joe: approve separation request and we'd like. to cite that it's valid due to the rock outcropping on the west, the existing stream on the east, and I believe that this separation will best maintain the character of the neighborhood and keep exiting mature trees intact and I also believe we feel the existing primary house was not created to force the condition to grant the separation It was built with an existing separation agreement in place. And also based on the review of chapter 14-10 the design review standards and guidelines of the Vail Town Code, the evidence and testimony presented to the DRB, we find the applicant has requested a determination by the DRB as to whether or not this site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project has been presented; to the natural drainage ,mature trees, rock outcroppings, and slopes present, on lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 151 filing are significant site constraints; that the determination that significant site constraints are present on lot 32, block 7, Vail village 151 filing has been made at a conceptual review of the proposed based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot, a preliminary site plan of the proposed structures in addition of the evidence and testimony for this significant site constraints; ie, natural drainage, mature trees, rock outcroppings and slopes on lot 32, block 7, Vail Village 1'51 filing will create practical difficulties in site planning and developrt~ent of the lot, and that the applicant is proposing a unified design and landscaping of the entire development and I also make this separation request valid for 2 years from today, so through the end of January 31, 2007. That's December 3151, 2007, right. Motion: Joe, second Sherry. No opposed. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Judy Camp, Finance Director DATE: February 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Discussion of Framework for Process Involving Disbursement of Conference Center Tax Collections BACKGROUND In November 2005, Vail's electorate defeated an increase in the lodging tax to supplement taxes approved in 2002 to build and operate a conference center. The ballot question also contained a provision to rescind the 2002 taxes if the issue failed. Therefore, on December 20, 2005, the Vail Town Council approved second reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2005, which rescinded the 2002 taxes, ahalf-cent sales tax and 1.5 percent lodging tax, effective January 1, 2006. The remaining action required to bring closure to the issue is to determine a refund methodology for disbursement of the remaining conference center funds or prepare a ballot question to determine how such revenues shall be used. CONFERENCE CENTER FUND As of December 31, 2005, the Conference Center Fund had an estimated balance of $7.7 million, which will be available for disbursement. During the three years the conference center taxes were in effect an estimated $5.4 million was generated by the sales tax and $5.1 million collected from the lodging tax. Approximately $2.5 million was spent on research, planning, design, engineering and financing of the proposed conference center and $300,000 on management fees net of earnings on investments. DISBURSEMENT OPTIONS As identified previously, there are two courses of action for disbursement of the conference center revenues. 'One option is to create a refund mechanism. There is very little precedent for refunding sales and/or lodging taxes in Colorado. Any method would require additional research on legal issues, including TABOR. Equity issues and administration also need to be considered. One way to refund the taxes may be to reduce the existing 4% general sales tax for a period of time. For example, if the current general sales tax rate were reduced by 0.5% for everything except food for home consumption and the general sales tax levied on lodging were reduced by an additional 1.5%, taxpayers would recoup the $7.7 million balance in approximately two years. During that time period, the sales tax on food for home consumption would remain at 4%, sales tax on lodging would be reduced to 2% and sales tax on everything else would be reduced from 4% to 3.5%. Cash would be moved from the Conference Center Fund to the General Fund and the Capital Projects Fund to assure those two funds obtained the equivalent of the full 4% sales tax. The current 4% rate would be reinstated when the funds were repaid. This method would return funds proportionately to the same group of people who paid them, although it would be impossible to return funds directly to the same individuals. If Council chooses to pursue the refund option, staff recommends beginning the process by developing objectives for returning the funds (e.g. provide equity to taxpayers; balance cost vs. benefit of method; legal compliance, etc.). A second step would be for staff to more fully research and present several methods along with an analysis of how they meet the objectives. The second option is to identify an alternate use(s) for the revenue which requires a ballot issue to be brought before the electorate in November as required by TABOR. This option also will require significant research and analysis. Staff will focus on one or both options at Council's direction. FRAMING THE DISCUSSION In evaluating the two courses of action, staff recommends identifying criteria to help frame the discussion in the community. For example, if there is interest in pursuing utilization of the dollars to benefit ttie community, the discussion should address whether utilization should be tied to the purpose of the 2002 taxes. If so, criteria might include the following: Contribute to Vail's year-round economy Bolster. shoulder season business s Make Vail more competitive in a changing economic environment o Create growth opportunities for lodging, retail, restaurant sectors o Increase the number of destination visitors There may be others who wish to expand the criteria to meet other community needs. For example, charts 13 and 14 from the State of the Town Report (attached) include infrastructure needs and other priorities identified from the 2005 community survey. The list includes a recreation center; swimming pool; affordable housing; better/affordable parking; entertainment and activities for kids; I-70 related issues; economic development initiatives; redevelopment initiatives; growth management; construction management; fiscal responsibility (taxes, budget, allocation of funds); and retain community/small town feel. In,addition, focus groups conducted in the fall of 2005 identified the following priorities: lack of adequate parking, the need to improve the streamwalk along Gore Creek through the entire-town; and long-term solutions foal-70 related issues. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL To begin the process, staff recommends a Council discussion during the February 7 meeting to identify initial review criteria to be eValuated.during aseries of community meetings. Council should also provide direction regarding evaluation of one or more refund options. In addition, the discussion should identify ideas for a citizen outreach process in an attempt to create community consensus regarding the various options available. ATTACHMENTS Selected Charts from State of the Town Report 2006 Election Calendar 2 Cha~.f 13 VA1L -THE STATE:QF THE T01t~1N _ ~, "11Vt~at do~sn.~t ~la~l have that od would like to gee l~ provided? Are there s~~eific infrastruc~!ur~ or ro r~rds p ~ y would Iike _to see: added to serve Vail i~ the next 5 y~ar~~" About ~4% o~ respondents mentioned one or more needs • The most mentioned-needs v~rere: - Recreation Center .Swimming Pool Source: 2005 Vail Community Survey • '~~~ ' RRC Associates, Inc. 3 s Chat 1~ VAIL - THE ~ T ATE OF THE TOVI!N -~... _..._, ._T__~.~..~__ _._~-~ L~~ks~~ ~~~~~ ~® ~:~~ ~~~~ tE~r~~ ~~~~~ G~ "~~ii~ ~G~~it ~~ ~~~ ~~irk ~~~ tr~r® ~-r thr~~ bic~~est chali~~t~e~ ~il~ ~~~ - 2a0 . `1`c~al f~~~~;c~e~tt ~~c~~d F1ort~e~wn~r ' Parking (availability, price) 24% 24% 26% Economic development - retain,/aftract businesses, promote tourisml`visitors; diversify economy; downvalfey competition 22% 19% 31 Redevelopment initiatives (general redevelopment, make Vail more attractive, Lionshead)* 19% 17% 25% Growth management/population/over development 16% 13% 26% 1-70 noise, speeding, #raffic 13% 14% 10% Affordable/Employee housing 13% 11% 20% Abundant construction activities -timely completion, scheduling .and management of projects, concern over potential disruption to 9% 11% 4% tourist experience/residents during process Fiscal responsibiiity (taxes, budget, allocation of funds) 9% 9% 9% Retain community/small town feeUlocals 7% S% 3% `NOTE' the Conference Centeris not included in the "redevelopment" tally because;'vvhereascbout 11 percent of respohdents° mentioned the. Conference Center specifically, .responses were)argely'divided on whether the Town sho .. uld or should not`move forward with this; project. :. _ ~. ,. ,. S ounce: 005 Vail Community Survey T~IitF~ " ~ ~ RRC Associates, Inc. 3~ 2006 ELECTION CALENDAR November 7, 2006 Coordinated Election Calendar with Eagle County Please note that this is an even numbered year election for Tabor issues Eagle County will be having an at-the-polls election this year at Donovan Pavilion. Dates Ea le Coun Coordinated Election July 28, 2006 (Fri) Last day to notify County of participation in Eagle County Election (100 days prior) 1-7-116(5) and 1-1-106-(4) August 1, 2006 (Tues) Latest date for a ls` reading to approve ballot issues to be laced on coordinated election ballot. August 7 (Mon) Last day to file an initiative petition with the Sec of State for 2003 Gen. Election (3 months) (1-40-108) August 8 (Tues) PRIMARY ELECTION (POLLS OPEN 7a-7p) 1-4-101(1) August 9 (Wed) Last Day to establish polling places for the GENERAL election (Donovan Pavilion) 90 days before 1-5-102.5 SOS Rule 7.3 August 15, 2006 (Tues) Latest date fora 2° reading to approve ballot issues to be placed on coordinated election ballot Aug 29 (Tues) IGA to be signed by County Clerks and Municipal Clerks/Political Subdivisions (no later than 70 days before election) 1-7-116(2) Sept 22 (Fri) Last day to file PRO/CON Statements pertaining to local ballot issues with the DEO (designated election official) in order to be included in the issue mailing (Friday before the 45`h day before the election). 1-7-901(4); Article X, Sec. 20(3)(b)(v) Oct 6 (Fri) Last day to mail notice of election ballot issues (at least 30 days before ballot issue election) TABOR NOTICE Art. X Sec. 20 (3)(b); 1-1-106(5) Oct 6 (Fri) Ballots for the General Election must be printed and in possession of the DEO (not less than 32 days before every General Election (1-5-403 (1). Oct 10 (Tues) Last Day to Register to Vote for the General Election (no later than 29 da s before the general election) 1-2-201(3) Oct 23 (Mon) Early Voting begins at early voters' polling place for the General Election (15 days before the election) 1-8-202 Early Voting will be at the Town of Vail Administration Conference Room beginning October 23 -November 3 - Mon-Fri; 8a - 5 Oct 26 (Thur) Last day to post polling place signs for the General Election (at least 12 days before the election) 1-5-106 Oct 27 (Fri) Las day for County Clerks to give notice of General Election (at least 10 days before the election) 1-5-205(1);1-1-106(5) Oct 27 (Fri) Last day to apply for Absentee Ballot for the General Election if mailed (11`x' day preceding the election) 1-8-104(3) November 7 (Tues) ELECTION DAY - 7a-7 at Donovan Pavilion To: Vail Town Council From: Greg Hall and Mike Rose Date: February 2, 2006 Re: Transit Service priorities and route selection The goal of previous Town Councils, when establishing transit routes and frequency of service, has been to balance the right mix of service with the cost of providing that service. Various ways of analyzing the cost of service is by the hour, mile, or the cost per rider. The Town looks at all three, but mainly the cost per hour and the cost per rider determine the effectiveness of the service. In the 1990's, the town experimented with smaller buses called cutaways, which transported approximately 25 passengers. We purchased six, two of which were four- wheel drive. The intent was to use the smaller buses when demand on the existing routes was low, typically in the spring and fall. The actual cost savings of running smaller buses was not as efficient as projected due to now maintaining two vehicles versus one for the same route. In addition, there were days when demand exceeded capacity of the small bus, and it became more frequent that larger buses were being used again to avoid being caught short of capacity on the route. The end result was the very low miles the cutaways accrued versus the cost of maintaining them, significantly added to the cost of service. The second intent of the cutaways was to provide feeder service to the main service routes by using a smaller bus to access many of the neighborhoods where grades and turning dimensions do not allow afull-size bus. The four-wheel drive cutaways performed well at climbing the grades, but had difficulty descending safely. This service was briefly experimented with and was found to have a very high cost per passenger. In fact, it would be easier to provide more of a dial-a-ride type of service than. a fixed route service. However, the cost of a true dial-a-ride service was not pursued at that time. The passage of the ADA laws forced the Town to provide dial-a-ride service for those who required ADA service, and two of the cutaways were eventually used as ADA para-transit service vehicles. As more of the transit fleet was replaced with ADA compatible ramps, the Town started providing accessible service within the existing routes with the newer compatible vehicles. The town finally phased out the cutaways and currently only have (2) two-wheel drive vehicles to provide ADA para-transit service. There are only two areas within the Town's boundaries that do not receive transit service at this time. One of the areas is questionable whether it is safe to operate through the winter, due to steep grades. The other requires creating a "bus way" on an easement, which would take significant negotiations, but has merit to the transit department. As we move forward with the community plan and discuss community values, looking at the current state of transit service would be beneficial. The goals associated with alternative transportation options and service levels, as well as changes in demand due to the West Vail, West Lionshead, and Timber Ridge expansions will be important discussion items. Our plan is to provide the costs associated with providing service levels to meet the increased demand as well as any other enhancements to service requested. It will also be part of the plan to determine acost/benefit ratio to facilitate the decision making process of the Town Council. Sample Scope of Work -Parks and Recreation Master Plan Note: Typically Tasks A-C (and sometimes D) are the 'Needs Assessment" portion of the project.. A. Start-Up: Upon selection, our GreenPlay team will meet with the Project Manager, staff, and key identified stakeholders to formalize and outline the final Master Planning Process, including accepted . methodologies, number and types of meetings, and expected quality and formats for Deliverables, and agreement on the implementation strategies. We will set a timeline for the public involvement, analysis, recommendations, and all preparation of work products. Integration with Existing Vision, Goals, Operations, Budgets, and Plans As part of the Public Process and information gathering, we will work to ensure that the Master Plan is integrated with all other previous and concurrent planning work. We will collect any existing information on demographics, operational and capital budgets, overall operational plans and service quality, local and national trends, and any other issues which are impacting the Agency or this Plan. This information will be summarized, analyzed, and integrated into all recommendations and work products. B. Community Input and Demand Analysis: 1. Public Process Our GreenPlay team believes deeply in creating an in-depth, efficient, and open community process as part of all public projects. We will: • Identify, describe and implement a comprehensive strategy and innovative yet successful methodology for citizen and public involvement in this Master Plan development process. • Assure the residents, user groups, associations, and other stakeholders that they are provided an opportunity to participate in the development of this plan. • Conduct at least three (3) public meetings (some at Start-up and some at the end to present the draft Plan), a minimum of two focus groups (participants to be determined), and individual stakeholder interviews. • Act as professional facilitators to gather specific information about services, use, preferences, and any agency strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. • Provide well-organized and directed activities, techniques, and formats that will ensure that a positive, open, and proactive public participation process is achieved. • Provide written records and summaries of the results of all public process and communications strategies. • Help to build consensus and agreement on the plan, and if consensus is not possible, provide information for informed decision making by your Board. • Provide methods to hear from as many people as possible, including users and non-users of your services and facilities. Sample Master Plan Scope ©2005 GreenPlay, LLC www.greenplayllc.com 7 2. Statistically-Valid Slcrvey: We believe that astatistically-valid survey is often crucial in getting reliable information from your community, both as a baseline for setting realistic and achievable goals, and as a tool to accurately determine the needs, desires, and willingness to pay. We believe it is the ONLY method that gives us statistically valid information, not only from the users, but from your non- users who are also taxpayers and voters. GreenPlay works with a variety of nationally-recognized survey firms to complete this portion of the scope. The survey is compiled based on the key issues of the project (with questions and areas of focus identified in consensus with the project team), and typically is completed through the mail, with phone back-up if needed. Other methodologies (complete phone, intercept surveying, doorhanger, Internet, etc.) can be used if preferred. The survey can include a variety of analysis tools, such as geo-coding (to determine sub-area interests), Importance/Satisfaction Matrix, and other specialties. C. Demographic and Trends Analysis and Projections: We will compile all information available from previous planning efforts, The US Census Bureau, and other national and local sources, into a digital database that becomes Agency property once the project has ended. We rely heavily on our state-of-the art technology and use approved methods to evaluate spatial information and qualitative information, and portray the demographic and related results in ways that are easy to understand, but highly representative of the actual and projected trends, growth and levels of service. D. Existing and Future Facilities -Analysis and Level-Of-Service: We realize that your community is growing rapidly and that unplementable plans for future facilities need to be based on realistic expectations, projections, needs and demands. We recommend establishing a sound assessment and Level-of-service (LOS) analyses now to help manage and operate your facilities in the future. We will compile an inventory and assessment of the existing parks, trails, and facilities. The assessment will include a comparative analysis to communities of similar size and density, regionally and using nationally accepted standards. The inventory will also include an analysis of best possible providers of community and recreation services, and recommendations for m;n;m;~ing duplication and/or enhancing possibilities for `--_'~ ~ ' ~ ' collaborative partnerships where appropriate. ,~ The textual assessment will include a comparative analysis ~ x. ~{ , ; . 1 to communities of similar size and density, both regionally and statewide, using nationally accepted standards and ,.,~' ''~"' ~ '~'" '~ "~ GRASPri~ technology (see below). Additional alternative t. `~ ' .providers of `recreational areas will be included' All '~ .: ~ ': ~~y"~` '~ yK~~ x r x : ~,~ -- } ~v ~. r T mapping of facilities and open spaces will be incor orated ~ -- into our dynamic digital database that becomes property of. '" the agency upon completion of the project. Sample Master Plan Scope ©2005 GreenPlay, LLC www.greenplayllc.com 2 GnEENa[ar. ~-" _~: Level of Service Analysis - GRASPTivt Methodology ~L4~S~,RYICE ~E~ptQ~ (Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Program) ~`~`~ ''°`"--~-`"~ r - A Somewhat Different and Improved Approach _ ~. .,- -~i Our team is very familiar with the traditional and historical p~0 EFERENCED ~ N,t`~'~' practices for calculating Level of Service (LOS). Traditional sTa N D A R p S P R 0 p R ~' LOS, often called the NRPA (National Recreation and Parks Association) standards method, is typically based on providing X number of acres or x number of facilities per 1,000 population. This methodology was developed in the 1970s and 80s, and the methodology is not accurate for the majority of public agency usage. Even most NRPA officials are now calling this standards methodology "obsolete". In order to service ouxclients who need a way to standardize that is accurate, implementable, can be benchmarked, and is unique to them, we have adapted these practices to a slightly different approach using the Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Program (GRASPTM). This methodology builds on the traditional NRPA standards, but can track not only the quantity (or capacity), but quality of amenities and components of an entire parks, recreation, and/or open space system. We are now using this methodology nationwide in all of our planning projects, teaching it to technical and planning firms around the US, and presenting it to agencies through local, state, and national association conferences.and seminars. We taught this methodology at the National ASLA conference in Salt Lake City in October, 2004 and at NRPA in 2005. As a general summary, the following gives some specific outcomes of our GRASPTM approach. • We are making use of the technology available through GIS to provide a better way of analyzing how any specific location, home or business is being served by amenities. • We are bringing a qualitative component into the measurement of service. Traditional methods of LOS analysis are lacking in this respect. This also allows us to combine a population density factor into the traditional LOS equations. • We are moving away from a classification system that relies on the broad and often .ambiguous categorization of facilities per thousand and have developed a system that looks at individual corrtponerets of service, such as ballfields, picnic shelters, trailheads, parking, wetlands, playgrounds, wildlife corridors, etc., and then measures the service that each component provides to the community. This would have been impossibly tedious before, but now is easy with the technology available to us. • We can evaluate the components and easily graphically display them for decision makers, quickly identifying gaps in service on a neighborhood, community, regional and/or community-wide basis. • This new methodology allows us to examine Levels of Service in a new and specific way for your community. Your GRASP~rnz-based LOS will not just be based on standards outlined for non-comparable cities in the 1980s, but will be pertinent for your future. Ranking and Prioritizing Demand `and Opportunities GreenPlay has experience in designing and implementing decision-making and prioritization models. We incorporate the GRASPT,~t LOS methodology into mapping and tabular information that become management tools. The methodologies provide easily understood information that helps guide staff and your Board in decision making from this point forward. In addition, the decided upon parameters become easily explainable to the public, allowing for justification and presentations as needed for managing the lands. Sample Master Plan Scope ©2005 GreenPlay, LLC www.greenplayllc.com 3 GREEN_ P_ca~r,,~ _,. ~., E. Analysis of Programs and Services: We will provide an assessment and analysis of the Agency's current level of recreation programs, services and maintenance in relation to present and future goals, objectives and directives. An analysis of the best possible providers of programs and services will be developed to discern possible competition or unnecessary duplication of services through other public and private program providers, along with recommendations for minimizing duplication and/or enhancing possibilities for collaborative partnerships where appropriate. F. Financial Analysis: We will conduct an analysis of the budget procedures, pricing methodology, fee systems and, if appropriate, potential fee adjustments or increases. Cost Recovery - An Important Threshold Factor GreenPlay has established and improved the "Pyramid" methodology for helping agencies create an overall philosophy and methodology for allocating resources, pricing programs and evaluating cost recovery. We are currently training agencies nationwide and at conferences in the implementation and use of this fairly-straightforward but innovative methodology. This method is invaluable for creating financial strategies that are equitable, defensible, implementable at all levels, and are based on the VALUE of the services to the community, not just a comparative evaluation of "what has been done before" or "what others are doing". It is an extension of "activity-based costing", but takes the analysis further into assimilating the values accepted and defined by your community and governing official. As part of this project, we will explain and document the methodology, and evaluate your agency's current and potential methods for fair allocation and pricing that help with increased cost recovery. In addition, we will evaluate and identify potential sources of traditional and alternative funding for operational, capital, and maintenance costs, including identification of grant opportunities and other resources that may eventually support the implementation of the objectives identified in the Master Plan. Specifically, we will include financial analysis and recommendations related to: Cost projections and analysis related to cost recovery for operations,' Pa'ecatm~ ~ cast =,~ Q~~°° \ ~~COV@P ~ 6 HIGNIY\ staffing and maintenance. ~ ` - Costs associated with maintaining the current LOS, and the costs associated with providing the recommended LOS for the next 5,10 and 20 years. - Costs and revenues related to the capital funding available from. fees; ana recommendations for future fees. Traditional and alternative funding - - .sources that can-help augment the fuming available to meet future needs as outliried in the plan.' " ° ~oiwoun~ ~~/fa6970t~ ~¢ - Br'.aflt °c~ MOSTLY IN©NIDUAL\, ,\ ~OyJ~si Beri`eflt-. \ ~~ ., ~,z° _ ~ \ INDIVIDUAL / COPdMU`JITY `,~ ~ Benefit ' ~ \~~~~ r~ ~- COMMUNITY I~INDIVtt3UAL Benefit a a~ ~ o y° COMM.U,Ni7Y ~ ~`~~ ~ ~ ~Bene:tit \ '' . ', ~;; _ - - ~ ' azcoi fmanP~nr. u.c Sample Master Plan Scope ©2005 GreenPlay, LLC `www.greenplayllc.com 4 6kEErvvcar,~ ~~~~ G. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations and Action Plan: Members of our GreenPlay Team have a firm and deep understanding relative to the present and future planning, economic, and political issues facing parks and recreation departments. We provide longstanding expertise in the analysis of demographics, trends, operations, programming, and maintenance issues related to the provision of parks and recreation, and the public presentation of those issues. We understand that this Master Plan is intended as a living document that can change as conditions in the area change. The Recommendations and Action Plan will: • Collect, analyze, and digitally synthesize demographic information for the community. • Collect and analyze information on participation, needs and desires, operations, programming and land use trends, and Level of Service recommendations. • Identify any areas of service shortfalls and projected impact of future trends. • Provide usable and workable definitions and recommendations for designated park and open space facilities and parks, with acreages and parameters defined as appropriate. • Develop recommendations for operations, staffing, maintenance, programming and funding needs. • Provide a clear acquisition and programming direction based on the standards and demand analysis. • Develop a definitive program(s) for acquisition and development of parkland, recreation facilities, open space, trails, and administrative and parks operations facilities for the next five, ten and twenty years. • Develop a maintenance and operations analysis. • Recommend policy changes to eliminate programming barriers and improve participation. H. Development of the Final Plans and Supporting Materials: We realize that for any Plan to be considered successful, it must communicate well, and be useful and implementable. We at GreenPlay pride ourselves on creating well-written, concise, and understandable documents that will get used. We will provide a "hard copy" of documents in awell-formatted version, and also digital materials in MS Word and/or .PDF versions and all spatial information in a format readable by common GIS software that will be useful for staff throughout the life of the plan and in the future. Specifically, we will provide: • Written goals, plans, objectives, and policy statements that articulate a clear vision and a sustainable "road map" and model for the Agency's future. • Charts, graphics, maps, and other data as needed to support the plan and its presentation to the appropriate audiences. • A Financial Plain • An Action Plan • Presentations as needed for the public and approvals Sample Master Plan Scope ©2005 GreenPlay, LLC www.greenplayllc.com 5 GRFfN_ v Sample l~Yaster Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements Table Of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Past, Present and Future -The Planning Content A. Vision and Mission B. Purpose of this Plan C. History of the Department D. Departmental Overview E. Related Planning Efforts and Integration F. Relationship to the Previous Master Plan G. Methodology of this Planning Process H. Timeline for Completing the Plan III. What We Want -Our Community and Identified Needs A. Community Profile and Demographic Study B. Current Trends C. Community and Stakeholder Input IV. What We Have Now - An Analysis of Public Programs and Spaces A. Community Recreation Programs -Recreation Division B. Indoor Recreation Facilities C. Opportunities to Improve Indoor Facilities and Programs D. Outdoor Active Facilities and Sports E. Parks and Natural Resources Facilities F. Opportunities to Improve Outdoor Facilities, Parks and Natural Areas G. Level of Service -The GRASPTM Analysis V. How We Manage -Analysis of Findings and Oversight A. Administration, Management and Organizational Development B. Benchmarking C. Planning and Design D. Marketing and Communications E. Information Management and Technology F. Maintenance G. Finances and Traditional Funding H. Alternative Funding I. Partnerships VI. Great Things to Come -Recommendations and Action Plans __- A. Grand Challenges and Opportunities B. Priorities C. Implemenfation and Action Plans. ,' fieLeadinq E~jeln Panb Reueatron MOOOm SOace Cancolhap Sample Documents ©2005 GreenPlay, LLC www.greenplayllc. com Sample Appendices • Charts of Strategic Measurement Outcomes • Summary Minutes from Stakeholder Meetings • Divisional Budgets and 10-Year History • Sample Partnership Policy • Sample Sponsorship Policy • Sample Cost Recovery Policy Outline • Inventory of Parks • GRASPTM Maps o Indoor Recreation Facilities o Neighborhood Parks o Community Parks o Walkability Composite o Capacity Composite o Open Space o Trails o Recommended Acquisitions o Etc. (Public Art, Playgrounds, Fields, Etc.) G~r~~~r~i~~L~ the Leading fdpelnPantr. Aecrntian And ppan SParoCdnuptnp ~ - Sample Documents ©2005 GreenPlay, LLC www.greenplayllc.com MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006; an ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use and. to add a definition of a "bowling alley' to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. On January 23, 2006, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use to the District and to add a definition fora "bowling alley" to the Vail Town Code. This application to amend the allowable conditional uses for the Commercial Service Center District. to include a bowling alley and to add a definition for "bowling alley", was submitted in conjunction with the proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of Ordinance 4, Series of 2006. Text which is to be added is indicated as bold italics. The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, on first reading. The Town Council can vote to approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006. ORDINANCE NO. 4 Series of 2006 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-2-2, DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO CREATE A DEFINITION FORA "BOWLING ALLEY" AND SECTION 12-7E-4, CONDITIONAL USES, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF A "BOWLING ALLEY" AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT 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 finds that the proposed .amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this text amendment by a vote of 7-0-0 at its January 23, 2006, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006 Section 1. Section 12-2-2 (Definitions) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows: (Text which is to be added is indicated as bold italics.) BOWLING ALLEY.• A recreation and entertainment facility where the sport of bowling takes place. A bowling alley may also includes accessory entertainment facilities and uses such as eafing and drinking facilities, retail shops, night clubs, arcade facilities, billiards, ping gong, darts, meeting rooms, and similar uses. Section 2. Section 12-7H-4 (Conditional Uses) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows: (Text which is to be added is indicated as bold italics.) Any use permitted by Section 12-7E-3 of this article, which is not conducted entirely within a building. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this title. Bowling Alley Brew pubs. Child daycare center. , Commercial laundry and cleaning services. Dog kennel. Major arcade. Multiple-family dwellings and lodges. Outdoor operation of the accessory uses set forth in Section 12-7E-5 of this article. Private clubs. Public buildings. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006 2 Ski lifts and tows. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities. Type ll/ employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 73 of this title Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health; safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code, as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006 3 not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, .APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of February, 2006, and a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 21 st day of February, 2006, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rod Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006 4, ORDINANCE NO. 1 Series of 2006 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A CERTAIN PART OF THE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC WAYS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, I.E., A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN CHUTE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, LOT P-3, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING, TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO AS RECORDED MARCH 17, 2004, AT RECEPTION NUMBER 871030 AT THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), acting through its applicable departments and agencies, including the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development, have found and determined that the public use, convenience and necessity no longer require within its system of public ways that certain portion of public right-of-way legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Vacated Way"), which Vacated Way constitutes a portion of land located within Chute Road right-of--way, Lot P-3, Vail Village Fifth Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado as recorded March 17, 2004, at Reception No. 871030; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the vacation contemplated by this ordinance is to transfer that vacated portion of right-of-way described herein to the adjoining- land owner, the Mill Creek Court Condominium Association (the "Association"); and WHEREAS, in addition to this vacation ordinance, the transfer of the Vacated Way shall also be subject to the applicable terms of a bargain and sale deed to be executed and delivered by the Town to the Association and confirming the vesting of title to the Vacated Way in the Association (hereinafter the "Vacation Deed"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO as follows: Section 1. The. Vacated Way, as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby vacated by the Town of Vail, and no longer constitutes part of the system of public ways of the Town of Vail. Section 2. In accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, title to and ownership of the Vacated Way shall vest in the Association, which is the owner of the real properties abutting the Vacated Way. By way of confirmation of and without limiting the effect of the foregoing, .the Town of Vail shall proceed to execute and deliver to the Association the Vacation Deed which, among other things, shall evidence the vesting of title in the Vacated Way in the Association. Town Council hereby authorizes and directs the Town Manager, on behalf of the Town of Vail,. to execute and deliver the Vacation Deed to the Association containing such terms and provisions as the Town Manager, after consultation with the Town. Attorney, considers to be necessary or appropriate in furtherance of this Ordinance. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006 1 Section 3. If any part,. section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 17th day of January, 2006. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 7th day of February, 2006, at 6:00 P.M., in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor, ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ; ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND. READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 7th day of February, 2006. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006 EXFili31T ~1 Legal Description A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN CHUTE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, LOT P-3, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING, TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO AS RECORDED MARCH 17, 2004 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 871030 AT THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CHUTE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, ACCORDING TO SAID PLAT OF LOT P-3, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; WHENCE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID CHUTE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, LOT P-3 VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING BEARS S06°01'05"W A DISTANCE OF 72.66 FEET, SAID LINE BEING THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION. THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE CHUTE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ,ACCORDING TO SAID PLAT OF LOT P-3, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING, 13.81 FEET ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1°21'37", A RADIUS OF 581.70 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 83°51'40" E, A DISTANCE OF 13.81 FEET; THENCE S 13°07'19" W A DISTANCE OF 30.77 FEET; THENCE S 06°01'05" W A DISTANCE OF 31.13 FEET; THENCE S 21°04'21" W A DISTANCE OF 10.19 FEET; THENCE 7.44 FEET ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3°36'48", A RADIUS OF 117.98 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 87°20'38" W, A DISTANCE OF 7.44 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID CHUTE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, ACCORDING TO SAID PLAT OF LOT P-3, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE CHUTE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCORDING TO SAID PLAT OF LOT P-3, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING , N 06°01'05" E A DISTANCE OF 72.66 FEET; TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.018 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2006 ORDINANCE N0.2 SERIES OF 2006 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-2-2 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS, CHAPTER 4; SECTION 12-4-1, DESIGNATED, AND SECTION 12-10-10 PARKING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULES, VAIL TOWN CODE, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, The Town of Vail Community Development has submitted an application for a text amendment to Chapter 4, Districts Established, Section 12-4-1, Designated, Vail Town Code, to allow for the establishment of the Public Accommodation - 2 (PA-2) district; Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code; Section12-10-10(B), Parking Requirements Schedule, Vail Town Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held a public hearing on the proposed amendments in accordance with the provisions of the Vail Town Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of these amendments at its January 9, 2006, public hearing and has submitted its recommendation of approval to the Town Council; and, WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and .policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and, WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code; and, WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established r Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 71 character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 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 Chapter 4, Districts Established, Section 12-4-1, Designated, Vail Town Code, to allow for the establishment of the Public Accommodation - 2 (PA-2) district; to amend the definitions of the terms "accommodation unit, limited service lodge unit,. limited service lodge, kitchen facilities, and kitchenette'; to amend the parking requirements for limited service lodge unit", and setting forth details in regard thereto. Section 2. Section 12-2-2 Definitions of Words and Terms, Chapter 4, Section 12-4-1, Designated, and Section 12-10-10 Parking Requirements Schedules, Vail Town Code; shall hereby be amended as followings: (deletions are shown in c+rcLe }hr,,, ,,,hand additions are shown in bold) Section 12-2-2 Definitions of Words and Terms: Lodge Unit, Limited Service: Any room or group of rooms with kitchen facilities, as defined herein, in a limited service lodge which are designed for temporary occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families on a short term rental basis, and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, limited service lodge unit, fractional fee club unit or dwelling unit. A limited service lodge unit is not intended for permanent residency and shall not be subdivided into an individual condominium unit, pursuant to Chapter 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code. Lodge, Limited Service: A building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of visitors, guests, individuals, or families, on a short term rental basis, in limited service. lodge units or any combination of accommodation units, limited service lodge units, fractional fee club units, or dwelling units in which the gross residential floor area .devoted to accommodation units,.limited service lodge units, and fractional fee club units is equal to or greater than seventy percent (70%) of the total gross residential floor area on the site, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary lodge services and facilities. ACCOMMODATION UNIT: Any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities, as defined herein, which are designed for temporary occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families on a short term .rental basis, and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, limited service lodge unit, fractional fee club unit or dwelling unit. An accommodation unit is not intended for permanent residency and shall not be subdivided into an individual Ordinance No. 2,hSeries of 2006 2 condominium unit, pursuant to Chapter 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code KITCHEN FACILITIES: Fixtures and equipment for food storage and preparation of meals, including a sink, stove, oven or microwave oven, and ,-°f~~,ti,,,gc;~i;v ;refrigerator and food storage facilities. KITCHENETTE: A room containing nsm-s~,~ the following fixtures and appliances only: a microwave oven ,sink, and refrigerator. Chapter 4. Districts Established Section 12-4-1 Designated: CHAPTER 7 Commercial and .Business Districts Article J. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION - 2 (PA-2) DISTRICT 12-7J-1: PURPOSE: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same. district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the Town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation - 2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of ,the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. 12-7J-2: PERMITTED USES: y The following uses shall be permitted in the PA-2 district: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas maybe located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Limited service lodge, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site.; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace.. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 3 12-7J-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA-2 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 . of this title: Bed and breakfast, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Fractional fee club units as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public transportation terminals. Public utility and public service uses. Theaters and convention facilities. Type III employee housing units as provided in chapter 13 of this title. 12-7J-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA-2 district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Meeting rooms. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-7J-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The r>ninimum !ot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries. 12-7J-6: SETBACKS: In the PA-2 district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the.minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twrenty feet (20'). At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alternations or modifications (section 12-7A-12 Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 4 of this article) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A.Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B.Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. C.Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D.Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. 12-7J-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48'). ,; 12-7J-8: DENSITY CONTROL: Up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) maybe permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Final determination of allowable gross residential floor area shall be made by the planning and environmental commission in accordance with section 12-7A-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable gross residential floor area the planning and environmental commission shall make a finding that proposed gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Totaldensity shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.~Forthe purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, limited service lodge units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted towards density (dwelling units per acre). A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one or more attached accommodation units. 12-7J-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total site area. Final determination of allowable site coverage shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board in accordance with section 12-7A-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable site coverage the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board shall make a finding that proposed site coverage is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 rJ 12-7J-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped: The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-7J-11: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading-shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading' area shall be located in any required front setback area. Below grade underground structured parking and short term guest loading and drop,off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board. 12-7J-12: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required:. The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be~reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units,, limited service lodge units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. The following submittal items are required: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or. modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal. requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise .the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 6 environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. 4. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall ; be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and envir"onmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 5. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be~ allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long. as code provisions affecting the proposal have.not changed. 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. 12-7J-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. Section 12-10-10 Parking Requirements Schedules: B. Schedule B applies to all properties outside Vail's "commercial core areas" (as defined on the town of Vail core area parking maps I and II, incorporated by reference and available for inspection in the office of the town clerk): i. Use Parking Requirements Accommodation unit (includes time- Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 7 share units, fractional fee units, and other forms of interval ownership units) Banks and financial institutions Eating and drinking establishments ~~ Hospitals Limited. service lodge unit Medical and dental offices Multiple-family dwellings Other professional and business offices Quick service food/convenience stores .Recreational facilities, public or private Retail stores, personal services and repair shops Single-family and two-family dwellings 0.4 .space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit 1 space per 200 square feet of net floor area 1 space per 120 square feet of seating floor area 1 space per patient bed, plus 1.0 space per 150 square feet of net floor area 0.7 spaces per limited service lodge unit 1 space per 200 square feet of net floor area If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area- is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more:. 2.5 spaces 1 space per 250. square feef of net floor area 1.0 space per each 200 square feet of net floor area for the first 1,000 square feet of net floor area: 1.0 space per 300 square feet for net floor area above 1,000 square feet Parking requirements to be determined by the planning and environmental commission 1 space per each 300 square feet of net floor area If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more, but less than 4,000 square feet: 3 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 4,000 square feet or more, but less than 5,500 square feet: 4 spaces Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 5,500 square feet or more: 5 spaces Theaters, meeting rooms, convention facilities. 1 space per . 120 square feet of seating floor area Any use not listed Parking requirements to be determined by the planning and environmental commission Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that anyone or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commen~ed under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 9 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 17th day of January, 2006, and a public hearing for s'rrcond reading of this Ordinance set for the 7th day of February, 2006, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson; Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 7t" day of February, 2006. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Rodney E. Slifer, .Mayor Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2006 ~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. 3 Series of 2006 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF VAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 5, ZONING MAP; REZONING LOTS 9-12, BUFFHER CREEK RESUBDIVISION FROM PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (PA) DISTRICT TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION-2 (PA-2) DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARDS THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 5, Zoning Map, of the Vail Town Code establishes the procedures for evaluating changes to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail ("Zoning Map"); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the "Zoning Map" has been reviewed in accordance with the prescribed requirements outlined in Sections 12-3-1 through 12-3-7 of the Zoning Regulations of the Vail Town Code; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2006, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail reviewed and forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment to the. "Zoning Map" to the Vail Town Council in accordance with the criteria and findings outlined in Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds the proposed amendment to the "Zoning Map" is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds the amendment to the "Zoning Map" is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds the amendment to the "Zoning Map" promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment's and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. ORDINANCE NO. 3, SERIES OF 2006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Zoning Map Amendment: The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: Lots 9-12, Buffher Creek Resubdivision shall be rezoned from Public Accommodation (PA) district to Public Accommodation-2 (PA-2) district, as illustrated on Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each .part, section, subsection,, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. .Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent ORDINANCE NO. 3, SERIES OF 2006 herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, .READ. 'ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 17th day of January, 2006, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 7th day of February, 2006, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 7th day of February, 2006. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 3, SERIES OF 2006 r ,~' ~' ~ ~ ~: .~._` -__~ „ ~~"~~. ~ Planning an~l, 1783 t~dorth Frontage RaacB VVest Environmental Comcriisn -January ~3, 200,:_„ ~, ~~ ~,'~ ~~ .~~ ~~r^r ~~ :'~ 1 q l ~'. -.~ ~r__.._-r.._.-_, ~~'E f y r <(''l~j ' ~a r ,~~-^i-.,r ~~ ti tJ~~C! .tc'~ ~~K.1 r ry y{r j ~ 245R ~~ "L ~~~~3i~~~~'~. ~~ ?rf r-k..~~~_,?C ~ ~iJ~ ." ~~ fi-e,,, '_ r~ ~ 4 ~'44 w K tip tr +f'x r 4 ~ ~~'',Y.xr1 h ~~ A ~ ~~'h r ' -y-',- ... ~ .. S 1 ';11~ - ..r~ ~' },~~ { '~+ kF ~1) 1 i ~, t~' 1j1 t ry-} `, i* ,±~`~ Aft i ~ T. ..t. fF 11F h y~., v c~ z '-~`rt> ~ ~~!~t'~11rr ~'fj~~ri:~~ f~,Y~r,~% ~-,',,y.x ~ j*..' rt' ~A _ _ '1 °7+~~ !F~r ~'F= ,'i~'~' y. c~~ rr'~,, y,, ~ ~' ~ ~4 ~ ~7,'fn f ~ ?~'.`'' ':~'t.',S-k fir'. fir..{ '~ ~.~:~ir.7+ ;T1 .;.y~'4T q.. ~.. ~,t - ~_ _:~,,.. _~i; «~' ~~ „4H +Pr~`r'..~ ~' ~ ` s r~ y 1r ~ t ~~P t~~' ~1 ~ _ „dt+ t;~ 44v, ~3`,~ r ,~~,~ v r f , A ; 4 ~~'s ~.~ ~F~.;,`~~ .fir ~'~~ ~ } i "fir ''C ~t y ~jr~ t ~1 ./~ ~"5~.~~S ~Iti"7 4rt tac J~ ~.?__ i. _: "'~' _ t t.. 3/!~. .f~:,f*'«' v:.ti 1r .. k k /: i '& ~•'iA`~.~, ~Xyi ~° ~_., ~,;~ { ~~ ~ sue. ,'raG~e1~,=N~ r,~.~v2?.. L3~ t{~ L `4"` ~r~ tl.-'rz~ ~ A ^.i~~ r _ 7- r.~,s Y-. U ~Y.. ~{°~.I7 C _. a~ 1 ~..'__ ~~.. ~' •~~. , ~~.^--. #'--. -*r _~,.,lr [.~T ~-R.-,~,.` ..,,r ~-,....f-..-ti-•'~-, _ ~/1'F 7r ^~~ - ~~f. . ~r' a~'y~,~ t '~ - ~, 1,Z~'C`c -;:_. 1~ ~'~4 1 1.. }~~y 4~~'~`"-0 .'v~l _±-j z, '~ l :' ,,, ~ iv .ttrc, ~ -~,~" ~ ~, ~ - t er=r « p j~ 6W~ ~s,1~ ,~ ~ ,~. ~ != ~ _ ~ '} 1 ~ _ ~~- ~ t,~ ~ ' - ~~ ~ ^~F~" ~T ~t r ~T_~ •• -c ~r i~ '` j~ y n} rr' ry '' ~°-~•"'~f.. ~'r ~~^~ .~'` .'~ F , v.t~`s~ 1. ~ ..' ~. 4~ ~ ~ ~'ri ~ :~ - r _ s~: Y~- ~ / f`; ~ 7 ° w ~ ~e'' ,R ~rS~s$ ~~'a • ~ ti ~ cT" ry ~v 77 f l _ ~1,". ~~ ,:~ _> u - ~ Fs ~ S ~ r ,~-~~~' ~ i-~a~a ~`~. 1 _ 'mot 9 ~, y~'r a`~ ` - ~=' - ~+ ~'<r rt`4u` ~ J' ~ ~ f `~ ` ~~ryrV R`~~ a~ / !. ~ ~~'~_. ~ 1 ~- ~':F ~%~ -,~~d,'~'s.. - .. ~, ~~. } . ~ r ~f,~~ Ro-K fi '~r ~ `'T. ,. r ~ ~~~ _ ~ ~'~. ~ ~~_ '. car y 1..11 1 S rK Z.v S A_: - ~/~'~-~•~- T ~=,11A1 J .t\ ~ 4, h ' '~ a Sr v _ ~ 3,~F+~"•.' N L ~ ~. x 1` ~+,J,y r~. f~ F v r,~ :5~4 °A~.y~ ~ Lf 9 ~~r h. ~Jh_ `~r~.. ,~ - 'rte`. ~~.y e~j"~'<~•~~"`Y' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ T~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ _ -1 >~2 ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ y,,~~~yy p~, Aryl i ,~~r rr fir; r~ ~" ~ - ,~ t~ r>,~~~ ~' ~. -~F'~. i ~~~ ~~ Vq~~~ ~ '~ ''h .t s ~ r - ao a ,w vm 1' = 100' T+t+• .nW°~ ro ua ~:.~ m<u~a ~. an.~ Ia_~~m~ra p{:Cn.Madef. ORDINANCE NO. 3, SERIES OF 2006 From: Kim Ruotolo To: LHames123 @l aol.com Date: 2/1 /2006 4:44:22 PM Subject: Re: Crossroads Project Thank you for your comments regarding Crossroads. I have forwarded them to Corey Swisher, the Assistant to the Town Manager, to ensure that they become part of the public record. Unfortunately, since we sit in aquasi-judicial role on this development application, we cannot discuss it outside of the public record/public meetings, so I would encourage you to also attend any meetings at which Crossroads will be discussed. You can check the Town of Vail website at www.vailgov.com for meeting agendas. Best regards, Kim Ruotolo Vail Town Council Member »> <LHames123C~aol.com> 02/01/06 4:22 PM »> We own a condominium by the proposed Crossroads project. We are opposed to the height of it and also the design. It doesn't architecturally fit in with the alpine ambiance of Vail. Please don't approve this project as it stands. Sincerely, Ned and Luann Hames CC: cswisherC~vailgov.com TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS February 1, 2006 The information that follows is preliminary and subject to audit adjustments and final receipts on late payments. Sales and Related Taxes Sales tax for the month of December is expected to be up 8% from December 2004 and favorable to the original budget by 13%. Year-to-date through December collections estimated at $16.5 million will be up 6.4% from the full year 2004, the previous record high year, and up 13% from the original budget. December collections are also expected to be a December record with revenue of $2.6 million exceeding the next highest year, .2004, by 8%. With most 2005 tax returns submitted, conference center sales and lodging taxes of $3,765,518 for the full year are up 6% from the full year 2004 and 2.9% from the 2005 amended budget. December collections of $594,292 are up 5% from last year. Construction Permit Fee Revenue Construction permit fees have reached record levels as a result of major redevelopment projects with fees of $1.5 million collected for 2005 compared with $920,218 collected in 2004. Seven major projects, Arrabelle, Forest Place, Gore Creek Place, One Willow Bridge Road, Sonnenalp Resort (20 Vail Road), Westhaven Condominiums, and Vail Plaza Hotel account for over $900,000 of the 2005 revenue. Construction permit fees include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and sprinkler permits. Recreational Amenities Fees The recreational amenities fee is a separate fee charged on all new residential square footage at the time a building permit is issued. This fee is recorded in the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund. Redevelopment projects are also having a major impact on this revenue. $370,157 has been received for 2005 compared with $226,745 for the full year 2004. Five major projects (Arrabelle, Forest Place, Gore Creek Place, Sonnenalp Resort, and Westhaven Condos) generated $319,313 of the 2005 revenue and we have exceeded the 2005 amended budget of $360,000. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections for 2005 are $6.2 million compared with $4.9 million for the full year 2004. Major transactions (over $10 million selling price) in this account include: sale of the Chateau to the Four Seasons developer; continued sales of Crossroads units to the developer; -sales to the public of Vail Mountain Lodge timeshares; sales to the public at Founders' Park Garage; sale of the Vail Marriott; sale of Cascade Crossing and the Vail Professional Building; and sale of the VailGlo Lodge to the LionsHead Inn. We have exceeded our amended 2005 budget of $6.0 million. 060207 Revenue Highlights - 1 - IVIEM012ANI~U1dI January 26, 2006 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: December Sales Tax On the reverse side please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $30,000.00 in December sales tax to bring December collections to $2,550,753.00. If so, we will be up 13.46% or $302,583.00 from budget and up 7.99% or $188,658.00 from December 2004. Attached please find two worksheets that report on the conference center tax collection. .: ~ Month ' 1994 ~ ~ 1996 - ~ 1996 997 - 1998 999 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 1 /26!2006 2000 2001 2002 003 - 004 udget 006 CodecNana udget Vodence , Change /rom 2004 Change Jrom Budget January' ~ 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 2,225,841 2,118,488 2,275,704 157,216 2.24% 7.42% February 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 2,362,825 2,248,865 2,429,113 180,248 2.81% 8.02°h March 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 2,344,178 2,231,117 2,782,546 551,429 18.70% 24.72% April t~; „ 794,668 791,092 . 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 871,468 992,157 644,305 915,407 71,102 -7.74% 8.42% May 287,315 ` '~' 324,681 _ ~ 318,920.. 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 411,595 391,744 458,622 66,878 11.43% 17.07% June 548,820 ~ 590;685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 732,113 698,803 834,766 137,963 14.02% 19.80% July 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 1,128,514 1,074,085 1,166,036 91,951 3.32% 8.56°h August 891,566 ' - 864,T25 ~ 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 1,084,318 1,029,446 994,445 946,482 993,386 46,904 -0.11% 4.96% September 725,205 ~ 645,902 ` 630,453.. 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 757,033 720,521 785,012 64,491 3.70% 8.95% October 408,405 ,.._~ '1 461,791 413,573 472,836 ~ 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 508,092 532,537 506,853 555,299 48,446 4.27% 9.56% November ~ 594,491 .611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 623,646 593,567 709,855 118,288 13.82% 19.59% December 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 2,362,095 2,248,170 2,520,753 272,583 6.72% 12,12% 4 Total , 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,747,419 15,030,386 14,509,421 15,232,588 15,411,044 15,106,801 14,578,983 15,466,979 14,621,000 16,426,499 1,805,499 8.20% 12.35% t onth 003 Town of Vail Conference Center Retail Tax (.5%) Worksheet 1 /26/2006 2005 Budget 2004 Budget Co/%ctions Variance , Change from 2004 Change from Budget January 233,274 267,013 245,637 271,984 26,347 1.86% 10.73% February 250,236 283,480 260,830 291,254 30,424 2.74% 11.66% March 283,013 284,547 258,952 334,816 75,864 17.67% 29.30% April 99,694 115,624 109,419 107,521 (1,898) -7.01% -1.73% May 46,376 46,172 45,406 52,008 6,602 12.64% 14.54% June 83,981 83,918 80,741 97,125 16,384 15.74% 20.29% July 122,562 130,300 124,61 1 135,716 1 1,105 4.16% 8.91 August 119,843 115,092 109,760 114,905 5,145 -0.16% 4.69% September 78,107 87,126 83,472 91,407 7, 935 4.91 % 9.51 October 57,330 60,325 58,721 62,968 4,247 4.38% 7.23% November 67,602 71,641 68,792 81,845 13,053 14.24% 18.97% December 253,449 276,725 260,659 292,762 32,103 5.80% 12.32% .. Total 1,695,467 1,821,963 1,707,000 1,934,311 227,311 6.17% 13.32% _ Orlt~'1 Town of Vail Conference Center Lodging Tax (1.5% 1 /26/2006 2005 2003 2004 Budget Co/%ctions ) Worksheet Budget Variance hange from 2004 Change from Budget January 258,035 304,140 276,303 308,833 32,530 1.54% 11.77% February 314,645 354,159 321,744 365,337 43,593 3.16% 13.55% Marche 342,984 333,006 302,527 411,604 109,077. 23.60% 36.06% April 64,246 87,147 79,171 70,286 ~~8,885) -19.35% -11.22% May ~ 15,964 18,027 16,377 21,375 4,998 18.57% 30.52% June 54,1,53 56,662 51,476 67,652 16,176 19.40% 31.42% July- 84,422 94,611 85,951 95,628 9,677 1.07% 11.26% August 81,820 82,900 75,312 75,384 72 -9.07% 0.10% September 42,569 48,706 44,248 53,744 9,496 10.34% 21.46% October 25,131 28,707 26,080 26,230 150 -8.63% 0.58% November. 29,089 33,037 30,013 33,604 3,591 1.72% 11.96% December 260,232 289,276 262,798 301,530 38,732 4.24% 14.74% Total 1,573,290 1,730,378 1,572,000 1,831,207 259,207 5.83% 16.49% f` ~~iritor . ~ t~5c o3 SQ ~ ,ran. ~t 3 to VAI L VALLEY Chamber&Tourism Bureau Your Sucres; Connection VAIL LODGING OCCUPANCY FORECAST Summary of Booking Patterns as of December 31, 2005 Prepared by MTRiP (RRC Associates 8~ Advisory Group), January 23, 2006 This report summarizes selected results of the Vail Lodging Occupancy forecast as of December 31, 2005. The Vail Lodging Occupancy Forecast provides data on booking patterns at Vail lodging properties, for both historic months and the forward-looking 6 months, and as such provides a barometer and advance indicator of overnight stays in Vail. Studymefhodology: Twelve Vail lodging properties, representing approximately 1,422 rooms, participated in this month's lodging occupancy survey: • Destination Resorts Vail • Peak Properties Inc. • Vail International Condominiums • Lion Square Lodge • Prudential Colorado Properties • Vail Marriott Mountain Resort and • Manor Vail Resort • The Lodge at Vail • Vail Racquet Club • Montaneros • Vail Cascade Resort & Spa • Westwind at Vail The lodging occupancy survey permits comparisons of lodging activity this year to the same point in time last year, allowing for "pacing" analysis. Moreover, this year's and last year's bookings "to date" can also be compared to last year's historical actual bookings, allowing an understanding of the degree of "fill" achieved to date for occupancy in upcoming months. Vail's occupancy results can also be compared to those at across-section of other mountain communities which are deploying similar lodging occupancy surveys with MTRiP. • Occupancy results: o Vail occupancypacinq: This winter's occupancy pacing shows a mix of strengths and weaknesses, varying by month. November 2005's occupancy was up slightly from the prior year (2.6 percent), while December's occupancy was up 4.7 percent. Looking ahead, January's occupancy is currently up 11.6 percent from one year ago; February is down 0.4 percent; March is down 18.6 percent; and April is up 31.6 percent. The significant weakness in March warrants attention, while the strength in April is clearly a function of the later Easter this year (April 16, 2006 vs. March 27, 2005). o Vail absolute occupancy rates: Based on 2005 results, Vail tends to experience its highest winter occupancy rates in March (76 percent in 2005) and February (74 percent), followed by January (68 percent), December (65 percent), April (37 percent), and November (23 percent). This provides a general indicator of when the community tends to be busiest on a monthly average basis. o Vail fill patterns: Many of the room nights for upcoming months have yet to be booked, meaning that there is still time to stimulate~business. As of December 31, based on historical patterns, it is estimated that roughly 12 percent of January room nights had yet to be booked,14 percent of February room nights had yet to be booked, 38 percent of March room nights had yet to be booked, and 64 percent of April room nights had yet to be booked. 100 East Meadow Drive, Suite 34 * Vail, CO 81657 "p. (970)476-1000 ~ f. (970)476-6008 www. visitvailvalley. corn <~SE . vif;tar . C3 D ctQ ~ 74 ~ i .~~ ~ i VAI L VALLEY Chamber&Tourism Burea~:l Your Success Connection o Comparisons to ofhermountain resorts: Based on lodging occupancy data at across-section of western U.S. mountain resorts, some of the monthly patterns observed at Vail are also shared across the industry. Specifically, Vail's strength in January and April, and relatively flat pacing in February, are also observed at many other resorts. However, there are also some differences: Vail fared significantly better than the industry averages in November December (from a pacing standpoint - i.e. this year vs. last year), but is trending significantly worse than average in .March. • Vail average nighfly rate: Average nightly room rates in Vail are strong, currently trending up 4 to 6 percent from last year for December through March, and up 12 percent in April. Absolute room rates vary from approximately $140 in November to $420 in March, generally following variations in demand. i * 100 East Meadow Drive, Suite 34 * Vail, CO 81657 " p. (970)476-1000 "' f. (970)476-6008 " www. visitvailvalley. corn MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Public Meetings Please find attached public input from both the West Lionshead and West Vail public meetings that occurred January 31, 2006 and January 26, 2006, respectively, for your information. West Lionshead Participant Feedback Please take a few moments to answer the following questions and if you would like to be contacted regarding future meeting dates please include your name and contact information, preferably an email address. You can return this document to the Town Staff at the conclusion of the meeting. Name: Contact Information: • Do you agree that the placement of a new gondola on the location of the Amoco/BP gas station site is appropriate? / Would prefer the lift location closer to the Ritz / If that's where parking and commercial/office can best be developed, it's a good site. However, I feel the Ritz Carlton development should be delayed to also evaluate a lift site east of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. / From a base area viewpoint, it seems like the most available or likely place to put a new lift. Unfortunately, at the top, it still doesn't get you anywhere on Vail Mountain. Who wants to go to the bottom of 26? The top to do is a cat road to Game Creek? `But certainly the best opportunity available. / Yes. • Should this gondola be constructed, do you envision its location and function as being more appealing to locals or to guests? / With a location at a former gas station site, more appealing to locals (sic) / It's got to be appealing and sensible or it will fail. Should not be another Golden ;Peak which has failed as a major portal due to congestion, no parking, and terrible circulation. / Guests -only if staying nearby. If the underpass from Simba/Sandstone comes over, then lost more condo guests have walking access to this -great for those properties! Locals and/or drivers, could be a quick in/out similar to any other option, certainly more appealing if locals/employees are prodded with incentives. / Yes, construct it. Build as much parking as possible, more than needed to get cars off of Frontage Road. I'm concerned about year-round retail viability. Lionshead businesses have been struggling for years. • What suggestions do you have for keeping this area vibrant and active all year round rather than only when the gondola is in operation? / A movie theater / More stores such as Barnes and Noble / Elegant shops, as can be found in Aspen, such as Ralph Lauren, Chanel, Banana Republic / another Club Chelsea for night life / hiking and biking center / A great place to replace the office space we have lost in Vail Village, Lionshead and in this area (i.e. Vail Professional Building, etc.) / Recreation / Youth Center / Skatepark / Park / Keep people coming and going to stop for coffee, sandwich, etc. / Shops by themselves don't do it, need other activities or entertainment. / If locals orientation is desired, businesses such as the Gore Range Brewery, a blues jazz club, Einstein's Brothers, Tokyo Joe's, Noodles and Co, etc. would be desirable. / Give the likely cost of real estate this may be unrealistic and the locals center of gravity may remain downvalley. • Other Comments or Suggestions? / I feel allowing the Ritz to move forward before this is farther along in the planning process is a huge mistake. West Vail Participant Feedback Please take a few moments to answer the following questions. If you would like to be contacted regarding future meeting dates, please include your name, contact information, and your email address. You may return this document to the Town Staff at the conclusion of the meeting. Name: Contact Information: 1. Which of the Alternatives presented today do you feel is the most appropriate for the West Vail Commercial Area and why? ^ I believe this need to happen. Make it user-friendly and attractive. Study the pros and cons of Riverwalk area (where I work). Traffic flow and parking there is a problem sometimes. ^ Like the idea of a European Village feel and using the parking areas that are being wasted now. ^ I like the European town look. ^ I felt the question and answer period brought up very good thoughts, comments, and ideas. have nothing to add. Thank you. ^ Alternative three seems to offer the best balance of space, parking and architectural design. Good effort. ^ Alternative three seems best, not too cluttered. I would still like to know about building heights. I am opposed to Chamonix access. It doesn't seem like there is enough parking for quick trips. ^ Rename this to something other than "West Vail" -West Village? Westwalk? Number 3 seems best, though it is too large. We need to beautify the north side of the entire project to enhance view from residential homes on the north side of Chamonix. ^ Probably #3 but I would like more info. ^ Alternative three ^ Alternative three seems to begin to address circulating views from neighborhoods. ^ Alternative three with pedestrian access. Try to disperse with the traffic. 2. What is your opinion of circulating traffic through feeder roads from the North Frontage Road up to Chamonix Lane? ^ I think it would flow better. However, I do not live in the West Vail area and I don't know how it would effect the homeowners. ^ Feel Chamonix should be a part of the plan. Getting out on the Frontage Road is terrible at certain times of the day. ^ This makes sense. Also need feeders from the South side of the project. ^ As a property owner on Chamonix, I think additional traffic is not great. I do not support circulating traffic on Chamonix. ^ 100% opposed. I live right behind the proposed Main Street and there would be an increase in traffic, which I don't want, especially considering the young children in that area. Stairs to Chamonix are just fine for pedestrian traffic. ^ Offer owners parking spaces to buy and own for a certain amount of money. Could help to fund the underground parking proposal. ^ Seems likely to conflict with the residential nature. ^ Road through two gas stations already a safety hazard. Need to bypass and develop additional access roads to project. ^ Need three lanes on Chamonix and two feeder roads. ^ Very concerned that it will become another Frontage Road. 3. How do you feel about the architectural themes and concepts presented today in relation to their application to the bulk and mass models for the West Vail Commercial Area? ^ I liked the look. However, it seems similar to the employee housing by the main Vail roundabout. This building looks massive. Break things up with levels and green space (yards, trees, outside tables). ^ Incorporate the European/Bavarian look into the architectural themes. ^ I think the European concepts are great. Those architectural themes work due in large part to the use of. public spaces. Make sure there are good public spaces in the final design. ^ Who will pay for these? Will there be storefronts facing Chamonix? ^ Anything as long as it is attractive and "village like". ^ Headed in the right direction. Need walkways and bike riding access, sidewalks for children, parents, baby strollers, etc. ^ In favor...area needs thematic architecture. ^ Need more diversity/structure and less stucoo, more stone. Should not look like employee housing or ail but more updated version. No Bavarian! ^ Okay With European stucco look. Height needs to remain low with higher tower elements. Provide "critical mass" of small, interesting shops, restaurants oriented towards residents first, tourists second. Need public spaces -cafe. ^ Give West Vail. its own distinct architectural identity ^ I like this. Keep the theme of Vail and do not make it a separate area. 4. Other comments: ^ Nice Job! ^ Community Plan - I wonder if that should be completed before additional development? I'd like to ask that future meetings be held in a venue that allows people to hear each other. It was noisy and not conducive to discussion. ^ What will the height of structures be? ^ Implement a doggie park and place to play like there is in Intermountain and East Vail (bighorn park). Also, add a children's play area for residential living units. ^ ,.Access from Eastbound lanes? Additional round-about? Truck/delivery access to "businesses? West Vail round-about would not be able to handle additional traffic. ^ Support horizontal zoning. Increased site coverage okay. Widen Chamonix, need one or two connections from Frontage Road to Chamonix bus stops. ^ Thanks for all of the hard work. ^ Can the Roost be included? ^ ~ Is there enough of an incentive for owners to redevelop? ^ Roundabouts not preferred ^ Make sure housing is affordable for locals and retirees ^ How will/can .this area cater to local professionals ^ Incorporate public spaces in the plan ^ 360 degree approach to the design -Chamonix Lane side view ^ Alternative 3 is great for solar access, light, and air ^ Recreation paths MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Information Office DATE: February 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Overview of 2000 Peer Resort Visits BACKGROUND During the Town Council retreat on Dec. 16, 2005, the topic of peer resort visits was mentioned as an action worth pursuing. The following is an overview of the town's last involvement in sponsoring visits to peer resorts and a description of the key takeaways resulting from the spring 2000 trips. 2000 PEER RESORT VISITS The peer resort visits in 2000 were a byproduct of the TOV-VA Community Task Force, a Town Council-appointed body which was established to help manage the peak and non-peak ski season periods outlined in the TOV-VA Managed Growth Agreement of 1995. Pur ose The Community Task Force identified five goals for the visits: • As a precursor to adding more definition to Vail's vision "to be the premier mountain resort community!" • Check out the competition first hand and learn about their visions • Identify trends and opportunities • Reciprocate information-sharing • Plan for Vail's future proactively Destinations The top five resorts in North America, as ranked by Ski Magazine at the time, were identified for the trip: • Aspen (#5) . • Deer Valley (#2) • Park City (#9 & host of 2002 Winter Olympics) • Sun Valley (#4) • Whistler/Blackcomb (#3) Earlier, a smaller delegation visited Carmel, Calif. Participants Twenty-three community representatives participated in one or more trips. Representation included: • Vail Town Council • Vail Village/LionsHead Business Leadership • Tourism Bureau • Vail Resorts • Town of Vail Staff 2000 Comparisons • As en Strengths Mature community rich with cultural, educational and retail amenities that result in a strong summer and shoulder season Challenges Lack of alignment between community and resort • Deer Valley Strengths Guest service Challenges Lacks community dimension • Park City Strengths Very strong growth with the Olympics resulting in new amenities for the community. Strong advocate for collaboration with Myles Rademan Challenges Changing demographic is resulting in a disconnect with the community. Park City is becoming a bedroom community for Salt Lake City • Sun Valley Strengths . Nostalgic mystique which has resulted in lifelong guest loyalty; pride in private ownership of ski area Challenges Access; directive from owners to limit resort marketing; disconnect with Ketchum • .Ketchum Strengths Authentic western atmosphere and architecture Challenges Developing zoning regulations that will preserve the western architecture and feel of the community Whistler Strengths The vision integrates community and resort which results in high level guest experience, re: employees feel part of the community Challenges Access and weather Key Takeaways 2000 • Vail is similar to the other destinations in that it is facing similar challenges of housing, transportation, parking as well as sustainability issues (economic, environmental, quality of life). There are vision and identity concerns. • Vail is unique in the following areas: best mountain/snow/weather; easy access; four-season activities; Tyrolean character; pedestrian villages; sense of place; transportation leader; open space leader; strong ability and reputation for hosting internationally-recognized events; international corporate presence • Clear focus and collaborative spirit are key to success • Negativism and fragmentation are detrimental to success • Focused leadership is essential • Shared vision is critical • Product life cycle maturity; we're a victim of our success • Need to remodel and upgrade the product, re: lodging, restaurant, retail, on-mountain, etc. • We're better off than our peers in our ability to solve problems • Housing is the major issue • Absence of spirit and pride in Vail • Need spirit of cooperation vs. position of blame • Strategic partnerships need to be fostered and developed; create level of trust and respect for each other • Improve summer business opportunities • Bigger is not necessarily better Near Term Imperatives 2000 • Acquire affordable seasonal housing • Commit to shared vision and alignment with a business plan and measurements • Streamline effective decision-making • Grow summer business • Advertise our strengths; stress the positives • Build community infrastructure that generates energy • Generate community spirit • Create strategic relationships/partnerships with all community sectors • Tap middle management for energy; create advisory councils with other constituents; include and embrace part-time residents Long-Term Imperatives (5 Years) 2000 • Cornerstone projects to be finished (Vail Center, LionsHead core site, Vail Village improvements) • Address noise impacts of I-70 OTHER EXPERIENCES In addition to the 2000 resort visits, the town has facilitated the following experiences: • Disney World behind-the-scenes tour, Public Works Team, May 2001 • Winter Olympics visit to Salt Lake City and Park City by Mayor, Town Manager, Public Works Director, Community Information Officer, February 2002 • Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain streetscape/heated village tour, fall 2003 • European Peer Resort Tour, Public Works Director, February 2005 • Police Department week-long employee exchange with Whistler, 2005. • Most recently, Town Manager Stan Zemler accompanied a Beaver Creek delegation to Lech, Austria. He also was attempting to schedule a visit to St. Moritz, Switzerland (Nail's sister city). The trip took place Jan. 27 to Feb. 4, 2006. 3 Also, the Vail Valley Exchange has helped facilitate trips to our sister city area in Mt. Buller, Australia, the most recent of which occurred in summer 2005. The Exchange also worked with the town in 1994 to organize a trip to St. Moritz, Switzerland, with participation by a delegation of 25 local tourism and government representatives, including four Vail Town Council members (Osterfoss, Lapin, Strauch, Navas). FUTURE DESTINATIONS As the town looks to address future challenges and opportunities, comparison visits to other resort destinations could be explored, with selection based upon area(s) of interest and focus. For example, if Vail wanted to see how it measures up with other winter resort destinations, the likely candidates would include: • Whistler, British Columbia (host of 2010 Olympics) • Park City/Deer Valley (host of 2002 Olympics and No. 1 Ski Magazine rating) • Europe (proximity of multiple resorts, advances in technology, scale of villages) If an area of focus includes examples of mixed use projects in anticipation of the West Vail and West LionsHead master planning, staff would consult with industry leaders for a list of must-see cities. Or, destinations that have done well in balancing resort and community issues could be researched. Warm weather resorts also serve as notable competition comparisons, especially those with a shift toward an aging recreational/resort community. Examples include: • Sanibel, Florida • San Destin, Florida • Seaside, Florida • Palm Beach, Florida • Hilton Head, South Carolina • Amelia Island, Florida • Scottsdale, Arizona • Palm Springs, California • Santa Monica, California • Laguna Beach, California • Selected Bobby Ginn developments Visits to resort/leisure business competitors also could be considered, including: ' • Las Vegas, Nevada • San Juan Island, Washington • Disney World • Hawaii To visit areas on the cutting edge, the Far East and Dubai, United Arab Emirates have been recommended by industry leaders. If Council wishes to pursue such visits, staff recommends defining specific areas of focus or interest which would then be used to research and identify a list of appropriate destinations to maximize the benchmarking. ATTACHMENT Peer Resort Comparisons Spring 2000 4 PEER RESORT COMPARISONS SPRING 2000 CONTEXT/BACKGROUND ASPEN ^ First silver prospectors arrived in 1879 and by the early 1890s, the population grew to over 12,000, making it the third largest city in Colorado behind Denver and Leadville. At one time, Aspen was the largest producer of silver in North America ^ When Congress repealed the Sherman Act in 1893 and the country returned to the gold standard, silver prices plunged eventually leaving a population of approximately 350 by the 1930s ^ Walter Paepcke's "Aspen Idea" of mind, body, spirit was launched around 1945 with creation of the Aspen Skiing Corporation, Aspen Institute, Design Conference at Aspen and Aspen Music Festival ^ Aspen Mountain opened for skiing in 1946 but didn't gain much prominence until it was selected to host the World Alpine Ski Championships in 1950 ^ Today's population is 6,000 full-time residents; skier visits at all four mountains total 1.32 million. (Snowmass has three times the skier volume than Aspen) ^ Impacts of trophy homes (generating an estimated 2.5 employees year-round) had caused Pitkin County to place a 6-month moratorium on construction of new homes of 5,000 sq. ft. or more PARK CITY ^ Founded in 1869 as asilver-mining town; by 1900, it was a booming mining town with 10,000 residents and 100 saloons ^ The mining company opened Park City Mountain Resort in 1963. ^ Historic District for preservation in the.commercial core ^ Park City is home for many people who work in Salt Lake City, creating a 2-way rush hour between the two cities ^ Primary homeowners' property taxes are 55% of total assessed; second homeowners are taxed at 100% value ^ Today's population is 6,500 full-time residents; skier visits at Park City Mountain Resort total 1.2 million; NA at Deer Valley; and 200,000 at the Canyons SUN VALLEY ^ In the early 1880s, Ketchum was a booming mining town and had a reputation for its therapeutic hot springs. By 1884, it was a thriving mining town with 13 saloons, 4 restaurants, 2 hotels and many other businesses. ^ By 1936, the once prosperous mining town had been transformed into a sleepy little town with ayear-round population of 100 people. Union Pacific began construction of the Sun Valley Resort and doors were opened in 1937 to the public. Sun Valley, "America's First Destination Ski Resort," was frequented by many famous movie stars including Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman. Today's population in Ketchum is 3,873 full-time residents; 997 full-time residents in Sun Valley. Skier visits at Sun Valley total 96;500. WHISTLER ^ In the early 1900s people came to the Whistler area, then known as Alta Lake, during the summer for fishing and lake activities. Mines and mills were also operational in the area at fhat time. ^ In 1914, the railroad made access to the area much easier ^ In 1965, Highway 99 was completed and Whistler Mountain opened for skiing ^ The first Resort Municipality in Canada, Whistler incorporated in 1975, giving Whistler taxation capabilities never before used in Canada ^ Today's population is over 5,000 full-time residents. Eighty percent of the Whistler workforce lives in town. Skier visits total 2.2 million for Whistler/Blackcomb combined. VAI L ^ Vail was developed as a European-themed ski resort which opened in 1962 by visionaries who served in the 10`h Mountain Division (ski troopers) during World War I I ^ Since then, a community has grown up around the resort with 4,500 permanent residents now calling Vail home ^ 70 percent of the properties in Vail are owned by part-time residents ^ Vail has increasingly become a destination for international visitors following the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships ^ Skier visits are about 1.4 million annually NICHE ASPEN ^ Retreat for body, mind 8~ spirit via recreation, humanities and culture ^ .Environmental consciousness (Ski Co & Community) ^ Glamour, glitz & expense ^ Preservation of Victorian architecture ^ Shopping PARK CITY ^ 2002 Winter Olympics ^ Myles Rademan influence ^ Customer service at Deer Valley ^ Historic shopping district SUN VALLEY ^ Nostalgia/mystique of Sun Valley Lodge & ownership ^ "America's first destination ski resort" ^ Summer ice show KETCHUM ^ Small-town atmosphere and western feel ^ Emerging art galleries WHISTLER ^ #1 Ski Area in North America (Ski Magazine) ^ High value for American dollar ^ Energy and vitality VAIL ^ Extraordinary ski mountain ^ International focus 2 ^ World championships venue (skiing, mountain biking) ^ Pedestrian village design ^ Fortune 500 influence ^ Gerald & Betty Ford VISION ASPEN ^ The "Aspen Idea," developed in the late 1940s by Walter Paepcke is the central vision that serves to connect the city, ski company and other core organizations. Aspen strives to symbolize the "finest and fullest realizations of mankind's physical, spiritual and intellectual possibilities." The Aspen Institute, the Aspen Music Festival and School, the International Design Conference at Aspen and the Aspen Skiing Company are outgrowths of this 1940s "modern renaissance." The vision is complex and involves multiple organizations and efforts. PARK CITY ^ "We're a ski town. Without it, we're a suburb." Myles Rademan, the city's public affairs director, who launched a leadership training program in 1996, is largely responsible for creating continuity in this vision over the years. However, officials are feeling somewhat threatened by the growing number of Salt Lake City transplants who live in Park City but commute to their jobs in Salt Lake. The challenge, they say, is for these new residents to understand and appreciate the ski town economy and how it contributes favorably to their quality of life. The 2002 Winter Olympics has served as the inspiration for pulling together. Also, the city is most responsible for setting the ski town tone, since there are three separate ski operations and no dominant entity. The city's charge is to help position Park City as a "world-class, year-round community that respects its environment, heritage and diversity." SUN VALLEY ^ "We're afull-service summer and winter resort, where skiing is just one part of what we do." The Sun Valley ownership appears to operate in aself-sufficient mode in isolation from Ketchum. KETCHUM ^ "To sustain the quality of life enjoyed by Ketchum's residents and quality of experience offered to visitors." The draft Ketchum Comprehensive Plan also goes on to state: "because real estate development, sales, construction and related activities are now the most important economic force in the area, the City is no longer totally dependent on ski resort activities for its economic well-being." WHISTLER ^ "We will be the premier mountain resort community." Specific goals have been adopted within the Resort Municipality and Intrawest to build upon afour-season resort focus, including a bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics. VAI L ^ "To be the premier mountain resort community." Work is currently underway to add additional clarity to the vision to better understand what success will look and feel like. RESORT COMMUNITY ALIGNMENT (Residents Elected Officials Ski Co) ASPEN ^ Alignment wasn't all that obvious to the delegation. For example, each group we talked to had a different set of issues and priorities. While the city was focused on serving community needs with a $25 million major youth/recreation initiative for parks, recreation and trails; the Chamber identified a shrinking bed base and lack of available airline seats as serious issues. Neither the Aspen Ski Company nor the Chamber Resort Association seemed to be involved in influencing the city's political agenda as a partner entity. "There's no question Aspen is a community first. The resort can wait in line. Most people here are pleased Whistler is No. 1 and not Aspen," said Pat O'Donnell, CEO Aspen Ski Corporation. "People feel if Aspen Ski Co succeeds, it will threaten the small-town character," he continued. Interestingly, Aspen City Manager Steve Barwick said, "we're still a ski town.... If we saw a 10 percent decrease in skier days, we'd be hurt." We were told the business community rarely weighs in on issues in an organized way. However, that may change as the second homeowner economy begins to take hold with door-to-door deliveries, etc. This is expected to cause a decrease in the volume of "walk-in" retail business. PARK CITY ^ With all eyes on the 2002 Winter Olympics, Park City appears to be focused and aligned. Ski areas are working on a reciprocal lift ticket. Park City Mountain Resort suggests a collective visioning process--looking 20 years out--with the city, county and three ski areas as a "constant process." SUN VALLEY/KETCHUM ^ Mostly, we found alignment extremes in the Sun Valley region. For example, we heard instances in which second homeowners within the City of Sun Valley are willing to write personal checks for municipal needs, such as a fire truck or snowplow. It was described as a "country club" atmosphere. However, residents in Ketchum are more conservative. There, elected officials faced an unsuccessful recall effort when they voted to add a density bonus fora 44-unit residential development that included 14 inclusionary housing units. In addition, news of anewly-dismissed lawsuit protesting Ketchum's annual contribution to the Chamber as an economic development tool was on the front page of the local newspaper. Meanwhile, the director of the Chamber of Commerce expressed frustration about Sun Valley's low-key marketing efforts, while Ketchum representatives didn't mention how tourism or skiing ties into their vision at all. Instead, they identified the second home economy as the "driving force." Chamber and Sun Valley Resort officials expressed frustration in the Hailey Airport Board's decision to ban 737s from the airport, which makes access to the area- more difficult. While each of these stakeholder groups has roles, these groups don't appear to be working toward a collective higher purpose. WHISTLER ^ The various stakeholder groups appeared to be working in the same direction with a strong sense of purpose to make Whistler a premier resort and that a key means of doing that is through a strong community. Monthly meetings are held among the larger stakeholder group, including Tourism Whistler, ski company, Municipality of Whistler, Chamber and Lodging representatives. In addition, private quarterly meetings are held among the ski co, Municipality and Tourism Whistler to visit goals and encourage open dialogue. VAI L ^ Through the leadership of Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Vail Mountain COO Bill Jensen, the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts are positioned to work together to identify and achieve common goals after bringing more clarity to Vail's vision. Once this fine-tuning has been completed, the possibilities for shared community-wide alignment are enormous and would give Vail a distinct competitive advantage. CRITICAL ISSUES ASPEN ^ As identified by the City: ^ Affordable housing. A 200-bed joint seasonal project with the Music Associates is opening in June. Will be used in summer for music program and in winter for ski employees. A 38-unit rental project for low income seniors opened in September. Working on a 225 for-sale project outside the city limits with apre-annexation agreement. Very controversial and may take to a public vote in August rather than fight it out with citizen initiative. ^ Transportation. Light rail still in limbo. Developing a Regional Transportation Authority with 8 municipalities and portions of three counties. A boundary vote will occur this November. With driver shortages and capital replacement costs, can't continue to sustain service levels unless a permanent funding source is in place. ^ Youth/Recreation Initiatives. $25 million project. Adding ballfields, relocating fields, new pool, ice rink, youth center moving to new location. Also includes park improvements, trail system improvements, Nordic system, sidewalk improvements. "Huge reward for our work force." $14 million bond passed last May with 80 percent public support. ^ As identified by the Ski Co: ^ Strict land use controls are regulating the tourism economy in a negative way. City/County won't let Aspen Ski Co use its assets to the fullest. For example, use of the gondola in the evenings is prohibited. ^ Down-valley movement. "We-"they" mentality. "Haves and have-Hots" are creating hard feelings. By only having the elite in Aspen, community fabric is reduced. Also, hard to find workers. ^ Lack of affordable seasonal housing. ^ Second home retreats host parties and function in isolation., Has caused a shift in the economy: the catering business is booming and the restaurant business is declining. ^ "There's an apathy about skiing and I'm frightened that it could become an amenity like golf. With Vail's mass, you shouldn't face this.... These days, people seem only interested in an 'adequate' mountain and nothing more. Our business is the ski business. We're not in the real estate business. Maybe servicing the older person is our niche." Pat O'Donnell, CEO Aspen Ski Co ^ As identified by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association: ^ Capacity of town is a limiting factor in. airline seats and live beds. Lost 35 percent of airline seats when Continental closed its Denver hub in 1994. Now rely on Eagle County Airport. Bed base peaked in 1994. Then, with loss in economy lodge sector (12 lodges lost to private home development), bed base is now 20 percent smaller than 1994. Erosion could be even higher due to lack of comprehensive data source. ^ Work force shortage crisis caused by housing and transportation. PARK CITY ^ As identified by the city: ^ Downtown area and parking issues ^ Growth (economic development, housing prices) • Relationships with county (urban sprawl, development review) ^ Bedroom community of Salt Lake City (possible erosion of ski town culture) ^ Olympic participation ^ Internet sales (loss of municipal tax income) ^ Fractional fee units (lost tax income if not in rental pool) As identified by Park City Mountain Resort: ^ Poor quality of base area ^ Aging and quality of bed base KETCHUM ^ Design and character of downtown ^ Parking (is it a problem or not?) ^ Entrance to town Future planning of River Run ski base area development ^ Affordable housing WHISTLER ^ Completing a vision plan ^ Access ^ Affordable housing ^ Conversion to paid parking ^ 2010 Olympic bid VAI L ^ Lodging quality ^ Resort value ^ Redevelopment ^ Affordable housing ^ Public amenities ^ Community polarization ^ Leadership ^ Clarity of vision ACCESS ASPEN ^ Sardy Field in Aspen offers 12 daily flights via United Express from DIA. Northwest Airlines flies nonstop twice daily between Aspen and Minneapolis/St. Paul and America West Express offers year-round nonstop service between Phoenix and Aspen. Visitors also rely on service from the Eagle County Regional Airport, 70 miles away. Aspen is a 3'/2 hour drive from Denver. PARK CITY ^ A 30-something mile drive from airport in Salt Lake City. SUN VALLEY/KETCHUM ^ Requires a connecting flight to Hailey from Salt Lake City, or a 2-'/ hour drive from the Boise airport. Efforts continue to allow 737s to return to the Hailey airport. 6 WHISTLER ^ A 60-mile drive along the Sea-to-Sky Highway from the Vancouver International Airport. If Whistler wins the Olympic bid for 2010, ahigh-speed rail line and widening of the highway are anticipated to be funded by a federal grant. VAIL ^ A 30-plus mile drive from Eagle County .Regional Airport which offers nonstop service from 11 U.S. cities; atwo-plus hour drive from Denver International Airport. A high-speed monorail from DIA to the Eagle County Airport is under statewide consideration. SENSE OF ARRIVAL ASPEN ^ Traffic was heavy along Highway 82 (even on a non-peak day) as we made our entry into Aspen. Various forms of development were visible on the valley floor from Glenwood Springs to Aspen. A sense of arrival into Aspen occurs when the highway transforms into a tree-lined main street at the edge of the city. The transition creates a feeling of tranquility and calm. PARK CITY ^ A four-lane boulevard entry from the suburbs of Salt Lake City created an urban impression. Later, "quaintness" was the term the group used to describe the historic shopping district with its mining town architecture and scale. KETCHUM/SUN VALLEY ^ The entry into Ketchum from the Hailey Airport had a rural feeling with high-end residential developments sprinkled alongside the two-lane roadway. With multiple ski portals at Sun Valley, there was no single sense of arrival. WHISTLER ^ The group arrived in darkness and had a difficult time finding the lodge. Prior to nightfall, the winding drive along the Sea-to-Sky Highway from,Vancouver was interesting and scenic. VAIL ^ From I-70 west over Vail Pass, the arrival into Vail along the interstate is more majestic than arrival from I-70 east due to the absence of development along Vail Pass. Dowd Junction serves to help buffer the urban areas from Eagle-Vail to Edwards. Entry features are eventually planned for Vail's off-ramps. - - SENSE OF PLACE ASPEN ^ Aspen's mining roots and its Victorian architecture provide an authentic sense of place. The downtown area is designed in traditional square blocks and is easy to navigate. The ski mountain and chairlifts are visible from most areas of the city, providing a sense of connection to the mountain and environment. PARK CITY ^ The historic mining district, with its 234 shops and restaurants, is the central activity hub of Park City. The district includes a chairlift from the center of town~to Park City Mountain 7 Resort. The Deer Valley ski area is aself-contained residential/commercial area and is separated from other elements of the city, as is the Canyons ski area, with new development occurring at the base, just outside the city limits. SUN VALLEY ^ The Sun Valley Lodge, built in 1938, is rich with history and mystique, creating a strong sense of connection among those who visit. The experience is revered and is passed down from one generation to the next. On the mountain, the newly built day lodges, with their magnificent splendor, serve to reinforce Sun Valley as a magical place. Ketchum, itself, contributes little to this magical experience, as most of Sun Valley's operations, including lodging, commercial, restaurant and skiing, are self-contained within the Sun Valley ownership. KETCHUM ^ With cars parked down the middle of the streets, Ketchum had an old-west, relaxing feeling. However, some of the newer commercial development projects seemed to conflict with the old-west persona. WHISTLER ^ The pedestrian villages at the base of Whistler and Blackcomb mountains serve as a crossroads to connect visitors and residents, creating vibrancy and energy. The pedestrian village is the focal point for retail in the region, with a notable absence of `strip mall' development in Whistler. VAI L ^ Vail Village, with its landmark Covered Bridge and Clock Tower, has created postcard images and memories for years. SKI AREA OWNERSHIP ASPEN ^ Aspen Skiing Company is privately owned by a private corporation headed by the Crown Family. It operates Aspen Mountain ("the athlete's mountain") which rises above the city. Plus, 3 other ski areas on the outskirts of town: Buttermilk Mountain ("the finest learning mountain in America"); Aspen Highlands ("the activities mountain"); and Snowmass ("Colorado's finest high altitude cruise"). All four areas are operated on White River National Forest lands. The Aspen Ski Co opera_tio_ns are mountain-focused with little to no real estate opportunities available. PARK CITY ^ The 3 ski areas surrounding Park City have three ownership groups: Deer Valley is privately owned by Edgar Stern and Rodger Penske; Park City Mountain Resort is owned by Powder Corp., a Park City-based private corporation; the Canyons is owned by American Skiing Corporation, a publicly traded company accountable to stockholders. All 3 ski areas are operated on private lands and real estate development is a component of all 3 companies. SUN VALLEY ^ Privately-owned by a hands-on oil magnate, Sun Valley's resort operations are driven by the owner's desires and priorities to operate afull-scale resort in which skiing is but one of several amenities. The mountain is private property and base mountain development is pending. WHISTLER ^ Owned by Intrawest, a publicly traded company accountable to stockholders. The mountains are owned by the Canadian Province. VAIL ^ Owned by Vail Resorts, a publicly traded company accountable to stockholders and operated on White River National Forest lands. VRI has an active real estate division. In addition, VRI operates Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone, also on Forest Service lands. AESTHETICS AS-PEN ^ Mixture of new and old architecture works well and maintains small-town Victorian character. Size and impacts of trophy homes becoming a concern. PARK CITY ^ With most of the surrounding land privately owned, hillside development was very noticeable. Also; .overhead power lines stretched throughout the historic district. Structures in the historic downtown district were narrow and quaint, reflecting the mining influence, while structures in the Deer Valley area were newer and larger, resembling Beaver Creek. SUN VALLEY ^ With a countywide ban on hillside development and commercial operations contained--by legislation--to the urban areas, the drive into Sun Valley had a pleasurable, rural feel. Once in Ketchum, a growth surge in the commercial area was noticeable that included new, larger buildings that seemed to overpower neighboring buildings. Overhead power lines were noticeable in most locations. At the Sun Valley ski area, the interior and exterior of new day lodges had the look and feel of a four-star hotel. WHISTLER ^ Pedestrian village intersections are a focal point for street entertainment and cafes. Exterior finishes in commercial villages were of a lower quality than many of us had expected. 9 VAIL ^ Established view corridors preserve critical views to the mountain throughout the pedestrian villages. Plans to upgrade some of the larger buildings in Lionshead are underway. LODGING/BED BASE ISSUES ASPEN ^ Aspen's bed base is eroding through attrition and closure of older antiquated lodges ^ Approximately 300 beds have been lost since 1994 alone ^ For several years regulatory policy weighed heavily against the refurbishment or replacement of old lodges; recent regulatory changes are intended to and may reduce the approval and mitigation burdens of redeveloping lodges, though economic challenges of hotel redevelopment may constrain the addition of "live" beds ^ Lodging quality is generally very good to excellent in renovated lodges and adequate to fair in older properties ^ Lodging variety is generally good, particularly when valley wide lodging stock and condominiums are considered PARK CITY ^ Park City's bed base is spread out across the valley from the Canyons to the Old Town base to Deer Valley ^ Bed base is growing, primarily at the Canyons with the new Grand Summit condo hotel and Marriott timeshare projects in Park City itself. Deer Valley's lodging base appears to be static. ^ Lodging quality in Park City and the Canyons appears to be typically mid-range with limited variety; Deer Valley lodging stock is of higher quality, but very limited supply ^ Significant opportunities for expanded bed base exist in three areas: ^ The Park City base parking lot site ^ American Ski Company's Canyons projects ^ Perimeter.and rural areas .SUN VALLEY ^ Ketchum ^ The town bed base is in danger of attrition through the loss of older, uneconomical lodges, particularly at entry level price points - ^ - From May 1999 to May 2000, the valley lost 951' short-term beds, a 16 percent decline from 6,710, according to the Sun Valley-Ketchum Chamber of Commerce. Developers say retail, office or long-term residential units command higher rents than hotel space. ^ Existing Ketchum lodging, excluding condominiums, appears to be concentrated in low to mid-price hotel /motel product of little variety and modest appeal ^ Very modest incremental bed base is being added in the form of a high-end vacation club project ^ The River Run site offers an excellent opportunity for mixed use lodging by the Sun Valley Resort Company, probably in the form of a boutique hotel, fractional, and condominium product ^ Redevelopment and in-fill opportunities for a wider variety of lodging would appear to be significant • Sun Valley t0 ^ The bed base is old in a classic sense, but refurbished high end product under common resort company management; service quality is high ^ Reinvestment in the rooms has resulted in three complete room renovations in 25 years ^ A mix of conventional lodges, condominiums, and cabins provides variety ^ Significant expansion opportunities exist on 2,000 undeveloped acres ^ Strong summer business arid the growth of summer destination business would seem to provide a significant growth opportunity if access and transportation constraints are resolved Hailey ^ The bed base appears to be limited to low end motel type product and physically removed from the resort's central amenities and attractions ^ Given the location, competitive lodging opportunities in Hailey appear to be minimal WHISTLER ^ Whistler is still creating new bed base, recently in the Blackcomb area with expansions to Chateau Whistler, the Whistler Club fractional product, and a forthcoming Four Seasons hotel, and at the foot of Whistler Mountain with a new Westin "strata" or condo hotel; these expansions alone amount to. several hundred keys and "live" beds ^ Additional bedbase, probably in the form of condo hotels with governmentally mandated rental pools will be built in the redeveloped and newly expanded western portals to Whistler Mountain ^ Lodging variety and quality are impressive and/or adequate from the high end (Pan Pacific, Chateau Whistler, etc:) torrid-price and entry level products ^ In all price points value is excellent, especially given present currency differentials ^ Whistler's build-out bed base is defined and capped through the resort municipality master plan ^ Affordability may be affected once supply reaches its mandated limit, but the excellent mix and well funded cooperative marketing efforts of Tourism Whistler may manage the hospitality economy effectively and sustainably VAI L ^ Vail's "live" bed base is eroding as older condominium properties greatly increase in value and are removed from rental programs as second homes ^ Older mid-price and entry level lodges have not been adequately maintained or continually refurbished resulting in poor guest impressions of value and under- performing occupancies in several key properties ^ Compared to many newer resort products Vail's bed base appears dated and substandard; even flagship properties' rooms are regarded as undersized, of marginal quality, and short on amenities ^ Opportunities for new or upgraded bed base are limited to incremental expansions or redevelopment of existing properties, both of which are financially difficult and constrained by regulatory measures designed to protect community character ^ Vail's lodging base is challenged by saving what has made it special while reinvigorating the product and value ^ Opportunities for a few, incremental improvements in bed base, through redevelopment or otherwise, offer the potential of expanding the variety of offerings and raising the overall perceived value, supplementing and complimenting existing stock ^ An opportunity might exist for public /private collaboration to reinvest in older lodges to alleviate the financial burdens of refurbishment SERVICE QUALITY & EMPLOYEE HOUSING ASPEN ^ Chamber sponsors Aspen Service University twice a year which provides basic customer training ^ Due to the traffic congestion on Hwy 82, most service workers in Glenwood Springs would rather drive to Vail to work than to Aspen ^ Aspen Ski Co has "doubled" its housing inventory to 300 beds; "city has made a commitment to housing, but you have to have lived here a while to take advantage of it." ^ Intranet recruitment has helped the hiring process ^ As downvalley has developed, it has become harder to find employees to work in Aspen ^ 10 years ago, Aspen Ski Co would have 4 to 5 applicants per job; it's not that way any more. However, the Ski Co still employs 250 people with 20 or more years of service, including one person who has 45 years of service with the company ^ Aspen Ski Co hires 1,000 new workers every year ^ A valley pay study is underway to determine if Ski Co wages should be increased; lift ops start at $9.25 an hour with an end of season bonus ^ Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority has focused on supervisor-level housing, leaving seasonal housing needs up to the private sector ^ Aspen Ski Co is interested in building seasonal housing, but can't find the land Park City ^ Proximity to Salt Lake City with large labor pool and housing inventory reduces worker shortage and affordable challenges experienced in most resorts; customer service is enhanced via Mormon values instilled by many employees. ^ Park City Mountain Resort still has problems recruiting and retaining employees. It will likely recruit some employees from~Australia. They're also looking at automation. In addition, appeal of Winter Games will generate employment interest. SUN VALLEY • Affordable housing is a problem in Ketchum; only 10 to 15 percent of Ketchum's workforce live in Ketchum; most Sun Valley/Ketchum employees live down valley in Hailey _ _ • Sun Valley has 470 beds for employees in the village; also use 2, 46-passenger buses from Twin Falls to bring in 100 workers; there are 300 foreign nationals who work at Sun Valley (100 from Costa Rica, 26 from Australia, 40 from France, 12 from Peru and some from the Philippines) • International employee recruitment occurs twice a year for Sun Valley • Sun Valley operators say more adequate housing is needed for mid-management and semi-professionals. "No one in the local community will build it, so we'll probably have to do it." WHISTLER ^ As a planned resort, Whistler has been successful in implementing a housing program. Since 1997, over 1,100 employee restricted beds have been added to the 12 inventory, bringing the total number to about 2,600 beds (plus 1,500 beds operated by the ski company). ^ Whistler's housing goals are to house 80 percent of the Whistler workforce (retention focus) and to facilitate the development of restricted ownership housing stock via the private sector (500 units/year). ^ The Chamber of Commerce provides training opportunities and recognition programs for employers and employees to ensure service excellence throughout the resort. In 1986, the Whistler Spirit Program was created. Discounted ski passes are available to those who participate in one of the programs. There is no other merchant or . community discount program available; therefore, virtually everyone in the community attends the Spirit program. ^ There was a genuine level of pride and helpfulness in the staff and residents we encountered. We attributed this to the following: drinking age is 19; 80 percent of the workforce live in the Municipality of Whistler, most within walking distance to the village; there are a lot of bars and restaurants that serve the workforce; there is a high level of appreciation shown to the staff; 40 percent of employees on the mountain are returning employees; half of the on-mountain employees are age 18- 25. ^ Whistler/Blackcomb has a `Protagonist of Animation' on staff. His job is to keep the employees enthusiastic. He skis around in the afternoon, giving lift operators cookies; he holds beer and macaroni & cheese dinner parties for front-line staff; he coordinates training programs. VAI L ^ In collaboration with the Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Vail Chamber and Business Association and Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, a communitywide employee of the month program has been created. Thought to be the only one of its kind in North America, "Premier Impressions" offers significant prizes and rewards for excellence in guest service. ^ In 1998, the Town of Vail completed construction of a 24-unit seasonal housing development which is used for Town of Vail bus drivers, snowplow drivers and other critical staff. It has dramatically reduced the employee shortages in these critical areas. During the summer months, the units are made available to employees of other local businesses. ^ In 2000, the Town of Vail purchased 12 rental apartments from the local owner to maintain the units as local employee housing and also to prevent them from being converted into second homes. ^ The Town has facilitated new ownership opportunities for 80 local employees. ^ The Towri. of Vail, in potential partnership with Vail Resorts, is working to maintain 596 rental beds as local employee housing in the heart of the town. ^ In partnership with Eagle County, the Town of Vail is presently working to develop approximately 200 units (mix of for-sale and rental) for local employees on the Berry Creek Fifth property in Edwards. ^ In partnership with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the Town of Vail has been able to develop more affordable units through tap fee waivers. ^ The Town master leases units from local property owners to provide housing for employees arriving from Australia and New Zealand for the winter season. ^ The Town targets housing opportunities that exist near free bus routes to make commuting easier and friendlier. PARKING & TRANSPORTATION 13 ASPEN ^ Paid parking has been successful.. Was substantiated by a public vote to continue the program. Generates $300,000 to $400,000 annually which gets plowed into transit ^ Prior to paid parking, spaces were occupied 100 percent of the time; now there are vacancy rates of 15 percent and complaint levels are way down ^ Parking structure costs $7.50 for all day or $3 for all day with a pass. On the street, it's $1 an hour with a 2-hour maximum. ^ '/2 cent countywide transit sales tax goes to regional transportation ^ Rail service is still 5 years or more away PARK CITY ^ Parking: goal.is to maximize utilization of spaces via high turnover ^ Paid parking at $1 an hour with 3 hour maximum was implemented two years ago; still a campaign issue; decision to maintain paid parking year-round on Main St. ^ Some tourists have boycotted Park •City because of paid parking, but most complaints are from locals. ^ Looking at the possibility of installing meters like Telluride SUN VALLEY ^ Ketchum can't decide if it has a parking problem or not. There are 1,700 free public spaces with a 2 hour limit in the central core. ^ Traffic congestion in and out of the valley is considered to be a problem WHISTLER ^ The provincial government runs Whistler transit (WAVE). This is a free service around the Village area of Whistler and Blackcomb. The outlying routes to the residential areas are paid routes of $1.50 per rider (Can), with discounted monthly passes. There is no regional transit service between the towns of Squamish and Pemberton, the two bedroom communities. ^ Whistler would one day like to have free transit service, similar to Vail. The current transit service is funded jointly by the provincial government and through use of the hotel tax. One additional funding source for transit is possibly paid parking. ^ There are over 5,000 free public parking spaces provided at the resort. In addition, each development must meet a parking requirement. The transportation master plan for Whistler suggests a paid parking management plan. VAIL - - - _ _ _ _ _ ^ The Town of Vail developed significant parking at its base areas early-on in its history. As such, the Town has 2,500 spaces of close-in parking available for users. The challenge has been to control the demand for parking through hourly fee structures which tends to conflict with Vail's desire to reduce the price of parking to encourage visits by downvalley residents. The second challenge is the split between destination. skiers and day skiers. The split is now moving more toward day skiers which puts additional pressure on the number of parking spaces needed. Current estimates place the need for an additional 1,000 spaces to meet this increased demand from day users. ^ The Town of Vail Transit system is the envy of the industry. Currently over 3 million riders use it annually. It is the largest free system in North America. In addition, there is a county transportation system which is funded with ahalf-cent sales tax, which provides service for all county users. The challenge to Vail's transit system is 14 noise, smell and the always-difficult task of having enough employees to run it. Work is currently underway to take the next steps to solving these problems with new technology. Roadway capacity in the Town of Vail was solved for the near-future with introduction of the modern roundabouts at the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges. Now only minor improvements are needed to the circulatory frontage roads to complete the system. Access across the interstate is a problem which still requires a solution. LAND USE /REAL ESTATE ISSUES -CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASPEN ^ Largely built-out within the commercial core ^ 2% growth caps limit development of outlying areas ^ Real estate quality is almost entirely luxury; land prices are top of the resort market ^ Very expensive -limits the market to only the richest segment of the population ^ Highly regulated -keeps supply capped, but quality is very high as a result ^ Redevelopment very constrained -revitalization difficult and uneconomical ^ Municipal participation and subsidies only method of providing affordable housing ^ Comparatively a very good retail environment and mix despite on-going debate of "nationals" versus local "boutiques" ^ Commercial rents pushing $170 / s.f. on prime corners -beyond viability - vacancies starting to appear and tax receipts falling PARK CITY ^ Town core itself nearly built-out; major site available at the base ^ Real estate quality is generally mid-price point; Deer Valley is adequate upper end ^ Major development occurring at The Canyons -low to mid-price point real estate ^ Olympic infrastructure investments are enormous and will provide significant physical amenities ^ Outlying and rural areas of two counties provide substantial development opportunities ^ Residential housing is affordable outside of the municipal jurisdiction ^ Sprawl and suburbanization pose serious land use, character, transportation, and "community" problems ^ "Main Street" commercial core has adequate, but uninspiring retail mix and presentation ^ Commeicial -rents very low - $40 / s.f. range SUN VALLEY ^ Comprised of three or more real estate sub-markets all of which are visually appealing ^ Ketchum is only 38% built out and possesses great small town charm ^ Ketchum is in land use crisis; master planning and architectural guidelines are not fixed and poorly planned and executed projects are damaging the town fabric ^ Ineffective regulatory environment may lead to new, poorly executed constraints which do further, though different, harm to community viability ^ Wonderful base area facilities give character to the mountain portals ^ Real estate prices in town, though low by Vail standards, are high compared to wages; affordable residential real estate is down valley creating commuting and "community" issues 15 ^ Redevelopment and in-fill opportunities are great if done well; River Run base poses great opportunity ^ Commercial core has interesting, eclectic mix and some great storefronts; other buildings are poorly executed and fail to blend into. the surrounding commercial context ^ Rents are very low, in the $25 / s.f. range, but commercial volumes are commensurately low and business fall-out of newer ventures is anticipated ^ Sun Valley contains the historic resort properties and high-end residential ^ Focus is on high end hospitality and second home properties ^ Quality is very good ^ Sun Valley Resort has 2,000 acres of undeveloped land -significant development opportunity ^ Constraints appear to be self-regulated or limited to access difficulties ^ Hailey comprises the affordable local community with high-end second homes on larger acreages ^ Affordable three bedroom single family residences are available in the $115 - 150,000 range ^ The commercial core seems to service the local populace ^ Hailey's opportunities as a locals community are great, but growth pressures will be great ^ Land use coordination between the three communities would appear to be non- existent ^ Sprawl on a small scale is already occurring and the down valley drain may pose economic and vitality problems for the older communities and commercial. core WHISTLER ^ Enormous land use advantages for creation and sustainability ^ Provincial infrastructure subsidies at outset ^ Purpose built resort community ^ Large municipal boundaries extend well beyond the commercial core and permit local housing within the town ^ Commercial development is concentrated in the core for both guest and local needs ^ Fully master planned and only now approaching 80% build out ^ Land use restrictions and covenants favor and even compel "live" beds ^ Density, in the form of "bed units" is granted for development of resort amenities or infrastructure (i.e. resort creation is incented by and rewarded with density) ^ The land use and regulatory environment appears to be collaborative or one of "partnering" between private and "public secfors - _ ^ Real estate quality is mid to high quality, though predominately "affordable" ^ Significant development and re-development opportunities appear to exist at the resort's perimeter or the expanding western portal ^ The commercial mix is good with both "nationals" and local "boutiques" present and retail vitality appears to be quite good; rents are in the $50 to $70 (CAN) sq. ft. range ^ The .concentrated "live" bed base surrounding the commercial core should keep it vital upon build-out ^ The town has not yet had to face the problems of dwindling residential or lodging supply as build-out approaches and affordability may become a problem when this occurs ^ Transportation infrastructure seems to be one shortcoming of the implemented master plan and may pose problems for tying land uses together as the municipality 16 grows to its boundaries; perimeter properties may not be as attractive to users if they can not conveniently access the mountain and commercial core VAIL ^ Vail is essentially built-out and tightly constrained physically ^ Land use issues are relegated to redevelopment or revised use questions ^ High real estate values significantly impact and constrain redeveloping and revitalizing aging mixed-use, lodging, and commercial stock ^ Though much of Vail's real estate is dated and aging, refurbished or redeveloped properties are of generally high quality and Vail Village remains charming and appealing ^ With demand remaining high, supply essentially capped, and regulatory constraints existing to protect community character, redevelopment is usually uneconomic ^ Modest opportunities for real estate renewal exist with close private /public cooperation or collaboration ^ Affordable residential opportunities are essentially non-existent in the town ^ The commercial sector is spread out within the town and has been drawn down valley ^ Retail vitality is waning and the commercial mix is comparatively limited ^ Commercial rents vary considerably, but the prime street rents range from $80 - $120 / s.f. PARTNERSHIPS 8~ MARKETING ASPEN • Chamber is focused on getting people into town; "driving tourism is our focus;" operations include management of 3 visitor centers • Typically, Chamber has driven summer business while Aspen Ski Co drives winter business; now people are asking Chamber to do more to help augment winter. • Total Chamber budget approaches $1 million; 45 percent comes from 800-plus members; $162,000 comes from the City of Aspen; other income is from sponsorship and event management fees • Chamber's direct marketing budget is $100,000, includes collateral, trade shows, advertising; does not include staff • Aspen's retail and restaurant groups are .inactive; lodging group is active • Lodging community works well together; Aspen Sales Directors Assn. share all leads • Bed base is too small to do much in the way of group meetings • 5 to 6 percent of reservations are booked through central reservations • Capacity limitations, re: include lack of airline seats and beds are critical issues • Aspen will market the fact there are no crowds there • Rooms are fully booked on weekends in July and August; summer visitors stay half as long and generate half the revenue of winter • There's no comprehensive source of data for bed base inventory; finding more erosion than originally thought • Aspen's food and wine festival in June is the kick-off to summer • Summer sales tax collections have increased by four percent, while winter has seen a decrease 17 PARK CITY ^ 3% transient room tax. 90% of that tax is given from the County to the Chamber to be used for marketing. ^ Creates a $2.9 million fund. Primarily used to market the area, Park City; not the individual resorts. 65% of budget is used to market winter ^ Marketing council made up of 1 rep each from the Canyons, Park City Mountain Resort and Deer Valley, and the Chamber ^ 75% of winter visitors are destination visitors to the 3 resorts, with a combined total of 1.3 million skier days last year ^ Demographic profile of winter visitors: from California (21 %), Florida (9%), New York (7) ^ 60% repeat visitors, average age 41, 77% male ^ average length of stay: 5 nights, skiing 4.9 days ^ In the summer, the guests are 48% male, 52% female with 27% between 35-45 years and 23% between 45 - 54 years ^ 30% of summer visitors are from. Utah, 16% from California and 8% from Arizona ^ Shopping, sightseeing and visiting art galleries are among the top reasons listed for why people go to Park City in the summer ^ Slogan, "We take the snow we need and pass what's left to Colorado" SUN VALLEY ^ Winter visitors come from: 22% California; 20% Idaho, 16% Washington, 12% international, 13% central US. ^ Summer guests come from: 48% Idaho, 19% other West, 14% California, 7% central US, 6% Northeast ^ Ski company doesn't do marketing or promotion, they focus their energy on Public Relations, but the Chamber gets.funding from the county and cities to market the area. They focus their marketing efforts on the `experience', not just the skiing WHISTLER ^ Whistler Resort Association, now referred to as Tourism Whistler, was incorporated as an association of land owners to promote, facilitate and encourage development, operation and marketing of resort lands. All businesses located on 'resort lands' are required to become members. There are currently 4,500 member businesses and individuals. Its role is clearly defined in the community by its mandate, to "increase tourism through the active marketing of the resort". ^ The Chamber of Commerce provides services to businesses, information services for visitors; and coordinates training programs for the tourism 8~ hospitality industry. They also operate an Employment Centre, which supplies job postings, counseling and other employment services. ^ The Chamber's "Spirit Program", familiarization program and guest service training, is required to receive discounted ski passes from Whistler/Blackcomb. There are 3 programs to choose from: a 4-hour training program for first year employees, a Spirit Day, expo trade show for returning employees, or a luncheon for owners and managers, with updates from the ski company and Municipality VAI L Local marketing district funded by 1.4% lodging tax, focused on marketing summer and shoulder seasons ^ Ski company focuses on marketing winter 18 MUNICIPAL TAX BASE ASPEN ^ Municipal budget is about $40 million, includes water and electric departments ^ Sales tax is 8.2 percent; there is no lodging tax (Aspen's portion is 1.7 percent) ^ Sales tax generates about 48 percent of general fund budget ^ Property taxes are. low, generating. about $2 million, or about 6 percent of the general fund ^ Housing is funded through a portion of 2 taxes: sales tax (.45 percent) and Real Estate Transfer Tax (1 percent) PARK CITY ^ Municipal budget is $69 million which provides services such as police, fire, water; recreation and transit, as well as other enterprise funds; general fund budget is $17 million ^ Capital budget is usually $14 million; this year spending $22 million to prepare for Olympics ^ Park City's sales and use taxes are as follows: State of Utah 4.75 percent Local Option 1.00 percent Resort Tax .75 percent Transit Tax 0.25 percent Total Sales Tax 6.75 percent Also: Restaurant Sales Tax 1.00 percent (originally passed to build a convention center, but never able to pull it off because it's a "money drainer.") Transient Room Tax 3.00 percent ^ Sales tax collections in winter are twice that in the summer. Total sales tax represents 10 percent of municipal revenues ^ Sales taxes are collected on the 2 ski mountains located within the city limits: Deer Valley and Park City Mountain Resort ^ Two-thirds of residential properties are second homes, a total of 7,000 ^ Second homes are taxed at 100 percent of assessed value; primary residents are taxed at 55 percent of assessed value ^ Property taxes account for $9.3 million annually and represent 12 percent of the municipal budget revenues ^ Voters passed a $10 million open space bond in 1998. So far, the city has spent over $4 million to purchase open space. SUN VALLEY Local options tax for next 10 years: 3 percent lodging tax and 3 percent retail tax to generate about $1.5 million annually. A 2 percent bed tax goes to the state for tourism. KETCHUM ^ Local options tax for next 15 years: 2 percent lodging tax and 1 percent retail tax to generate about $1.8 million annually. A 2 percent bed tax goes to the state for tourism ^ Low property taxes 19 WIiISTLER ^ General fund budget is $30 million (Can) and $15 million (Can) for capital projects. ^ Although there is a 10 percent sales tax in Whistler, nearly all that money goes to the Provincial government. ^ Whistler depends on property tax for 67 percent of its revenue. Impact fees make up the remainder of its income VAIL ^ Municipal budget is $34 million, which provides essential services such as police and fire protection, plus additional services to accommodate Vail's guests, including the largest free transit system in the nation and an award-winning public library. ^ Vail's tax rate is 8.5 percent on retail sales. The breakout is as follows: State of Colorado 3.0 percent. Eagle County 1.0 percent Eagle County Transportation 0.5 percent Town of Vail 4.0 percent ^ There also is a 1.4 percent lodging tax which funds shoulder season marketing in Vail ^ More than half of the town's revenues are derived from sales tax collections, with 70 percent of it collected during the five months of the ski season. ^ A 1.4 percent local marketing district tax was overwhelmingly approved by voters in Nov. 1999. The tax is applied to short-term lodging of less than 30 days. The tax will generate an estimated $1.5 million to $1.7 million annually and will be used for Vail-only marketing and promotion purposes during the summer and shoulder seasons. Vail's property tax mill levy is 4.064 mills for 1999.. These collections represent about 7 percent of the town's overall budget. ^ A 1 percent Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) has been in place since 1980. These funds, about $2.5 million per year, have been used for the purchase of open space and for the development and maintenance of parks trails. ^ A 4 percent ski lift tax generates about $2 million per year and assists in operation of Vail's transit system. This tax is the only one of its kind in the country and represents the highest contribution level by a ski resort to its municipal partner in the state and perhaps the nation. AMENITIES ~ RETAIL QUALITY ASPEN - _. _ .. • Abundance of arts, culture and recreation to reflect the Aspen Idea: integration of the mind, body and sprit. Programs include: Aspen Music Festival and School, Jazz Aspen at Snowmass, Aspen Art Museum, Wheeler Opera House, Anderson Ranch Arts Center, Aspen Ballet Company and School, Aspen Filmfest, Aspen Writer's Foundation, Aspen Historical Society, Aspen Institute and International Design Conference • Marketing materials boast 1 restaurant for every 55 residents • Retailers are noting a change in the economy, a flattening of traditional retail in favor of second home economy (door-to-door deliveries, etc.) • Front page headline in local newspaper touted empty storefronts while we were there • Sales tax revenues have flattened in the last few years 20 • City wants to strengthen commercial core with transfer of development rights. "With huge mitigation fees, we've gone too far the other way," the Aspen City Manager said. "We had purposeful growth control. But we didn't stop growth. The economy just went elsewhere into the second home economy." City says chain stores (Gap, Banana Republic) are less of an issue because it serves the local shopper • "We're as known for shopping as skiing" • City hasn't determined what government's role is in re-examining the Aspen economy • City has embarked in a downtown reinvestment demonstration program to widen sidewalks and narrow streets at key downtown intersections to replicate successful retail opportunities PARK CITY ^ The commercial core area has been preserved through two different Tax Increment Financing mechanisms, using similar vehicles to the Urban Renewal Authority. ^ Current rental retail rates range from $40- $80 /square foot. ^ In Summit County, taxable retail sales grew in 1999 by 10%; restaurant sales grew by 4% in 1998. ^ Park City Mountain Resort advertises the town hosts 106 restaurants, 2 micro breweries, 24 bars and nightclubs, hundreds of shops, 22 art galleries, 2 live theaters, 3 cinemas, 21 ski and snowboard rental shops and 3 bookstores ^ In summer, many SLC residents come to PC for an evening out, to get away from the city's heat and to enjoy one of the many good restaurants in PC. SUN VALLEY ^ The commercial area in Ketchum is experiencing a transition where old mining buildings in the commercial area are being replaced by new office, gallery and retail buildings ^ Ketchum is beginning to experience parking problems. Currently, all parking is available on the street at no charge. New buildings are required to provide on site parking, however, the number of spaces seems low per square foot of office/retail space. Parking is a bigger problem in summer than in winter. ^ The retail area in Sun Valley is managed by the Sun Valley Resort, and mostly consists of boutique shops. ^ Ketchum boasts a number of high quality restaurants. It is not uncommon for locals who live `down valley' in Hailey (12 miles away) to come to_ town for dinner. ^ Current rental rates on Main Street run approximately $40 /square foot. WHISTLER ^ Whistler's pedestrian village is extensive and hosts a great number of retail and 75 restaurant choices ^ There are a few key, prominent chain stores on the pedestrian mall. We noted that many of the people were using the national chain stores, as evidenced by the number of Eddie Bauer and Levi shopping bags on the streets ^ There is no `down. valley' shopping or dining competition, therefore locals use the shops and restaurants in the pedestrian villages to fulfill their own needs ^ Current rental rates along the pedestrian village run $50 to $75 (CAN) per sq. ft. ^ Among the amenities in town, there is a small theater used for conferences and private functions during the day and as a local movie theater at night 21 ^ At the Meadow Park Sports Centre, there is an indoor skating rink, fitness centre, squash courts and swimming pool ^ Anew library/museum is planned VAI L • Vail's retail shopping experience is challenged by high rents, approaching as much. as $120 per sq. ft. Some high profile store fronts have remained empty for long periods of time • It is widely held that Vail has too many t-shirt shops and needs to improve its retail mix . • "Monopoly" concerns are raised by the community when Vail Resorts considers additional retail sector pursuits • Employee shortages have caused shops to trim hours and personnel, causing service quality challenges and inconsistent hours of operation • Vail retailers are being courted with lucrative deals-and lower rents--to invest in Intrawest businesses at nearby Copper Mountain • With the exception of the West Vail area, few stores in Vail Village or Lionshead offer products for "locals." This causes shops to rely exclusively on guest volume • Public amenities in Vail include an ice arena, golf course, outdoor amphitheater, alpine gardens, nature center, seasonal skatepark and library • Efforts are underway to construct a conference/learning/events center, second ice sheet and family activity center to augment Vail's off-mountain offerings • The mountaintop Adventure Ridge facility for ice skating, sledding, snowmobiling, etc., has been a popular addition to Vail's amenity mix. Given Vail's success, similar .facilities are now being offered at other resorts. SKI AREA INFORMATION ASPEN MOUNTAIN ^ base area elevation: 7,945 feet ^ summit elevation: 11,212 feet ^ vertical drop: 3,267 feet ^ average annual snowfall: 300 inches ^ 675 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 76 ^ lift capacity: -10,755 skiers per hour ^ snowmaking: 218 acres ASPEN HIGHLANDS ^ base area elevation: 8,040 feet ^ summit elevation: 11,675 feet ^ vertical drop: 3,635 feet ^ average annual snowfall: 300 inches ^ 680 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 125 ^ lift capacity: 5,400 skiers per hour ^ snowmaking: 110 acres 22 BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN ^ base area elevation: 7,820 feet ^ summit elevation: 9,900 feet ^ vertical drop: 2,030 feet ^ average annual snowfall: 200 inches ^ 420 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 43 ^ lift capacity: 7,500 skiers per hour ^ snowmaking: 108 acres SNOWMAS$ ^ base area elevation: 8,104 feet ^ summit elevation: 11,835 feet cirque/12,510 feet big burn ^ vertical drop: 4,405 feet ^ average annual snowfall: 300 inches ^ 3,010 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 83 ^ lift capacity: 24,321 skiers per hour ^ snowmaking: 130 acres PARK CITY MOUNTAIN RESORT ^ base area elevation: 6,900 feet ^ summit elevation: 10,000 feet ^ vertical drop: 3,100 feet ^ average annual snowfall: 350 inches ^ 3,300 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 100 designated ^ lift capacity: 27,200 guests per hour ^ snowmaking: 475 acres (top to bottom) DEER VALLEY, WITHIN PARK CITY'S CITY LIMITS ^ base area elevation: 6,570 feet ^ summit elevation: 9,570 feet ^ vertical drop: 3,000 feet ^ # of trails: 88 designated runs, 6 bowls ^ lift capacity: 19 lifts ^ snowmaking: over 500 acres THE CANYONS, just outside Park City's city limits ^ base area elevation: 6,800 feet ^ summit elevation: 9,990 feet ^ vertical drop: 3,190 feet ^ average annual snowfall: 350 inches ^ 3,300 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 125 designated ^ lifts: 13 ^ snowmaking: 475-acres (top to bottom) SUN VALLEY ^ base area elevation: 5,750 feet ^ summit elevation: 9,150 feet 23 ^ vertical drop: 3,400 feet ^ ' 2,054 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 78 lift capacity: 28,120 guests per hour ^ snowmaking: 630 acres (top to bottom) WHISTLER/BLACKCOMB ^ base area elevation: 2,214 feet ^ summit elevation: 7,160 feet ^ ,vertical drop: 5,020 feet ^ almost 7,000 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 200 ^ lift capacity: 59,000 guests per hour ^ snowmaking: 530 acres VAI L ^ base area elevation: 8,120 feet ^ summit elevation: 11,570 feet ^ vertical drop: 3,450 feet ^ 5,289 acres of terrain ^ # of trails: 193 ^ # lifts: 33 ^ lift capacity: 51,781 guests per hour ^ snowmaking: 380 acres ^ 346 inches of annual snowfall 24 ,- VAIL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. President -Alan Kosloff Secretary -Ellie Caulkins Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director -Jim Lamont Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Richard Conn - Bob Galvin Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Trygve Myhren - Eugene Mercy - Gretta Parks To: Mayor Rod Slifer and Town Council Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission From: Jim Lamont Date: August 1, 2005, Resubmitted Unaltered January 19, 2006 RE: Crossroads Special Development District Application The Vail Village Homeowners Association Board of Director considered, at their July 27, 2005 meeting, the major points of compromise concerning the proposed Crossroads at Vail Special Development District. The proposed compromises and conditions of support are articulated in the Association's June 21, 2005 memorandum to the Vail Town Council. It is recommended, given the magnitude of the Association's concerns, the Crossroads proposal should not receive final approval until the principle points of compromise are agreed upon The following addresses the Association's concerns as well as other matters that have a relationship to the principle points of compromise. 1. South Frontage Road: The reported "C to C minus" capacity rating for the intersection of the Crossroads Chute and South Frontage Road maybe appropriate for today's circumstances, but unable to manage projected and unforeseen future growth. We should strive at this time to attain an A or B rating as the South Frontage Road is and will remain, well into the future, the most important local transportation corridor in the community. Consigning merging automobile and truck traffic to hazardously darting across higher speed lanes or to make illegal turning maneuvers to reverse the direction of travel is imprudent or misguided, particularly, when other safer roadway configurations are readily applicable. A planning commissioner, during the PEC public hearing, recommended the proposed Crossroads roundabout, his proposal received no objection from the Planning Commission. However, the Town Staff did not include his recommendation as a recommendation to the Town Council from the Planning Commission. A proposal by the developer to pledge $250,000 towards the Crossroads/South Frontage Road roundabout was determined to be disingenuous. It was reported that the Town of Vail would receive the funds, but do nothing to fully fund and execute the roundabout project. In the end, the pledged funds would be returned to the developer. It should be a priority of the Town of Vail that each intersection along the South Frontage Road from Ford Park to Cascade Village (resort Town Center) meets the highest standards of traffic circulation and safety. Projects that do not contribute their "fair share" to upgrade the South Frontage Road should not be approved. New private development and the Town of Vail should be responsible for providing funds to upgrade all intersections to the highest capacity and safety standards practical so as to provide for future growth, anticipated and otherwise. Subsequent to Crossroads, there is no further proposed private development to provide funds to upgrade the South Frontage Road intersection adjacent to the proposed project. The Homeowners Association has requested for several years, that a master plan be completed for the upgrading of the South Frontage Road through the resort town center. As well, we have consistently raised the issues of circulation, parking, safety, and beautification. Conflicting opinions and agendas, from public officials and otherwise, have resulted in the piecemeal documentation of traffic demands and the design of traffic engineering solutions to the detriment of the public interest and safety. This issue is of such importance to the Association's constituencies that we are consulting with an independent traffic engineering consulting firm to evaluate engineering solutions and related issues as a means to insure the objectivity and accountability of all interested parties. See Attachment One for questions and issues forwarded to the independent consulting firm with respect to the Crossroads proposal. .. 2. Public 1enefits: The major provisions of the Developer Improvement Agreement (DIA) are generous to a fault in favor of the developer (see attached .pdf file). It is impossible to identify any "exaction", in exchange for deviation in the zoning standards, which in the long-term are public benefits. Rather, there is the appearance that the DIA confers a grant of special privilege. The lack of assertiveness and consistency of standards applied by public officials to the negotiations, set precedence that potentially incurs the enmity and future resistance of those who have more onerous public benefit "exactions" required of their projects. a. Facilities and Improvements: Nearly all facilities and improvements designated as public benefits have dubious caveats attached, which exempt or release the developer from compliance after 15 years or if special circumstances occur. ii. The developer is proposing to use his private art collection and other private commercial enterprises (movie theater and bowling alley) to increase density and height beyond those recommended by the Vail Village Master Plan. iii. All facilities and improvements specified as public benefits should be owned and controlled by the Town of Vail in perpetuity. b. Special Events: The DIA contracts away the rights of future Crossroads residential property owners to voice concerns and participate in the overseeing of special events held in the proposed central plaza. ii. Future Crossroads property owners should share the same rights and responsibilities to voice concerns and participate in the overseeing of the conduct of special events, as do all other adjacent property owners and members of the community. c. Public Plaza: i. The Vail Village Master Plan implies that a public plaza should be incorporated in the redevelopment of the site in exchange for the allowance of a 5-6-story structure to be located along -the South Frontage Road. The quid pro quo exchange allows for all open space, setback, and landscaping requirements to be attained within the established zone district. ii. Previously, approved setbacks and other variances were an acknowledgment of existing site conditions and were not to be used as precedence for the future redevelopment of the site. It was intended the future development would conform to the guidance of the master plan and established zoning standards. iii. The public benefit value of the Public Plaza has already been offset by an increase in height to 5-6 stories over that required in the established zone district. Height was calculated based upon the average grade of the existing improvements, not from a wholly arbitrary and speculative "historic grade." iv. Landscaping requirements anticipate that trees and other landscaping improvements will "soften" the urban appearance of buildings and public spaces by integrating manmade improvements with the surrounding natural landscape. Massing of trees should be integrated into the Public Plaza and required setbacks. d. Lodging and Affordable housing: i. The Town of Vail redevelopment policies contain incentives for increasing the amount of lodging (accommodation units) and affordable housing. ii. The developer has the right to amend the zone district for the site to permit lodging and affordable housing. iii. The developer is proposing using existing affordable housing units purchased in the community to fulfill his affordable housing requirement, as a consequence a net increase in new affordable housing units will not be forthcoming. The developer's actions are removing non-deed restricted (non-government controlled) housing units from the affordable housing market. iv. The providing on-site of accommodation units and affordable housing, as has been required of other similar developments, must be a prerequisite to increasing the height and density beyond that recommended in the Vail Village Master Plan. Any increase in height must occur for that portion of the building located along the South Frontage Road. e. Building Height and Setbacks Relative to Adjacent Properties: i. The developer in using the adjacent property of One Willow Bridge Road and the expansion of the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus as the comparison to justify the Crossroads building height and setbacks along Meadow Drive. Other adjacent property owners are objecting to the proposed height and setbacks in this area. ii. The developer fails to note that the One Willow Bridge Road and Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus expansion, he points to as precedence for his proposed height deviation along Meadow Drive, throughout the entire site conforms to the height limitation for the zone district (PA) in which they are located. iii. The Crossroads proposal as modified still remains out-of--scale with its adjacent property owners and should be further reduced in height, and setbacks increased, so that trees and other required landscaping can be incorporated onto the site. 3. Exparte Contact: The principle of exparte contact seeks to insure that elected officials do not foreclose any legitimate consideration presented by the developer, adjacent property owners, interested parties, and the general public. Any contact either prior to or after the filing of an application that causes an elected official to foreclose legitimate consideration, is a violation of the exparte principle and subject the elected officials to recusal, litigation, and other financial penalties. a. There appears to be evidence that the developer made improper exparte contact in that certain elected and appointed officials refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the developer's ability to file for zoning amendments to provide for lodging and affordable housing on the Crossroads site. They cite that lodging and affordable Housing was not allowed on the site previously and therefore cannot be considered. They can provide no other justification for allowing the proposed building to be equal to or greater than those projects that were recently approved with lodging and affordable housing included in the development plan. ii. Such a position is counter to the rezoning process and favors the developer interests to those of goals and precedents established by the Town Council for the redevelopment of the resort town center of the Vail community. 4. Public Hearing: The enforcement by the Town Council of an arbitrary 3-minute speaking rule for all participants other than the developer and Town staff, creates circumstances that- encourage exparte contact and deprives adjacent property owners and interested parties of due process. a. The limitation creates preferential treatment for the developer and Town Staff while depriving adjacent property owners, interest parties, and the Town Council for giving full and open consideration to issues and concerns. b. The developer and Town Staff may have their own agendas, which are not necessarily founded in policies approved and condoned by the Town Council and the community at large. c. It is the purpose of the principle of public hearing and participation to bring to light all matters relevant to the public interest. Few issues or matters lie outside the public interest and right to know. Any effort to thwart, suppress, or intimidate the public's rights to know and be heard is an abridgment of their constitutional and legal privileges. 5. Multi-Party Negotiations and Discussions: The Association has sought to create opportunities whereby the developer, adjacent property owners and interested parties, such as itself, can discuss and negotiate unresolved issues and points of compromise in a circumstance free of intimidation and hostility from any participant. The Association to this end requested the Town of Vail to host an on the record discussion and negotiations among the affected and interest parties, including the developer. To date from among the interested party, including the developer, other than the Association, none has sought to convene amulti-party discussion or negotiation session. Post Oftice Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Voice Mail/FAX: (970) 827-5856 e-mail: vvha(awail.net web site: www.vailhomeowners.com VV~IA Attachment One VVHA/TOV Correspondence 8/1/05 1. Will the proposed roundabout (or a variant thereof) proposed at the Crossroads/South Frontage Road intersection adversely affect the flow of traffic between the Vail Village parking structure and the Main Vail roundabout? 2. According to the Town staff the Crossroad/South Frontage Road intersection, taking into account the proposed Crossroad development, will cause it to berate as C or C minus. Will the proposed Crossroads roundabout improve its rating or not? 3. Will the proposed Crossroad/South Frontage Road roundabout allow for truck traffic to more easily and safely enter from the Crossroad Chute on to the South Frontage Road going either direction? 4. Are adjacent driveway accesses and turning for buses entering the Vail Transportation Center going to be adversely affected by the proposed Crossroads/South Frontage Road roundabout? If so, how can the problem to solved? What would be an appropriate alternative design or location for the roundabout? Would buses entering the South Frontage Road from the Transportation center, crossing the eastbound land, to go west towards the Main Vail Roundabout be adversely affected by the proposed roundabout? 5. Will the proposed Crossroad/South Frontage Road allow all traffic including trucks to more easily and safely "reverse flow" when coming to or from the Mail Vail roundabout, VVI, and proposed Crossroad loading and delivery structure. Is this solution safer than the "pork chop" center island design, which is currently proposed for the VVI and Crossroads? Would the same logic apply, if a similar roundabout were built near the Evergreen Lodge? 6. If in the future two new roundabout were built, one at Ford Park, another in West Lionshead (or a Cascade Village, would "interim" roundabouts at Crossroads and Evergreen/Municipal Complex become redundant, a hindrance, or an attribute to the flow of traffic along this section of the South Frontage Road corridor? 7. Are the proposed roundabout locations at the Crossroad/South Frontage Road and near the EvergreenNail Municipal building too close to the Mail Vail Roundabout so that they would adversely affect the rating of all or anyone of the existing or proposed roundabouts? 8. Would the Crossroads/South Frontage Road proposed roundabout ease the burden on the Vail Road/Meadow Drive intersection by creating an alternative route to and from the Vail Village commercial center? VAIL VILLAGE IIOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA'T'ION, INC. President -Alan Kosloff Secretary -Ellie Caulkins Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director -Jim Lamont Directors: Judith Berkowitz -Dolph Bridgewater -Bob Galvin -Ron Langley -Bill Morton - Gretta Parks -Richard Conn To: Mayor and Town Council Members Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission From: Jim Lamont Date: June 12, 2005, Resubmitted Unaltered January 19, 2006 RE: Crossroads at Vail Special Development District Application Code: CrossroadsFinalReport.doc The Board of Directors of the Vail Village Homeowners Association, urge that the following recommendations be given consideration by the Vail Town Council with respect to the Crossroads at Vail Special Development District Application. The Board of Directors holds the broad position that this property should be rebuilt, because of its age and condition. However, the rebuilding, should it occur, is to avoid significantly altering the appearance or fabric of the community. In is to be noted that the "developer" besot providing adequate documentation of his proposal, hinders the public understanding of the full scope of his application. The developer is ur ed to provide recent and current documentation so that his full application may receive the widest distribution, access, and consideration from among the interestedparties. It is the Association's perspective that the Vail community is not of a single mind regarding this proposal: In circumstances where neither side can agree, then a compromise, willing or otherwise, must be fashioned. Therefore, we are presenting, in the furtherance of public debate, several points of possible compromise. Our position, when taken, is recommended and regarded within the context of our "principles of good governance." It is our principle that property owners in similar circumstances should share common rights of property and zoning. Our principles include a belief that the grants of "special privilege" should not be given, whereby one property owner diminishes the rights of his neighbor or others in the community. Further, it is our position that the Special Development District as applied in the Town of Vail is and continues to be an abusive grant of special privilege. The Association recognizes that there arises from time to time, the need to rectify deficiencies, physical and otherwise, in a neighborhood and the community. Development can be a worthy end to accomplish public benefit. However, there is the potential for misunderstanding over what constitutes a "worthy development" or "developer." The allocation of "developer provided benefits," because of the lack of definition about what is a "public benefit," makes the process prone to abuse. The determination of "public benefit" requires the closest public scrutiny. To avoid difficulties about what are appropriate "public benefits," the debate must be transparent, open, and available to the public. A clear distinction must be drawn between property owner improvements, which are required to reasonably do business and those that more directly benefit the "practical needs" of the public interest, such as roadway improvements. The responsibility to provide "public benefit" improvements belongs to the developer. In return, it is the responsibility of the public to make "necessary and practical" improvements, which have a direct relationship (nexus) to the impacts associated with the project. The project, should a compromise be adopted, as described herein, would be significantly changed. The present ' architectural design and plan would need to be changed to reflect the adopted compromises. Whether the project will proceed under these compromises is not assured. We remain open to the consideration of other suggested conditions of compromise. The following points are the "recommended" conditions of compromise: 1. An equivalent of at least one floor of the building must contain a mix of affordable housing, which provides domestic living units for full-time residences, who are multi-aged, including those needing elder or special care, which will house, families, children, couples, and single persons. 2. The building must be build to LEEDS certified "green" building standards. 3. The building owners must agree to participate in the dispersed terminal loading and delivery system. 4. The building owners must participate in the future construction of utilities and infrastructure improvements, such as a mass transit system and roadway improvements. 5. Reduce further the height, bulk, and mass of the project. 6. Higher priority should be required for public benefits, which improve "necessat~' public infrastructure and safety. 7. The ice rink, its sunscreen, and fountain are to be considered public benefit, subject to replacement, operations, and management agreements with the Town of Vail and property owners. 8. The project causes the traffic safety of the intersection between the Crossroads Chute (Village Center Road) to become jeopardized, therefore, the Crossroads developer is to pay the full cost of the Crossroad's Chute roundabout and fix a date certain for its completion, which is to be within 12 months of the approval of this pending application. 9. The building must contain one floor of hotel rooms and one floor of commercial uses. 10. Relocation of density for hotel rooms above the 38"height limitations shall be subject to the proof of public benefit and restitution. 1 1. The relocation of density allocated to the plaza area cannot be located above the 38' height limitations of the underlying zone. 12. Pedestrian circulations areas shall contain canopies of native deciduous trees for the purpose of providing sanctuary for pedestrians, expression of public art, and sheltering of arboreal wildlife. 13. Architecture style must be a traditional European romantic alpine theme. 14. Developer provided parking spaces, available to the general public and community use, should be considered a "partial" public benefit. 15. Subterranean interconnection of parking structures is considered a public benefit for reasons of traffic and life safety. 16. Cultural and recreational amenities, available to the general public, including community use, should be considered a "partial" public benefit. 17. The relocation of density above height limitations of the underlying zone district shall not be considered a public benefit. 18. There is no substantive public benefit when density is relocated from one portion of a site to another, if in its relocation it violates other zoning standards. 19. There is no substantive public benefit when the developer claims as a "public benefit", those "streetscape improvements", which are necessary and reasonable to conduct business in the development. 20. The west wing should be stepped-down; it should keep to the same step-down profile as the adjacent structures at the Vail Village Inn. 21. Meadow Drive frontage, Crossroads West Wing, remove two "step back bays" from the West Wing so that the "setback" of the street facade is the same for Crossroads as it is for the VVI. Reduce the height of third bay to a height corresponding to the adjacent structure at the Vail Village Inn. The height of the west wing should follow the profile of the adjacent structures on the Vail Village Inn site. 22. The developer shall pay the full cost of the new roundabout at the intersection of Village Center Road and South Frontage Road. The date certain completion is within 12 months of the approval of the pending application. 23. The design for the plaza should be taken from examples of some of the oldest public squares in Europe. The plaza should contain canopies of deciduous trees that share the public space. The canopy should be grown in areas created where groves of Aspens can thrive. The plaza should be a sanctuary for pedestrians and winged wildlife. In winter, the trees could support a dramatically lighted canopy, which shelters the ice skating rink. 24. Residents, citizens, and property owners have the right to directly discuss the proposal with members of Commissions, Boards, and the Town Council. All discussions regarding terms of contract will be held in public meetings at which the public can attend. The meetings must be electronically tape recorded for the public record. The details of discussions between two or more Council members must be reported electronically on the public record within 24 hours. VAIL VILLAGE ~IOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. President -Alan Kosloff Secretary -Ellie Caulkins Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director -Jim Lamont Directors: Judith Berkowitz -Dolph Bridgewater -Bob Galvin -Ron Langley -Bill Morton - Gretta Parks -Richard Conn To: Mayor and Town Council Members Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission From: Jim Lamont Date: June 8, 2005, Resubmitted Unaltered January 19, 2006 RE: VVHA-Crossroads Redevelopment Report, Town Council Public Hearing Introduction: The community has not, as yet, made up its mind about the redevelopment of the Crossroads at Vail. There are several interests, which vigorously differ with several aspects of the proposal. There are others, with opposing views, which just as vigorously, argue their issues of "community need." The community is in transition; no one faction can have its sway. Therefore, compromise is necessary. What should that compromise be? The community is literally at a crossroads. The Crossroads project; whatever its final form will be a compromise. This report explores the potential grounds for a compromise that will allow for redevelopment of the Crossroads at the Vail site. The Vail Village Homeowners Association is participating in the public process addressing the redevelopment of the Crossroads Shopping Center in Vail Village. This report is a reflection of our participation. The reader now shares the issues put to the Association's Board of Directors for their consideration. The proposal is being judged from two perspectives, the relative size of this proposal to its immediate predecessors in the zoning process and adjacent neighbors. The second, the breaking-of-new-ground on which future precedents will be set. The Town Council has the final say on this matter. Homeowner Association Position: The Homeowners Association has approached this application from the perspective that the Crossroads Center, as it currently exists, is in need of being rebuilt. The manner in which it will be rebuilt is the subject of public debate and consideration by the Vail Town Council and the broader community. The Homeowners Association has prepared this report, not as a final recommendation, but as informational advisory, representing the perspectives of it constituencies. Conclusion: The author remains to be convinced that the Crossroads at Vail project has fully represented it impacts. The zoning deviations appear to benefit the developer more than the public. It is su~~ested that the Board of Directors either individually or as the Board forward their recommendation with respect to the proposed compromise and an o~ ther position of which they are desirous. The reader's conclusions should be communicated to the Vail Town Council in the form of an email FAX or standard letter. Communications with Town Council Recommended: Contact Vail Town Council: Email: towncouncil(a,vail~ov.com; Voicemail: 970-479-1860; Fax: 970-479- 2157; US mail: 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, CO 81657. Contact Vail Village Homeowners Association: In order of priority: Email; wha(a~vail.net, web site; www.vailhomeowners.com, Voice Mail/FAX; (970) 827-5856, Post Office Box 238, Vail, Colorado 81658 Crossroads Issues of Controversy: The factors being decided must consider circumstances as they presently exist or as they may reasonably exist in the future. The specific issues that remain controversial are as follows. 1. Height: Is the building too tall in comparison with its surroundings? 2. Building Bulk and Mass: Is the apparent size of the building too large in comparison with its surroundings 3. Public Benefits -Zoning Deviations verses Public Benefits: Is there ample restitution for extraordinary costs to the public infrastructure and other relevant matters resulting from the development, as compared to the zoning concessions being required by the developer? a. If public benefits are not sufficient how much should the density and height be reduced or should the payment for public costs be increased? 4. Architectural Style and Design: Does the architectural style of the proposal have a compatible aesthetic relationship to the adjacent properties, neighborhood, and the community-at-large? 5. Special Development District: Should the project be approved under the provisions of the Special Development District or remain as, Commercial Service Center, its standard (underlying) zone district designation? 6. No Hotel Rooms: How many hotel rooms should be provided in the project? 7. Additional Conditions of Approval: Are there additional conditions that should be attached to approval of the project? The recommendation by the Planning Commission and Town Staff are appended to this report. Link: PEC Public Hear Summary with Conditions of Approval 4/25/05 Lank: Crossroads Town of Vail Staff Report Apri125 2005 8. Legal Issues: a. SDD/Special Privilege: Is it a grant of "special privilege" and does the Town of Vail have the legal authority to modify zoning regulations through the application of Special Development Districts, whereby zoning standards are altered for a particular property in exchange for financial or other types of compensation or restitution paid by the developer to the town? b. Master Plan Compliance: To what degree is the Town of Vail bound to comply with adopted master plans and what is the process for master plan adoption and amendment? Discussion: Legal Issues: The zoning for the project is proposed as a Special Development District. The history of Special Development Districts in Vail has a stormy legal legacy. The District Court has rejected at least two court challenges against the Special Development District. The most recent conflict resulted in a punitive financial judgment against the plaintiffs, who were adjacent property owners. However, it is the opinion of some legal authorities that the judgment had no bearing on the validity of the Special Development District as a valid method of zoning. The court's remedy, should flaws have been found with any Special Development District, is to remand the matter back to the Town of Vail for rehearing so that the flaws maybe corrected. This could mean that only a portion of the process would have to be cured, or in the extreme, that the deficient application would have to be filed again, as a new application, and the matter reheard by the reviewing bodies in the Town of Vail. Special Development District must prove Public Benefit: The developer is using the Special Development District zoning classification so he can obtain deviations from the development standard of the underlying zoning district. The determination of deviation is based on a set of criteria, which must be satisfied before approval can be granted. One of those criteria requires proof of public benefits. Proof of public benefits has come to mean a sum of money or resources that offset the cost to necessary public infrastructure and quality-of- life facilities. SDD Review Process Flawed: The Special Development District approval process allows the avoidance of public scrutiny through the application of "contract negotiation" procedures. The approval process for a Special Development District (SDD) is a negotiation between the Town and the developer. It is a bargaining for "public benefits" in exchange for "deviations" from the zoning regulation. The zoning designation for a SDD site is known as the "underlying zone district." The negotiation usually results in increased density and the exceeding of other zoning standards of the "underlying zone district," such as height, setbacks, parking, etc. The Town considers its deliberation about "public benefits" to be contract negotiations and therefore, subject to executive privilege. The Council holds its substantive deliberations about public benefits in executive session. The Town Staff are the "gatekeepers" of the negotiation process. They make recommendation directly to the Town Council in executive session. The staff maintains an exclusive franchise over the negotiation be enforcing a condition that "ex parte" contact between public officials and their constituents on matter is prohibited. The public is "frozen out" of the negotiations process. "Ex parte" contact typically applies to the deliberation of judges and juries. The Town Staff enforcement of "ex parte" contact, allows written communication to occur. Personal contact can be made but the Councilperson is subject to legal challenge, if they take a public position "for" or "against" the proposal, prior to officially taking public testimony. The Town staff conducts pre-meetings briefing with the planning commission and other authorities that discusses arguments in favor or against a SDD proposal. Tactical strategies are also discussed in these sessions. Official minutes or a report are not kept of the pre-meetings. The time and location of the pre-meeting is included in the published agenda of the Commission or Board. Point of Compromise: Residents, citizens, and property owners have the right to directly discuss the proposal with members of Commissions, Boards, and the Town Council. All discussions regarding terms of contract will be held in public meetings at which the public can attend. The meetings must be electronically tape recorded for the public record. The details of discussions between two or more Council members must be reported electronically on the public record within 24 hours. Developer Clairrned Public Benefits: Central Plaza: The Crossroads developer is proposing as one of his public benefits, the creation of a large central plaza. The density that could have been built on the footprint of the plaza has been replaced on to the residential wings, causing them to be higher than the allowed 38' building height for its underlying zone district. Point of Compromise: The relocation of density above height limitations of the underlying zone shall not be considered a public benefit. Relocation of density above height limitations shall be subject to proof of public benefit and restitution. Commercial Uses: the developer is claiming commercial uses, such as the movie theaters, bowling alley, and other commercial use as public benefits. Many believe that these are not public benefits, but are necessary costs associated with attracting guests and customers. Many interests believe that the proposal does not meet the required test of having sufficient public benefit. Other Claimed Public Benefits: There are other claimed public benefits that are identified in the Town of Vail staff memorandum, a copy of which resides on the Homeowners Association's web site. No Hotel Rooms in the Proposal: The residential portion of the Crossroads will, according to the developer, operate as a condominium hotel, having traditional hotel guest services, like a front deck, restaurants, etc. The Town of Vail has not legal power to require condominium units to be made available for short-term occupancy, like a hotel room. The Vail Plaza and Fours Seasons Special Development Districts both are required to provide hotel rooms. In these developments it was considered a "public benefit" to provide hotel rooms in the development. The amount of hotel rooms over an above that required by the underlying zone district should be considered a public benefit. Point of Compromise: The building must contain one floor of hotel rooms and one floor of commercial uses. Height, Setbacks, and Density are Public Benefit/Political Decisions: The height, setbacks, and density of the development is a political decision made by the Town Council. The costs, associated with public benefit improvements can be compensated for by increasing the height of the building, reducing building setbacks, and increasing the allowable density, The relative height of the proposed Crossroads project is similar to the Special Development Districts for the Vail Plaza Hotel, now under construction, and the Four Seasons scheduled to begin this autumn. Other factors are variable among the three projects. There is no foolproof guarantee that these projects will accomplish their economic intent. Historically, shifts in national and international markets can readily deflate anticipated demand in a local real estate market. An approval, for a project that has not gone into construction, having a development program that is "out-of- demand," could be more of a hindrance than anticipated. One of the arguments being made by the Crossroad's developer is that the relocation of density from the area he is proposing to be a plaza, should then qualify as a public benefit. The proposed plaza is being built, on land scheduled to be built upon, in according with the Town of Vail's master plan. The developer in the process of relocating the density allocated to one part of the site to another comes into conflict with the height requirement. The height limitation established for the proposed Four Seasons and Vail Plaza Hotel, have similar provisions. Limitations identified by the Town's Master Plan have been overturned. The developer is claiming that by retaining the density and providing a plaza he is doubling the public benefit. He does not recognize that he is merely displacing the impact from one locale to another. He maybe exacerbating the impacts because he is creating ahigh-rise development that places different and greater impacts upon the public infrastructure. The developer is claiming the right to increase the density on any portion of the site, even though it violates the height restriction or setback requirements. He chooses to believe that ill-formed density is a public benefit. Relocating density merely displaces impacts from one location to another. Point of Compromise: There is no substantive public benefit when density is relocated from one portion of a site to another, if in its relocation it violates other zoning standards. Point of Compromise: There is no substantive public benefit when the developer claims as a "public benefit", those "streetscape improvements", which are necessary and reasonable to conduct the business of the development. Point of Compromise: The south facade of the west wing should be stepped-down further and kept to the same setback line as the adjacent structure at the Vail Village Inn facing East Meadow Drive. Traffic Considerations: Traffic is one of the most important considerations that must be decided. Traffic engineers have analyzed the intersection of the South Frontage Road and Crossroads Chute (Village Center Drive). The additional traffic generated by the Crossroads redevelopment will push the traffic capacity to near unsafe conditions at the intersection. The South Frontage Road, adjacent to the proposed project is one of the busiest and most important stretches of road in the entire community. _. __. ,. . .. _.: , ..; ,,, _, - ~ ~ `" ... ~- s•~~: ~"11~!fTti .,'r'K~.-=~INIr tit'.~a.:iF7.'~s~-"±rpF ::.~G:;~. ~~ w-'Ol7i ~~~ ~3; y _-.`;i3:~,.~,h"1~..-,<-,.,.-.... -Y.4~r~~~~ ~~ ~ ~r __~.I ~~ T ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ..._ - _. w~.,.a ~' r' * ~ ,.~ ~ _y ~ ~ M -' - _ iR' f ~ ~, m r ~ra~ji~ir N-~F~"~-- _ .JP.~, ~l_, _ ~ +_ ~{[ ~ ~ ~~ r`i _ ~ T ti ~'. },• ! it?,. ~ - t`. ~-t _,_{..,_ ~`~{~I ~'A~,lj~tf'f~T[7'~~P ~`~~.~~ fj4E~ •1 9 ~~. ' T ~L" :33..: ,J- ~ti lK+ i.^, T ~~°C ~ ~:'l{~l il'~: /~r„1tsY ~ ~.. _~_ ~ . ` - Proposed Vail Boulevard (South Frontage Road): Main Roundabout east to Blue Cow Chute illustrates proposed roundabout at the Crossroads Chute (Village Center Drive). Link: View graphic of proposed Vail Boulevard in greater detail. One of the routes that is necessary for the dispersed loading and delivery system requires an un-congested flow of traffic along the length of Vail Road, Willow Bridge Road; to East Meadow Drive and Crossroads Chute and its intersection with the South Front Road. Studies conducted for the Vail Front Door Project indicated a traffic stress point at Vail Road and Meadow Drive, which could have a deteriorating ripple effect, not only at this intersection, but the Main Vail Roundabout, as well. Gridlock could quickly appear. Major investment must be made to ensure that the entire downtown is as free as possible from gridlock. The proposed Crossroad's roundabout would provide an alternative route to disperse traffic should an unforeseen problem arise. The Crossroads roundabout insures the continuation and: usefulness of a "limited access" traffic route between Check Point Charlie and the Crossroads Chute over the International Bridge. The Crossroads developer has agreed that he will finance a quarter of a roundabout for the Crossroads Chute and South Frontage Road. Traffic engineers agreed that a roundabout intersection would increase traffic flow and reduce safety problems associated with the Frontage Road. The cost of the intersection is estimated at $2 million. The Crossroad roundabout intersection improvement must follow on as one of the first phases of the project. The completion of the roundabout is critical to reducing the truck traffic, which uses the new streetscape improvements that are now being installed on Gore Creek Drive, Bridge Street and throughout the immediate neighborhood. The specific location for the roundabout remains under study, as it must be designed to handle bus traffic entering the adjacent bus station. It may require a substantial retaining wall on its north side. These and other public infrastructure items have been laid on the project's budget. Point of Compromise: Require the applicant to pay the full cost of the new roundabout and fix a date certain for its completion, within 12 months. Loading and Delivery System: Crossroads, has agreed that it will use its enclosed truck-loading terminal as a member of the "dispersed terminal system." The purpose of the "dispersed terminal" system is to distribute goods throughout the commercial establishments in the Vail Village neighborhood. The Cost of Public Benefits Determines the Building's Height and Size: The developer, in obtaining his permission from the Planning Commission to proceed for Council review, reduced the size of the building both above and below ground. The reduction underground, removed a substantial number of for sale or leased parking spaces, and the family entertainment center from the plan. What remains are the movie theaters and bowling alley. Above ground, the developer has made an attempt to reduce the height of building to be more compatible with it neighbors. As public benefits are attached to the project, the bigger the building becomes. Existing Site: .~._ -- ~- ~, r ~~ r, ~ ~ ~, _ __. ... ,,. _ z. f ~~ ~ ~' ~, ;~ ~., Y ,,# ~;. i `~_ ~ -~` Aerial Photo: Existing Site Architecture Style: Point of Compromise: Building architecture should be of a traditional or romanticized alpine theme. The style, while Alpine, distributes its bulk and mass in the configuration of a traditional Atlantic City beachfront hotel. The configuration does not necessarily reflect the characteristics of a European alpine mountain resort hotel. ~,~-~`- ,~ r' ,y ~ ;,... a ., ,d~. ~` `Zx ~ _ _ ~ ~~~ ~ «~ _.~' : ~~`~ `~' ~'~ qtr} ~ ~~`` ~ "~"~~`"+!"~ € ~. ~ -. rY ~- a The architectural design concept has changed since the first proposal. The original design of the building facades was ahigh-tech, tailored alpine modern. In response to criticism, more stone and wood surfaces have been amended to the design, seeking to give the impression of a more romanticized architectural theme. Gables have been added to break up the profile of the roof. Of the two proposed schemes, the "contemporary design," is the most successful. The contemporary proposal was considered too great a contrast with the Sonnenalp and other surrounding buildings that have the more traditional European design styles of the 1970's and 80's. It should be assumed that the more traditional buildings in the immediate area would remain. The proposed structure, no matter the style, in its present configuration, will dominate and "overshadow" the neighborhood. Many are of the opinion that the revisions have not been as successful as anticipated. Specifically, there is a desire to reduce the apparent height and massiveness of the facade. Link: Enlarged view of graphic ^e ~. ~~~a ~" ~d - oi. 1 •- ~1° wr°~rv~11 ~x '~ ~~ }'~ J~~.~~ ~iK_r South Elevation: ~~ ~ ~i, L j -f:r E -r~r, ~ .~ t,. ,:~~ '.~ =~l~', rr.J;t-~ :~""=~ East Elevation: ..~_. ++~+~_ M leap - . p C Ir~YS! 4 ~~ ~~ ~ISeslmi -ti t ws\ - ~ ~ ~ .~ , , .~ w.. f f] . r. .3 ,d~' L O~lt~~r~w~M~ I D ~"°°'am'u - ~3 lsa~ ~~ ~ 1' West Elevation: ti eq i~~ ~..~ ~~~ ~. I. _ ~~ ~,W J/ North Elevation: ~ :..'.:. ~~ rr r \~q,~_ ~Ra a ~~ '.l i ~~r _~. ,,._~ _,._~ i at• ~ ~ ~'~ ~, F j. ~ ~ .r,i...... ~ e.-e: Yr Oege1 aas~rYs rearw~ ~rr'~e.sr' s.+r.r,~ e~ ~r siwr~ .a..~r~r+r. ar.~ was r ~.rr~p ~~r ~o~OM M: ~ (i~M1r1Y M ~A iw/q ~ NdlrrY~ / Ai~OPV/C ~~ ~,. ~~~/4; f e. ~> ~~ ~~ ~a°~ _ ~ trurir~ ~aerr~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~( 1 ~ ~Tr~ ~ , ~ 1~, 1 _ ~y '~ d !R~ _ .rr.t4 .. .. X,~,,~ ~ ~ e L ~ i ~ ~ ! ~ ~~~ ~ n ~~ ", ~ ~ ` __~ ,.,,.. ~:_ w ~~ ~~ .. +s~rw~ .Ors. _ ' 4<r., -~';..wit~~wnaaawa~_.._ .. ._~ rraMM ~d wawa ~ ~ ryH~iMM _. .. .~nr .... --...- ------;r cvnoo-x nwa~Q~n~w~r~ `r.`vr~ ~w°'°°s ierwr~ 4J/ ~ ~ G ~~ C~C~ I~ ~~r~~f~ ~~k~ ~,E ~ ~ ~~~ .. 1 \ ~:~.. 1~, -,~,.~ ~ ~-- ~~I- :.i~~.,..,l s~i~r~iM ~~q ~'~ gi~~~Mf., i~rl~~ El:. .r' W.... n..r t r~ o. / .0.raw~_ t r '°'....i ... f ~ ~ j _ ~. F ~. ~ ~'~i ~ ~~ ~~r6_f~}~, ,~Y ~~~, ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Crossroads -Main Plaza: «~-. ~._ _ ~ r r ~' ~.~.~ . ~` ''' (may,', s• j i ~, z ~' "t 1 - r. r e. - _ ~ ~ '~~1 Point of Compromise: The design for the plaza should be taken from examples of some of the oldest public squares in Europe. The plaza should contain canopies of deciduous trees that share the public space. The canopy should be grown in areas created where groves of Aspens can thrive. The plaza should be a sanctuary for pedestrians and winged wildlife. In winter, the trees could support a dramatically lighted canopy, which shelters the ice skating rink. ~~~~ ~, f T h t, ~ 4 / l ~ ] 1 k ~ ~ 'J~lf ~_JIr ~~~ J ! ~._, \ ,` ~ The apparent height and massiveness of the building are intended to be mitigated by a large plaza. The plaza is to contain an ice skating rink, and provide ample frontage for two commercial floors of business frontage arranged along atwo-story arc on the north side of the plaza. The plaza design is carnival, to a fault. It is near empty of permanent landscaping, most particularly trees. To date, there has been no explanation of how the ice rink will be screened from the melting rays of the sun summer or winter at 9,000 feet elevation. In all likelihood, the ice rink will require a large fabric canopy that is not shown on the plan. .r~ `+~`~ K ' ~ --F ~~' 1 fi i ~- 'S'F ~ Y'~L ~-f-~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ "" r' ' ~' ~ Sy' ~? a. ~ ..~ ~ N_ 4 ~ f" I ~ T~ i ._- ~ ~,~ ._ ~ zr - ~~ ~; -- ';wyP r ,, fyT There is a preoccupation with putting no obstructions to interrupt the view of the storefronts from the adjoining pedestrian street, which is East Meadow Drive. Ample opportunity exists to shape the landscaping to insure that public spectacles, planned for the space, will not be inordinately obstructed. Bulk and Mass: The building is being proposed as a unified architectural theme. Unity of architectural theme and a repetitive roof form and uncomplicated geometry is increasing the apparent bulk and mass of the proposal. Amore "village like" appearance, with multiple romantic themes, could contribute to reducing the apparent bulk and mass. ., - k ~ ~- _ -- ~ y ,-- ~~~ ;, ~ ~,~: '~ ~ ` __ _. ~. i -~ _ _~ -~--~ ~ ~ ~..--- ~ `~~Fa t ~ _ Ji a '' :, ~~ ,, ~ -' `' j i `tr f ., ' ~ ~, '`*,`' ~y1 ~~ t I ~~~~~ ,~ c ~~ ~ ~ F ~ - ' ~_ Above: Computer animation of the bulk and mass of the proposed Crossroad compared with the Vail Village Inn and the Vail Plaza Hotel to the west. / µ ~ v r 7- ~} ~., Y ~~Y~ ~~ ~T 1~ i~ ~ .~ M ~' ~ ~ , Above Left: Computer animation showing the apparent bulk and mass proposals the Four Seasons, viewed looking East along South Frontage Road towards Vail Plaza Hotel/VVI and Crossroads Above Right: Computer animation of the Crossroads proposal looking west along South Frontge Road with VVI/Vail Plaza Hotel and Four Season in the background The West Wing -Height relationshiu of the Crossroads West Wing with adiacent VVI: 'The graphics below illustrates the controversy with the neighboring Vail Village Inn. ~~-~~ ,~ ; ___, i ~~~,,~° ~~~L r~ ~r~ ~ s- ','. ~4T~ .,. ~--': ~ .~ . ~ ~-= 'e~' `r'~' ~ ~Fi c u N 'a ~ 3. ~ ~ `~ ~ f '~`". -. ~, . ,~. j -. i I ,,i ~' ~ ~ ~ E _. ,~ J ~_ ~ ..w ~ - . ,~ .. ~ , . . Above: Illustrates the scale and height differences between the proposed Crossroads and the existing Vail Village Inn. The animations show the effects of the difference between setback requirements between Crossroads and the existing VVI. The Crossroad proposal is a "zero" setback along Meadow Drive. Relative Setbacks and Height Conflict: The illustrations show the setbacks and relative height between the West Wing of the Crossroads and the Vail Village Inn. The magnitude of the Crossroads incursions dwarfs those of the immediately adjacent buildings of the Vail Village Inn on Meadow Drive. The Crossroad appears to close off Meadow Drive. The setbacks should be more similar between the two projects so that one does not dominate at the expense of the other. The vitality of pedestrian movement along Meadow Drive is dependent upon unblocked visibility. Stair-Stepping Height Minimal: The effect of minimally stair stepping from the frontage road to Meadow drive is evident on the Crossroad proposal. The West Wing in particular should hold to a similar height as the Vail Village Inn. It appears that the 38' height limitation should be enforced on the West Wing of the Crossroad proposal. Shadowing: Continuous sun shadowing occurs during the "extreme" period of the day and seasonally. Adjacent property owners believe this to placing a hardship upon them, the benefit of which solely benefits to the new redevelopment. Shadowing can be reduced through lowering and reconfiguring the Crossroads proposal. ~_.. ~ ~ ~;; 5 i S '~l1 ~~~ ~- i''_~ ~• .'at ~ _ ++d"~ i s~~,~;~ l: Above: Illustrates the shadowing the Crossroads West Wing will cast on the adjacent Vail Village Inn during certain times of the day and seasonally. Shadowing can be reduced through lowering and reconfiguring the Crossroads proposal. Point of Compromise: Meadow Drive View, West Wing, removed two-step back bays of the West Wing. Reduce height of third bay in similar slope of adjacent commerciaVresidential structure. The height of the west wing should follow the profile of the adjacent VVI residential structures. Points of Compromise: Subterranean interconnection of parking structures is considered a public benefit for reasons of traffic and life safety. Precedents for Increasing Building Height: The relationship of height among the three projects, under construction or approved, along the South Frontage Road are similar. What differs between them is the stepping-down of height between the South Frontage Road and Meadow Drive. Crossroad is proposing less stair stepping and retains a greater height on Meadow Drive, with less of a setback from the property line. The precedent setting height has been justified because the building will become a sound barrier for Vail Village to the traffic noise from the adjacent Interstate 70. The height that has been approved for the Four Season Vail Village Inn and Vail Plaza Hotel far exceeds the height necessary to block I-70 noise pollution. ~. ~j.~ r + ~4 .w~.-. ~« __ ~~ ` .~. ,~;; € - . ,;~- ~ ~ ~T-~-~. (( „- _ r~ ~1.. a ~l~~t bra _ ~~ . L_~- ._.. .._ _.` _~~. _ ~..__.:.J u-' ~.. r- - a~al..n .. +CEiIC~IYM .. Above: Illustrates the amount of building that is located above a 38' computer animation matrix showing the Four Seasons (left), the proposed Crossroads/Vail Village Inn/Vail Plaza Hotel (Center and Right). Comparison of Height of Crossroads with Vail Village Inn: The Crossroad proposal has proportionally, ~' significantly more occupied area at a greater height than the Vail Village Inn. The amount of space is obtrusive and not readily apparent from drawn building elevations. The result of overlaying the Vail Village Inn and the Vail Plaza Hotel with the proposed Crossroads partially illustrates the differences. 0 \ ~. CROSSROADS .y ~r i~ ~, ~ ? ~ 54•_82• _ _ _ . _ . - - - - - 58,_9. A... - ~^Rw ~ ~g ~`~ ~'~: n ~ ~ i1 r i l }} VILLAGE INN PLAZA VAIL PLAZA HOTEL GATEWAY ROUNDA Above: Illustrates the amount of the Crossroads building located above the height of the Vail Village Inn and Vail Plaza hotel. Superimposing the image of the Vail Village Inn and Vail Plaza Hotel over the proposed Crossroad building makes the comparison. Developer Initiated Reductions of Building Height: The developer reduced the height of his initial proposal at the suggestion of the Planning Commission. However, the reduction in height of the initial design was not a realistic proposal and would not have received serious consideration. Therefore, the gesture of lowering of height only brought the Crossroad proposal in line with the Vail Plaza Hotel and Four Season. ~, Comparative View Study of Height, Bulk, and Mass -Computer Graphic Photo Montage.: The following illustration shows a before and after comparison of the views of the site. Note: The developer has shown some public officials a larger selection of the images. All images should be available to the Town Council and general public. Bi { P `~ u7"~ .~~ ~ y { 1 .~ - '~'~7 T v a ~r _ :. '_ `~~ } m .. ~ . L ~~ 1 V i ~ "~'~' ______ J ~ ~ i FT ] ' Sr~idlLr ~~" i ~ " _ :.emu y More and After View From Main Vail Roundabout: ~~ t ~_ >~ .~ `;~i t Y k L~ _. U Before and After View from International Bridge: B. y fk ~ ' ~, JZ },, ~ f a i _ y~ ' :~~ ~~ . More and After View From East Meadow Drive Looking East: . -4 ~ ~ ~' ~• :r_ ~yrx:' ~~ ~ ~. ~~ [ "` ~- ~~~ *~ ~{ ~ ~ _ ~ n 1' ; i 7 a~,~ j ~F ~ ~~ r~ ' j { ~ ,~/ w° l {2 r ~' k 4 . ~ b E r°~ E h ~ __,_..z. ~ _. i. ..~ -_ r a ,°`' a ~. . _ >F.~~ ~ ~ ~~ -. r 'Q 6 y Y ~ ~!~ ~ .~ C?. ~. ~ ___~ II i Additional Information is available on the Association's website. Please far~cvard to appropriate parties. Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Voice MaiUFAX: (970) 827-5856 e-mail: vvha(a~vail.net web site: www.vailhomeowners.com T10WN OF VAIL ` TOWN OF VAIL 2006 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION FUNDING APPLICATION Introduction The Vail Town Council is seeking funding requests from organizations, individuals and/or event producers who can effectively increase the viability of Vail's business community by enhancing the guest experience during the 2006 construction season. A total of $50,000 is available to be earmarked for one or more activities. Applications must meet the criteria listed below and are due no later than 12 Noori, Wednesday, February 15, 2006. Applications (include 12 copies) should be addressed to: Stan Zemler Vail Town Manager 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Applications will be screened February 16, 2006, by the Construction Mitigation Working Group and on February 21, 2006, by the Vail Commission on Special Events. A recommendation will be forwarded to the Vail Town Council, which will review the applications at its evening meeting on March 7, 2006. Applicant sponsors are asked to attend the three review meetings and to be prepared to present their proposals and/or answer questions. Disbursement of funds will be at the discretion of the Vail Town Council in consultation with the Vail Town Manager. Where applicable, funding recipients will be required to apply for a Town of Vail Special Events permit. Evaluation Criteria Applications must meet the following criteria: • Creates excitement and energy • Creates potential for positive economic impact to the retail, restaurant and lodging sectors of the community • Generates sustained visitation and interest by guests and locals • Enhances the guest experience • Incorporates matching funds, sponsorships, partnerships • .Complements other mitigation efforts implemented by Vail Commission on Special Events, Vail Local Marketing District, Vail Chamber & Business Association, Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts Development Company, etc. • Includes a communications component to build local and guest awareness • Meets town permit process and construction staging requirements Address remaining inquiries to Suzanne Silverthorn, Town of Vail Community Information Officer at 479-2115 or ssilverthorn@vailgov.com Attachments 2006 Major Construction Projects Construction Mitigation Working Group Representatives Special Event Tent Layout for LionsHead .:'-' a T~WNOFVAd ' TOWN OF VAIL 2006 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION FUNDING APPLICATION FORM Please print or type all information Use additional pages to supplement responses if needed ACTIVITY NAME PROPOSED DATE(S) TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED- PRODUCING ENTITY Contact N Address Phone/Fax/Email BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EVENT DESCRIBE WHERE ACTIVITY WILL BE LOCATED DESCRIBE IN-KIND SERVICES REQUIRED FROM TOWN OF VAIL DESCRIBE HOW PROGRAM WILL MEET AND EXCEED EVALUATION CRITERIA ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT • Detailed Event Budget • Producing Entity Experience & Qualifications TUWN OF VAIL' ' Spring/Summer 2006 Construction Overview Village streetscape Spring 2006 • West Gore Creek Drive work will begin April 24 and move west from Lancelot/ Children's Fountain area toward Checkpoint Charlie. Simultaneously, work will begin along the Gore Creek Promenade, moving from west to east. This includes installation of snowmelt and pavers. Additionally, a large private project is scheduled by the Lodge at Vail that includes renovation of their sidewalk area. That will be coordinated with the TOV work. Also, design and outcome of Checkpoint Charlie is pending on whether it will stay, expand or move. Work will also take place in the Mill Creek Court building area near Buzz's, plus completion of sidewalk work around the Tivoli. Summer 2006 • No streetscape work will take place in the public right-of-way during the summer. Vail Plaza Club and Hotel Spring/Summer 2006 Continue to have deliveries to staging areas off of Vail Road and the Frontage Road. Concrete trucks and steel trucks will be the majority of the deliveries. Removal of tower cranes is anticipated in spring. Periodic closures of Vail Road may be necessary following ski season. Front Door • Utility work is anticipated to begin after the close of ski season. Full construction scheduling of the project is awaiting finalization of the land trade with the U.S. Forest Service. Four Seasons • Schedule to be determined for spring and summer 2006. First Bank • Exterior remodel and landscaping work anticipated to begin after April 23~and continue to Labor Day. The Arrabelle at Vail Square, LionsHead Spring 2006 • streetscape work is proposed to begin April 24 moving west from bus stop to the project site. This will include the relocation and installation of shallow utilities, installation of the snowmelt system, laying pavers and completing walking areas. Some of the planters, benches and other finishes will not be completed until summer 2007. Construction of The Arrabelle structures will be ongoing. . Summer 2006 • No work is scheduled to take place in public right of way. Work will be within the site and should include installation of exterior walls, completion of the parking garage and installation of steel structural framing. Fa11 2006 • After Labor Day, streetscape work will recommence in the LionsHead Mall, with work anticipated to be focused on the west end. Construction of The Arrabelle structures will be ongoing. Gore Creek Place • Town of Vail bike path behind the site is anticipated to be open by June 23. Ritz Carlton • Schedule to be determined for spring and summer 2006. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Spring 2006 Work • Punchlist items remaining from 2005 work on East Meadow Drive will be completed. • Shallow utility work (Comcast, Qwest) will take place on East Meadow Drive from Vail Road to Crossroads. • Six inch water main abandonment work will take place and involve pothole excavations in Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive. Anticipated to be less .disruptive than 2005 work. • Completion of West Gore Creek Drive water main near Checkpoint Charlie, work will be done pending TOV readiness. Summer 2006 • Beaver Dam Road work as a joint project with the TOV • West Vail sewer work will take place west of the area worked on during 2005 (west of Creekside Apartments) except for the final pothole tie-in in front of the Conoco. No disruption of roundabout traffic is anticipated. T10WNOFYAIL ` CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION WORKING GROUP Appointed by the Vail Town Manager in March 2005, the Construction Mitigation Working Group meets regularly to assess community construction impacts and to recommend actions to minimize those impacts. Specifically, the purpose of the group is "to create strategies to mitigate construction related challenges by creating a fun and unique experience for visitors in which we celebrate Vail's Renewal." Actions include on- street activities (hosts), overall appearance, shaping community and visitor perceptions, wayfinding, managing key messages and marketing collaboration. Appointees Bob Boselli Covered Bridge Store, Marble Slab, Vail T-shirts Meredith Giersch Kelly Liken Nicole Hoffman-Ewing Rucksack, General Store Rayla Kundolf Masters Gallery Rob Levine Antlers at Vail Tom Ludwig Montauk Steve Rosenthal Colorado Footwear Pamela Stenmark Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council Richard tenBraak Manor Vail Paul Witt Vail Resorts Development Co. Joe Walker Specialty Sports of Vail Stan Zemler Town of Vail Staff & Organizational Support Town of Vail: Vail Chamber & Business Association: Scott Bluhm, Leonard Sandoval, Todd Oppenheimer, Suzanne Silverthorn, Kris Friel, Jamie Wilson Sarah Akeroyd, Kaye Ferry Vail Local Marketing District: John Buckley ,~. ~ x . :~; • _, . .. ~, ~4 ~ .. ; s ~ ~,. .... , -: .~ ~~ ~_ - •'. _. -- 5 . .: 'Y^ ,. ~O r, r. - .r .. _. -: ~ ,;. ~ ..~ ; `~ i Available Only ~. - ~ ~ CjR`- .- +e~ 4 ~ in Summer ~:. ~. .~ ~ - !~ - ~ ,. - .. , .. .: ~~ ..~.. La - ~ ACTIVITIES ~ ~ _ . ~ _ , .: _ ~, t DESK .~'-~ -* ~*. ~~ '~ n .- ~. i v e ... ~ .. ti ~ .. ~+i S '~ .,li. '~ .Y.. `~ ,. s ,. . ..~~ ~< ,,.. ,. . .. ~•s'.. .. ~~ ~ `, _ -. ,. .. . ~ M- -.. ~ '(.'. it t . .. z /,.r~~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~° r ~. ~, F~/,/' ,rr ,r -.'~,' ~,. .~fl .; ~ -',' ! c,s _'.,. ;- - ~ ~, ~~ ~.~~.~ BUS ~~~`~ f,~ r~ ," / ~ ' ~ 'i~ ~ ~~ `!!:. { ..~ ~ ~ ~ _, STOP ~% ~ ~ ~.. i~ / al- ~ ~. ,~/:~f~ ~ ,r i .,~~ ,i' ,1` ~ '. ~"~' " ~ '~ ,,~ _` - !~ ,, ' ,r / , ~ ,,, .,,,,.,., . . , /f ~G°~C~C~~aL~ C~NIC~[~~ ~I ~~~I ~C~~~Mp ®~ P®TENTIAL TENT L®CATI®IVS (rr~lnimurn 10 feet between tents and structures) '~ IV® VEHICLE ®ISPLA1fS s m ~~~ ~.__y~ _ .,.~t. e ~o ~ ~- ~ ~~?1c5e PiN~ 6(A.~ UEUCC. ~ _ _.____. ____. _ _=v-- -____v~~__~ r ~" CA6~~b~10~ ,cry ~~ -,/.~ _ \~~ ~ - _~~~ ~~~! u~~~-.,J ~~~-J r-~ ice, Cesl~/ ~. ~,~a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ %~ ~~, ~/~. ~~-~ ART IN PUBLIC PLACES BIGHORN PARK r~ c~ s:_~ ~' '; ~ ~ ~ +~ -' ~ . ~ ., ~ ~ ._.. r~ ~ . ~.. C~i ~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~i .. "" ,'C~.._~l~'t U _ . _17 ~ ^~,, ~ LJ~ :t. ~..~ ..~ LL~~,~r~..,c~-T ~ 'tr -- Tl~e Community Stone/ Boulder of Hands would create a permanent record, collecting tl~e lands prints of Vail's youth, and sei~ting them in stone. TI-~ey would be artistically applied, in a pattern that is sympathetic to the stone itself, and significant in establishing a sense of a collective community. Tl~ougl~ children would not be able to truly find their own Land print, they would search tl~e stone to find theirs among the if~undreds. In ten, or twenty years, adults would return to visit what was a youthful imprint. Tl~e stone will remain, as it I~as since it was delivered here by tl~ie glaciers, and these handprints will also remain speaking to generations to come. Aspen Daily News http:/Jaspendailynews.cam/print_12649 ~~`( d, h, ~ la d..l•~f.4~1.. d Q ., Aspen Daily News Printed From: http://www.aspendailynews.com/article_12649 City Council not ready for the Limelight Andre Sahlail-Aspen Deafly News Sta,~`'Wi7ter Tue 01/24/2006 12:OOAAA Lodge owner asked to make more changes to project Send To Printer » Aspen City Council members expressed numerous concerns Monday about final details of the Limelight Lodge redevelopment and postponed a vote that would have allowed the project to move forward. 'This is a very tough decision for all of us," Councilwoman Rachel Richards said before discussing her issues with the height and mass of the proposed lodge and its residential component. "It is just a little bit too big," Richards said. "We're not just building 1t for today, we're building it for a long time," said Mayor Helen Klarxierud. "Corutruction starts and construction ends, but a building lasts forever." The council asked Limelight co-owner Dale Paas to go back to the drawing board with his architects and return on Feb. 6with a stated-down project. Paas thanked council members for the opportunity to try to revise the project but voiced doubts about whether the project would still make economic sense if it were further whittled down. The Limelight Lodge proposal has undergone numerous changes since it began winding through the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission approval process last summer. "We have looked at this as strenuously as weWe been able to," Paas safd near the end of four hours of discussion on the project. "We'll go back and ask these guys if there's anything we can do." Paas suggested that time is running out on effotts to redevelop his family's aging hotel, one of the few moderately priced lodges in the Aspen area. The costs of going through the approval process, as well as designing and redesigntng two buildings to replace the Limelight Lodge and nearby Snowflake inn, are climbing higher and higher, he said. "Were close to being out of money," he said. "We don't have deep pockets." Plar-s call for the Paas familys Limelight and Srwwflake Inn lodges on Monarch Street, across from Wagner Park, to be demolished. Under the current proposal, they would be replaced by two separate structures: afour-story 125-room hotel and athree-story, 16-unit, free-market condominium building. Additionally, the semihistoric Deep Powder cabins on their property would be moved, possibly to the Aspen public golf course or a local park. Though a variety of iswes wrfaced during the meeting, council members appeared to focus on the 42-foot maximum height of the residential building, a lack of ground-level setbacks from the street and the vacation of an alley to help the struggling hotel expand. 1 of 2 2/7/2006 12:38 PM Aspen Daily News http://aspendailynews.com/print_12649 "The alley gives us a break between buildings," Richards said. "1 don't want to see one tong roofline." Councilman Torre said though he supports the redevelopment concept, he has problem with the projects impact on the Wheeler View Plane and also the fact that developers didn't address a Planning and Zoning Commission request to reduce the height of the residential building by 10 percent to 15 percent. Architect John Cottle of 6asatt pointed out that numerous reductions in height have already been made. °The reductions weWe made since (receiving) conceptuat approval are very significant," he said, noting that the two buildings have varied heights and upper-floor setbacks. "Second- and third•floor setbacks are not pedestrian setbacks, in my opinion," Torre said later in the meeting. In other business, council members approved Aspen Skiing Co.'s request for exceptions to noise regulations for two downtown concerts. One is scheduled for Feb. 11 at Cooper and Galena streets starting at 8 p.m. The event is associated with an event for amateur skiers and snowboarders using X-games venues at Buttermilk on the same day. The second exception would be for the Spring Jam party beginning at 8 p.m. on March 18, alp at the corner of Cooper and Galena. The council also recognized four city employees -- Tara O'Bradovich, Rebecca Hodgson, Richard Pryor and Rubin Medina -- for their hard work over the last six months. They were selected for the city's Outstanding Employee bonus Award. cndre@cspendcit ynews. com ® 2006 Aspen Daily News All Rights Reserved Site Qesign by ProjectWest 2 of 2 2/7/2006 12:38 PM ~t IJcrR..i.K..a ~ . ~1.61~ ~„~ e.+tic.. ~'7 Vail Chamber & Business 241 S. Frontage Rd. E., Suite 2 Vail, Colorado 81657 Phone: 970.477.0075 FAX: 970.477.0079 E-mail: infoC vailchamber.org Association TO: Town Council FROM: Kaye Ferry RE: Membership suggestions for excess funds DATE: February 7, 2006 A survey was sent to the businesses of Vail requesting ideas regarding the best use of the excess funds left over from the Conference Center. Twenty-three businesses responded, and the results are as follows: 36% -- Parking solutions: ideas varied, but the theme remained the same. Vail citizens are fed up with the parking situation in town. 16% -- West Vail firehouse 12% -- A marketing program for Vail and its businesses 12% -- Refunds 8% --Anew clubhouse at the Vail Golf Course 8% -- Creation or maintenance of new recreational trails 4% -- Paying off TOV debt 4% -- More summer festivals Vail CIl~amber Board of Directors Steve Rosenthal, President Dale Bugby, Vice President Ron Weinstein, Sec.-Tress Kaye Ferry, E.recurive Director Colorado Footwear Vail Resort Rentals Roxy K. Ferry, lnc. Marks Brenner Blue Sky Mortgage John Cogswell The Squash Blossom Lourdes Ferzacca La Tour Tom Gorman VV Medical Center Ghiqui Hoffman Nicole Hoffman Bill Jensen Laughing Monkey The Rucksack Vail Resorts Rich tenBraak Manor Vail ~Iillage Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association 100 East Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado 81657 February 7,.2006 Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RB: Or-dinance for- a Special Development District to Allow for the Redevelopment of Crossroads Dear- Members of the Vail Town Council: I am writing to you as President of the Board of Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association regarding the request to establish a Special. Development District to allow for the ~e- development of Crossroads. As you know, we are the only immediately adjacent pr-opexty owner. to Crossroads. We do not believe that Crossroads, as currently designed, meets the compatibility and public benefits requirements necessary for approval of the Special Development District ordinance before you. As currently designed, the new Crossroads is completely out of scale with its neighbors, and its architectural style is out of character with both its neighbors and Vail Village as a whole. Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association requests that you deny the Crossroads project's application until such time as there are same further reductions in its size, height, bulk and mass and noteworthy. changes in its architectural style so as to make it fit naturally in Vail Village. One additional item regarding your possible approval of the Crossroads project: We fail to see haw the proposed plaza there, which is touted as the major public benefit justifying the enormous deviations which the developer is requesting far the Crossroads project, .can really be counted as a public benefit when (per the last draft we saw of the Development Agreement, dated February 2, 2006] it is the developer and not the Town of Vail, on behalf of the citizenry, who has final say, even perhaps one might say veto power, on "public" use of the plaza. RE: Crossroads Redevelopment Ordinance, 2/7/06 page 2 If you do decide to approve the Crossroads project, we request that you require the fallowing items regarding the landscaping on the west side of the project adjacent to us: 1. The planting of many more large conifer•trees than shown in the current plans to try to mask some of the visual impact of the new Crossroads and the use of fewer aspens which provide little winter masking. Crossroads should he required to maintain (and periodically replace as their health indicates) these trees in the long term and any substantive changes tv the trees and shrubs in the landscape there should be agreed to by Village Inn Plaza, Phase.III, Condominium Association and the Town of Vail. 2. The inclusion of a large recirculating. water cascade (similar in style to the cascading stream in the Rock Alpine Garden of Betty Ford Alpine Gardens) which would not only be a visually attractive feature but would help to mask man-made sounds in the close space between the new Crossroads and Village Inn Plaza during the warmer months - it should run from May to October. The water feature (stream) should be entirely on Crossroads property and start near the south end of the loading dock, and continue to near the east-west walkway between Crossroads and Village Inn Plaza. The water cascade should have appropriate landscaping around it. The developer has been receptive to doing this (per various past conversations with him and his planning firm), but there is no indication of it in current drawings. Crossroads, both the present and any future owner(s), should be required to maintain this water cascade for at least twenty-five (25.) years and the proposed design as well as any substantive changes thereto over time should have the concurrence of Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association and the Town of Vail. 3. We feel very strongly that there should be substantial sanctions .(i.e., fines) against the developer of Crossroads for any loss of or damage to trees and shrubs during construction (and for a period of up to two years foilvwing completion of construction of Crossroads) on adjacent Village Inn Plaza property. (It can take some time for conifer trees, particularly, to show the effects of damage--that is why we suggest what may seem like a long period for the effects of damage to be clearly visible.): a. for each large tree (over 20 feet) lost or seriously damaged: replacement with the largest feasible same species tree (with a two year guarantee) and a fine of $50,000 to $100,000. b. for each small tree (less than 20 feet) lost or seriously damaged: replacement with a tree of the same size and type RE: Crossroads Redevelo~rrrent Ordinance, 2/7/06 page 3 (with a two year guarantee) and a fine of $10,000 to $15,000. c. for each shrub lost or seriously damaged: replacement with a shrub of the same size and type (with a two year guarantee) and a fine of $5,000 to $10,000. We request the imposition of substantial fines so that it is not easier for the developer to kill or destroy trees and shrubs and then just say, "I'll replace them." The larger mature trees are actually not replaceable with ones of like size. We suggest that the fines should be directed to either or both (1) a special Town of Vail fund for installation of specimen trees and shrubs in public areas of Vail Village with high visitor use and (2) Betty Ford Alpine Gardens for installation of specimen trees and shrubs in the Gardens so that they could be enjoyed by Vail visitors and residents alike. I would like to reiterate that we will continue to be available to work with the Town, the developer, and other interested parties to seek a solution which will make the new, and much needed, Crossroads fit more amicably into our community. Respectfully submitted, D. Deane Hall, Jr. President, Board of Managers Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association The Mayor and Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 February 6, 2006 To the Mayor and members of the Town Council: It is my understanding that you will vote on Crossroads to-night. I would like to submit to you some undisputed facts for your consideration. Vail's success, although many things contributed to it, can be foremost attributed to two things: First the greatest Ski Mountain in the world and second the Alpine Character of Vail Village. If you allow that character to be destroyed you are allowing the eventual destruction of Vail Village. For the new members of the Town Council, I would like to suggest that this is not in accordance with the oath you swore. The project is too massive to fit into the village or neighborhood no matter what the staff says. That is the reason why the developer was fighting having to submit a model including the neighboring buildings, which most of other developers had to do, because it would have shown precisely how monstrous the projectis. It has been suggested by various people that the two council persons who were against the project did not get re-elected, meaning that they were not re-elected because they were against Crossroads. They also were against the Conference center and all the pro-center voters were encouraged NOT to vote for them. I think it had more to do with that than Crossroads. As a council you have to decide atwhat cost to the community you can allow a developer to cash in. Too much money has been invested to take the threat of NOTHING WII.L BE DONE seriously. For the LOVE of Vail I urge to to vote NO. Yours truly, Josef Staufer 100 East Meadow Drive, #201 Vail, Colorado 81657 February 6, 2006 TO: Members of the Vail Town Council RE: Crossroads Re-Developmeirt FROM: Lynda and William (Bill) Johnson Last week while walking on Willow Road toward Crossroads Shopping Center, we were horrified when we imagined a 10-story, U-shaped building in that space. Not only would it dwarf everything else in the immediate neighborhood, it would totally change the complexion and the ambiance of Vail Village. We have been homeowners in Vail Village since 1968, and have applauded positive changes and upgrades over the years.. While we are definitely in favor of re-developing the Crossroads property, we would respectfully urge the Council not to allow such an overwhelmingly large building as has been proposed and consider approving no more than a 5 or 6 story building on that site. I'm sure Council is aware of the "camel's nose under the tent theory." Ultimately, Vail Village would not be Vail Village if it consisted of a city of high rise buildings. Lynda B. Johnson William P. Johnson 100 East Meadow Drive, # 103] Vail, Colorado 81657 February 6, 20006 TO: Members of the Vail Town Council RE: Crossroads Re-Deveoopmen# FROM: Gary and Dorothy Cordes We purchased a home in Vail many years ago because we like the feel and ambiance of the village. We would like to see sympathetic re-development of Crossroads. Unfortunately the proposed develop does not meet this criteria. 1. It is way too big and out of scale with adjacent buildings. 2. It wilt destroy much of the friendly ambiance of the village 3. There is not enough landscaping befinreen Village Inn Plaza and Crossroads to minimize it impact on our unit, which faces Crossroads. In advance, we thank you for your consideration to our comments. Yours sincerely, ~ (',~r~ 1?asoif~y~ Ceaks Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association . 100 East Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado 81657 February 7,.2006 Vail: Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RF: Ordinance €or a Special Development District to A11ow for the Redevelopment of Crossroads Dead Member-s of t;he Vail Town Council: I am writing to you as President of the Board of Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association regarding the request tv establish a Special Development District to allow for the re- development of Crossroads. As you know, we are the only immediately adjacent propexty owner to Crossroads. We do not believe that Crossroads, as currently designed, meets the compatibility and public benefits requirements necessary far approval. of the.Special Development District ordinance before you. As currently designed, the new Crossroads is completely out of scale with its neighbors, and its architectural style is out of character with both its neighbors and Vail Village as a whole. Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association requests that you deny the Crossroads project's application until such time as there are some further reductions in its size, height, bulk and mass and noteworthy. changes in its architectural style so as to make it fit naturally in Vail Village. One additional item regarding your possible approval of the Crossroads project: We fail to see how the proposed plaza there, which is touted as the major public benefit justifying the enormous deviations which the developer is requesting far the Crossroads project, .can really be counted as a public benefit when (per the last draft we saw of the Development Agreement, dated February 2, 2006) it is the developer and not the Town of Vail, on behalf of the citizenry, who has final say, even perhaps one might say veto power, on "public" use of the plaza. RE: Crossroads Redevelopment Ordinance, 2/7/06 ~ page 2 If you do decide to approve the Crossroads project, we request that you require the following items regarding the landscaping an the west side of the project adjacent to us: 1. The planting of many more large conifer trees than shown in the current plans to try to mask some of the visual impact of the new Crossroads and the use of fewer aspens which provide little winter masking. Crossroads should be required to maintain (and periodically replace as their health indicates) these trees in the long term and any substantive changes to the trees and shrubs in the landscape there should be agreed to by Village Inn Plaza, Phase.III, Condominium Association and the Town of Vail. 2. The inclusion of a large recirculating. water cascade (similar in style to the cascading stream in the Rock Alpine Garden of Betty Ford Alpine Gardens) which would not only be a visually attractive feature but would help to mask man-made sounds in the close space between the new Crossroads and Village Inn Plaza during the warmer months - it should run from May to ©ctober. The water feature (stream) should be entirely on Crossroads property and start near the south end of the loading dock, and continue to near the east-west walkway between Crossroads and Village Inn Plaza. The water cascade should have appropriate landscaping around it. The developer has been receptive to doing this (per various past conversations with him and his planning firm), but there is no indication of it in current drawings. Crossroads, both the present and any future owner(s), should be required to maintain this water cascade for at least twenty-five (25.) years and the proposed design as well as any substantive changes thereto over time should have the concurrence of Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association and the Town of Vail. 3. We feel very strongly that there should be substantial sanctions (i.e., fines) against the developer of Crossroads for any loss of or damage to trees and shrubs during construction (and for a period of up to two years following completion of construction of Crossroads) on adjacent Village Inn Plaza property. (It can take some time for conifer trees, particularly, to show the effects of damage--that is why we suggest what .may seem like a long period for the effects of damage to be clearly visible.): a. for each large tree (over 20 feet) lost or seriously damaged: replacement with the largest feasible same species tree (with a two year guarantee) and a fine of $50,000 to $100,000. b. for each small tree (less than ZO feet) lost or seriously damaged: replacement with a tree of the same size and type RE: Crossroads Redevelopment Ordinance, 2/7/06 page 3 (with a two year guarantee) and a fine of $10,000 to $15,000. c. for each shrub lost or seriously damaged: replacement with a shrub of the same size and type (with a two year guarantee) and a fine of $5,000 to $10,000. We request the imposition of substantial fines so that it is not easier for the developer to kill or destroy trees and shrubs and then just say, "I'll replace them." The larger mature trees are actually not replaceable with ones of like size. We suggest that the fines should be directed to either or both (1) a special Town of Vail fund for installation of specimen trees and shrubs in public areas of Vail Village with high visitor use and (2) Betty Ford Alpine Gardens for installation of specimen trees and shrubs in the Gardens so that they could be enjoyed by Vail visitors and residents alike. I would like to reiterate that we will continue to be available to work with the Town, the developer, and other interested parties to seek a solution which will make the new, and much needed, Crossroads fit more amicably into our community. Respectfully submitted, D. Deane Hall, Jr. President, Board of Managers Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association The Mayor and Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 February 6, 2006 To the Mayor and members of the Town Council: It is my understanding that you will vote on Crossroads to-night. I would like to submit to you some undisputed facts for your consideration. Vail's success, although many things contributed to it, can be foremost attributed to two things: First the greatest Ski Mountain in the world and second the Alpine Character of Vail Village. If you allow that character to be destroyed you are allowing the eventual destruction of Vail Village. For the new members of the Town Council, I would like to suggest that this is not in accordance with the oath you swore. The project is too massive to fit into the village or neighborhood no matter what the staff says. That is the reason why the developer was fighting having to submit a model including the neighboring buildings, which most of other developers had to do, because it would have shown precisely how monstrous the projectis. It has been suggested by various people that the two council persons who were against the project did not get re-elected, meaning that they were not re-elected because they were against Crossroads. They also were against the Conference center and all the pro-center voters were encouraged NOT to vote for them. I think it had more to do with that than Crossroads. As a council you have to decide atwhat cost to the community you can allow a developer to cash in. Too much money has been invested to take the threat of NOTHING WII,L BE DONE seriously. For the LOVE of Vail I urge to to vote NO. Yours truly, Josef Staufer 4 100 East Meadow Drive, #201 Vail, Colorado 81657 February 6, 2006 TO: Members of the Vail Town Council RE: Crossroads Re-Development FROM: Lynda and William (Bill) Johnson Last week while walking on Willow Road toward Crossroads Shopping Center, we were homfied when we imagined a 10-story, U-shaped building in that space. Not only would it dwarf everything else in the immediate neighborhood, it would totally change the complexion and the ambiance of Vail Village. We have been homeowners in Vail Village since 1968, and have applauded positive changes and upgrades over the years., While we are definitely in favor of re-developing the Crossroads property, we would respectfully urge the Council not to allow such an overwhelmingly large building as has been proposed and consider approving no more than a 5 or 6 story building on that site. I'm sure Council is aware of the "camel's nose under the tent theory." Ultimately, Vail Village would not be Vail Village if it consisted of a city of high rise buildings. Lynda B. Johnson William P. Johnson 100 East Meadow Drive, # 103] Vail, Colorado 81657 February 6, 20006 T0: Members of the Vaii Town Council RE: Crossroads Re-Development FROM: Gary and Dorothy Cordes 1~' ~ purchased a home in Vail many years ago because we like the feel and ambiance of the village. We would like to see sympathetic re-development of Crossroads. Unfortunately the proposed develop does not meet this criteria. 9. It is way too big and out of scale with adjacent buildings. ~. It will destroy much of the friendly ambiance of the village ~. There is not enough landscaping between Village Inn Plaza and Crossroads to minimize it impact on our unit, which faces Crossroads. In advance, we thank you for your consideration to our comments. Yours sincerely, ~?°'°'Ky~ ~.st~lta 'Feb-06-06 03:06P s'' V~111 'T'own Ccuncil "Pro~)c::;;erg' ;:it.T'L,Cture t0 r'c:Nl'1CE ttiU rtOUSt, Dc: car COUr1Ci1 :GCrubFrs, P_O1 Cn J'.,.rluary ~'c, 2'»E, we ~.~'C:r~•c surpriSr•d to leax•rl of tt-,c; ^ prv,rJnseu structure Lo replace tr,e Rooot. It w..s i.ind of 'Nrirren CnIi1J~e11 to rLE.:frL with u;~ ort ~1,orL r,c~tice, to expl,ziri :'i.~lberline`s proposed pr•G„4ct.. e~ OF:GULF. wo ,~.rF G.irecLly bet:inci t,E•:F [zoosL pt: .~.Eudow tt.~~t~e :Cad }i171~ide Condos !/t^,it "C" we realize how tl•1F fir"vt,USf:r: ;;tructurr. will c~t'fect not Dilly u; but t;,e entire nei~'r;borhood. '1•t;e E~rc»osed s•Lruc;ture .will ~:ff'Cct both tll= ~ortr: Fr•orli,a,~c Tic.,:zd rr.rlci :,iir•FCtly acroelc~ t::c ~vutt': Fro:lt,~ll:•e t~oac3 bFC~:I]UE; it 'rill be, very vir;iblc f rc;.u Lt•:c. Sou Lr; li'r•c• n Lat?c i•toan ., ;, tie l i . 1•r.e prc;~JO;E~d buildin~• is ca~tplctFly hut, o`' cl,a.r~zcter Witt: t,r:r.~ :ar'ctritF:[•.tur,tl style wt':iar, cllytir11r1aisYles Jn.il. ±rou: otf-,er ski rFSC~r~ts, :rd vLr_~r• towns--ever. e:1vQe~-by down vc:,1]:ray to t.r..r~ we::t of Vail. Zc:~c :. look ~°t t:;e uo^ov,:t'i i'{rk Corna:u:lity r~u~loinr. 1JC~~ C4 C: Url :~OUtti f'~X'oClt.•FJ~ F :~O[:C: :.aCr'uss f'r''Ui11 t[.(; i•iUOFt. "1 r.iw ouilclin~• i;as I7~LC1 tr:ou>ct,tfully ~.esi~.ne.cl to 'ret'lECL an r,ll~,itle ;,rcr.it.c~ctur:.al ~ty]e, us.ir::~ real t,~ooci t.i;rlbe~•, vr;.ult~c3 cr'.;iirl•- in t:.zrlr,ouy w.ittl LP:E: ct:aract.cr~ of a. ''aki lvdn~;r^." ;~ppr•[rpriutc• to t„e ct,r:.r:cc::car c,.n~i dE.slgn tr:eme ~~rt:ir.t-, c;;.~~,',o~l;i2es Vail. 'i•,15 i:: ~~ Lastc- ful],y de5i~~nc:d .~,Lru:itur(; wi:ich f'itg into LY;e; landsc::.::e: •~cic. w'itrt oLrlc•r utr•uct.urPe ~urro~,;"ding it. '1'cll;e ~ look ~~. ~. trle~ City ,•~,~ir'ket, ,, ra• co;tl:tterc:lczl bl.li,lri1:1~T, to sr~r= t,ow will 7,t f'•li.s ir:to tc.c. ~~r[rFx o£ both com:r:crc..al car:r". rcio~Identi.ral buil.riinvr~. It. wrxs drsl~•nec? to rci'lect r, rent'-lin- ~.rlia bull::ink~, i•:Ei_tit. wr:ic;t, ^i t. `v 1r1tJ Lr;F exi~tj.tla 1;-rnc.uc_4pe; to ent;~,.:1cE t.tle neitlboY~t;r~o[; ~znc rrj'1ec:t tt:e ct,a~'~ter of tr ,-_ou :t:.,in Vill?a;?E. '~:;.ks ~~ look rat, t•r:o. lovely, d>~p~r3rAea above the: 100 ,t wtlieh crave been cortstrue t,eci :r,ore t•ceently tlnci adc: ~i. ,i Value to Lr.r~ r1ei~~t~borYlood tir1C c.~rltlunC~,~ tt,e• c;rltire :;ki ar•c:u. '1'r,esc sir•ueturE;~r fit in arct'~ILe4t,urr:~lly. Cn boLr: Ulc9es o,' Ltle 1 f~ (boat: [ior•trr :~.nd ;out.h b'rontr:r;ac l~n~~C:, witk•: tY;P f'?~cLpLiori of VAIL RL'Tr' (wt:cY: i,l tiG2 pretty) ihr~ :ztternpt has brt=n i[ia,dE: tv ent:r:rice ttre 'aX~pear~rlce of Vail tq the tiC:lt. '1~Yle pt'oposed Ti:nbcr~linc: sLructur~; S~'hettler ~~;a.r'r9ot or arlyors sl:.c: vwn iL) will :•,t.ick out :ike a ' SCRN' '!'IIUl~:f3" L~rrd be .3n urattr«ctive, dcprF~s;;ing, ctir:~.~rcr, loar-retlt district part of Vtlil 4n;i ;let :,oruet.t;irl~ Wr:1Ct1 mo:aL pcv;;ler wr~ul.d corlsic;ii~r Lo r.•c;prf•c==irnt V311 0!.'• t,t_F~ kirlr o+,' t~ ?lrlce Pete jE•iir)F~r• r' ~r~l ~ratv[t r.~;•! in ~r.irld--~~nd I doubt if ,1aa:u 6lrrorl wr•,l;;.c, :: r~rov ~.rl,i of tl,~: ~,t.t'u~^t.ur•:: Eiti:er. i' `~ I u.^_%: t:~r•a;;;:,nc.3 l.hE intent o° t. r.r•.: Lot•~r] ccunc,.:l;; Lrl ~Jr'avjdE rooms .for• ski~r•s Ott cl igor'e a.:'t'or~c;rltale ~r~r'1cf: t:.~.:r, ti,virlF: of tyre; rah:r;s in vclr.:o:i i'c:a.k, Lt',.e Villatrn or I.ioclGhe.'~d. t':ere is r.•o rFasorr why t.t;is crirlrlot b~~ •~cllieved in a sl.ruct.ur•e :•:uictl wi I.1 fit ir1 with the exY.i.:at.irl~r corltcur•:; of the l~.uc~ arts Lr.;; oLh[;r• urct:its c;t.ural Structures ^ ;liore COtl:aistcr/L L4itr1 V3i1'v CYii:lr~1{;t,Et"1:iL1C dE ~~"n 5(,:.l;1Ci:-2'Ci9• 1"i smruct.ure w;icr:„woulc: uc po ,:;ibly 3 stoz•iES ;'r•olu tt.~c ~-rcJUrlc+ level (. Et: n3n~=, one, .tro.f story .r;l~rEl ttl,in tt:E existing i~dost.) wit.t~,out cut,t~i~• into tt,e hillt.icic:, wit bout pushitl~' thy' builL:in~~ bcick, wit'h- aut 'fud~in~~" on t:ci~•r,t, mea.~.urerne;nt, wit.tlaut covcrirl~ t.hr; Entire existir.~, lot, but with ciiti~~in~r town for undcrErourld pc:rklnp•. Feb-06-06 03:06P t7 c6 (~ E e`5. -. Zt:er'e: h~~s to be ri solutic:n far ~roviciing i~oorus 1'on skiers cotapatsr:le tiith t.t.E rarct:itectur.xl otyle tt~r~.t crnt'<.~.noo~ V~~11 end does nottut~n 'J-iii into must c;ny otr~Fr° :7~;tragoiit;~n ~~r•ca (wt:ict: i , e4{r:r;re: t.t:c~::;r:: cookie-cutter' :~.:~rt'lot or' ~ir~y o.ti.~•r t.i~,t;-rise cheap~:~ p1;,;cFS t.a stay abour;d ~ . As pror~asec .;. room with kittst~c•:n f~.cf.lltiFS wi.j.l rot be brin.~in~? tr.e skiers t;s,olr to tt:r~, vi11a7r: •for ciir;-:rr, or brF:;kfast, ar 1ur_ch. TY:cy will "cook-in" undtnot 'rent-ouL". ~3ut that will rr;~kF it ;norE ~;ffordablF £or a skiFr to tay OVE~.r'ril~t.t. 1 P_OZ, •,~ 1't;e proc-~osFd str;:cturF woulc: c;otti~;letely eYitiri~'e tr:;; present c'r.r.;rac:ter' o± t~if rESidentiaJ neiFt•~tiorhood ors we know it on Meadow Rid~~e .co:~.d. T'ha- Y:omeg :Which ~~~cre t~uiJt i.n the '7')'s, and tiillgide Conc9os, w},ir:r: here built 1n 177 ~',~ve x.11 af' the skir~rs--hom~ownEro, condo. owners, tY;a': benefit of a beautiful view of t}~f tnour;tain, with :corninJ, :niddt.ty and u.ft~errloon :;ut1. The ar•aaaut;] :structure wc;ulc', couple tEly block out :art;.' ct~rlrcE~ to sF•e r~r.y p~'.rt of tt~e Entire Cascade 1 i~ L lir_~ or ariytt;ins: Uut tl;e very " tlr~py-t~l," of the mount~,it:. 't•t1r rtr'ee1t would br; coinpl~:tely c3~rk ar;d bl.ocksd from ~~ny riaturs] Gur;1 i.gr;t. And now ins Lead of sEEiriF st.:i•'s ~anci tr:e :noon, tt-.F. ntii~;^bor'rxaod will 3cu windows watt: ;o11E• liF•l,ts, otY:cr• mr:i n-:r~c~.de clectri~l lighting t,-t',icF7 psnctr~ate:; the:.n~aturr.l c~uic:t evening c;tmosphtre, vents front buildings, ;;2;oko, ~:xt'~~u,;t ,~.nd ~r.ll of tl;c other unplsa.snt riece5sitles wt•lcti go wilt; car;~e~ted over- built dwellir;~. ~4s ti~:e Rost pre seritly stands, L}.E: sLrucLure lends itsslf to a nsi,rhborl~ood f~:cl bFCauss it fits into the spacer us 6i~ w~~s ori}:in~tlly oui,].t. '1'r;o~ 't3J's Gdc'~ition lt'c18 cionE its a way wt•.icr: way. not, d;~+t.ructivc. tc t.r;e,, cr;~rracter~ of tt~o :~c.~i~•r,uor'}~oba. i'r:e Koost ys f.r.i.sndly. :~ewcow E3id~e Kouc:i is .~ l~;cam rr.a;r~~+ ~~~ ' p ~ C: o jJ 1 ~. take w~;a witt: tr;e~ir dog's :r;ci kiciu nok---ht~t witt~~ t-.c ;~r:;•~,os•ec~ ~!trur;t~.~:^t: t::,r~ p.l.e~r.s;.int walk, ki'!.l no 'lons~c:r ~~c potii~ole--1t would be niorc like w~a.lking bE;:ird ~~. wall t}.rou~r .~. lor:~: c~;.rk tu;:r;el. RESpret fo;^ peoplc~ u~•ho c~sute ~.:rtc3 settled lr: 'Jil 1n the; 1~ttC ' E')' s, ' 7~~'s ~::nr~ ' ~.~' s sr;ould be itrinort~;nt to triC: t.o4,'n council r.tr.:: :i p::r L cf t}:e i;i. g Lary of tr.~ town of Vai 1 . The: ~:e pc;o~~lF• w. car e i evolved I r1 tree > rowtt; urici :: re part of the faur;t9a.tj on of trc town. Tt;ESe peopl.F •:;re t.t~;~; loyal ovt•Y'y r.}ay skic:'r~s,. tax p:..yer's, per'utrinent reeidents, ~~:lt of tt;E eortt: of Y~.il. Z'hesF pFOp1r--. ~,tt.snca t!',c cr:ur;^t;es, ok~n .ncj ~~'or•k in tr1F ;;r;ops, work on Ll.s mourt..~j;; and ~.re a. v~slut;kyle part of tt~:e ~Iut of the com;r,unity of 'Jail. 'The ~'1''e':c: GF '1~:~ 'lG41:~ R~I'CZ'I~, prcpr~.rr;d t'or ~;nr;u;~.l. r,;o:utrturlity :~iE:L t.ing, ~,:oyt~:% bye Vail Town Council ~'it1C; St~~ff, ~i~•~uusa ry 12, 2JJE shows ,.; mayor°it,y a1' t'actor;s ir; fra.tror of so~Ue structure ctt tt';e Roost otk.r•:r' tk3ciC~, the present ,Urr;aosral. 1. In ~a. :n%;a~3c;e fro~~ .°.~:~~Jr lr:;~~~~ers w~~ •arc: 4~JC.t~i!luiri~ Lc~ do dc:vr.~T°o::tLCrits ; re: 1 n nrt: pin? with key c;utrliLiES tt';:~t. C:ont lr'~bUt•(: to .r resort. '1t•;c: g,t'opo:~cc: ~tr'u::turf cr;:~;rt~cter :ar.d ct•;r~r•m. ~odtlFy. ~lifFr i~~ sttat.r?a _ "ss •.:ur p:~rt to ai,ar_f Cora tY:csc 'J~~.il' :: c;ii::r•';.e•tcr' :{rtr'• ct,~rrn--the '~'~.il' s :;ucceUs ~;.:; r: ra=• stin•:ti or_ is t,~.3rcly In kr,E iri~~ with Vail' s ~'. ill:{tj ()r131 'i.r)C.' 1ZF~'lOr't'l.i Treud:.i d0 C1Ut :~iU~:'~':I'~~ ilrl L•.C,'(;~::.F1t'.LL"C(? Ur tt•ie Dr'OC1:JcECj StrUCtt.irF,'; t.l:i;3 1 ~ CiOt wtsat ~~'lfiti%' i~'t.:by t;nartiFr's ;,could ;.i~cF; tr:r.vc'l~:rs ~r111 be: st~y~ihsr 1n t};Eir c~wn r~,;:i~~ns_-not at this :; t.a'uc;t.ur'c; wc,,nrn over 4') wii.l riot be skiing at :; ;~,uch...t!':rry al °n wi].1 not bc; int~re:sted ir! kii.c:c:en f:.ci 1i.ties; t.r:c restore of tt,e iritcrr7:;ti~~n:c1 nisi t.or...will not bc; st~.y:.n~• at t, t: c: ~:t'r~po;;Ed str'ucturc=; '1.rtcreasecl oompatitton t•e:~ultin~ ;n vi:~it.ar;, ;:tr~~;irl~. in Feb-06-06 03:06P pacE S P_03 struCtul~c; eviderrcc: of 1-7~1 con~'estic>n clearly stows *„Taut tt.is structure: iu not tielpir:~ to a1lPViaLe tt is proble:u tsut is actu:;lly cor~ir~•ibutlnp' to 1t; t~:F~ chanain~ dynarniCS of Ccconci r.ar,c;o~h~ners :~~:ows tt:nt tt7ey will nct b~ c~ar:cliCr':.Les ~for• tr:is ~ropcrse:; st.ruc-:turf~--tt;ey will. riot t°otir•c to ~:ri ~~7 t`,:1. f't res~,d~~noc; ott;t.•r• iiur:li.C:~.~.tions r•tporLe:c] Trill tr~.ve no t.ffrct poaltive or ne~c~tive on tY:~ 7rot•~ns~~d ;~tr~ucture. ' S. TY~F cor.:munity of '/~xil cemaMraphic shifts, populrltion pr'cjcctior:s, e,~gloy~::ent Y:_:l-~ ]ittlc bey'+.rin~r on the pr•:rl,osed structure. Mowevc:r wt:en ori].y /~~~ of Jriil's t:ousir,~ utilLs are occuaied full t.iu!s, when new residentiu.l erowti: is occurin~. down volley ant9 condo pricFS are irtcrc,~sinN tt~:is c:oc;:~ not subat:iritic.Le oxpectF'c? ar~.:.ai; of ~~9 rFSicl~:nti~:+.l Halts.. (_Thc unit.: will bc: too sm:lll _"or i'ull ti~[e sPSidoncc;; ~:~.rid tao ~_z~k-~ p;;cc•d.) s~ 1i. I.1 Lerms of tt::; e:cor:o~:i.c f:.ictor:,--w'r.~r: sal[;:' ts.x is thr-: towri':~ l;ar-=~:~~t ~in~~le rFVenue source tl•ts proj~:cl.~c: sLr•ucture .dogs littls to t.c:lp. :resiLr:Fr clor•s r•tt:=i1 0~.:,1FS. Thy: x~eoplr. wt:o t~'ould K:ossitrl,; b~, '~ttr•actFd to th.~: ~rr•opoced sLructuz•c: will not. ~bE out 5. Zt:c: l.on~ tore: fir::~r:cit:~l t~,CCx1LY~ o!' •/~Lil 1~~;;lss food grid will not bE i~,-.r:9 fic.i.rltll. ;~.:'!'ectfc: ~•ithc:r Y.ood or bad try tt.F: gr•::~~:o;ec9 ~tr•::~~:ure--t.i•er~ul'orF Lhrrr i~ no ~.ooci re;:1son to , :-~:;rov;: it in i'n's prr sE rat. aro;.,U.~r;1 . ' E. In t}~:~; ~ir,.~r•keLiri~r _in~9 t.ouri:;,ii, r~esEair•ct~, ;t'.n•n~s. tt.r; i~n~orttinee o!' st7opr;in~ r.rnd dinlnc i.o tt',c `inc;:neiul well-~bcin~ o^ tr~c: town. `I•t•.o-: l~rc~o::,cc? ~t^u;~turC wi:11 r7ot positively cor:tril~utc~ to tr~is. Z~t:~; l:,co~lc w-:o wcua.c st~3y in Lt:is structur•c. will tic co~i<ir'i~r with ~rccaric~s :-nd ~FC,r '~1n-tow". I.opPful,ly tY,~_y will 0~ bu~tlrY~r a lift ticket---trot it 'Till probably n.ot oe ut "full prlee". '7.ZhF Issu~::s n.nc] Cnportunitie;; report eripr.,:;,i•~es tr.:'3t. ri se:nsc. o!' cr~at-m.:nlty is i.rnpot't'.1nt. 1t:e nruF~oocc stru;;t.Hr•o will very ::f'it]tiLEiy nc~-ztlvely :t!•!'FCt tre sor~ue of co.;t:ilurllty. 7'hls Tie'.. 1 or° respect far pc;oplF ,anc± eo:,t[nunity :.r:s boE:n +ticr:Lior:nd on ~~,~ P~:*s ~ . ~i1r. Leans ct' irl~''ra;=trur.tur•e 1,t~~: pt~cl;o5e:d ::Lr•.ic~ Lure: w111 ar::,,y ~~.ir: tt:~ Lowe ai' V,:til. :irer~.;; ofr~ccus '.~'or• ~:~).1E--;.c~~cerst:ip <<nd t'=~rt.t~~,rsl•.ir~s•--~. F'r~r•triFr ;;ut't~c~~~ri ~o~~l to Lxt~lor~~ o;~porLur.itl4~; to involve p$t•t-ti:nc: t'•c::~ioc~nts j r1 bullcjln~ Vail' :; ~er:s~; of Co:u:nutlit; . in identifi.Fd. Tt'ti~ sPn,~e of coru:uuniLy c:an ~uc strE::~.t.t.En~:d t,y respcetin~ the "old tin1G•'~ ret~icle::ts :'sn:l not allowing tln arcr:itcctur::t..ly ":tJis,i.t" erected wt~~icr woulc] ^.omplotoly c?omi.natc Liar I~~.ndgcGpE, bloc°lt ou t. t~tl~ sun, block ouL tt-~o vi c.~w of tt~E: rnourat•~.ir:, ~:nd P oncrrllly l:rok lil:~' it. c:oes not bclor:~ in V~ti 1. lr; thr_~ ::'~)')~ `_'e;~.r-Eno Eieviec~~ n.~. p1~3r:tlir:~ init.~~'r1tivFa it is mEr.tior:crq "t;';;;t tt,E Roost Lod>F e:~z~a filed ~„ rec;arvoloJ,:nent ~ipr~licaLion Fora new, i,otFl =~rd tlorldo[niniu~ projECt. ..hen co~nplr.LcrJ, the ne:w sub-~~rca plan will rEeoa:mend ways to ~~.ddress ac,:.:~,•opria•LF community •~.,U c:o;urnerc:ial us~;~ inrludir~ public i~.ipr •rits, r.rct,itc:otur:.l ct':~rracter ~:n~i c]rr;;it-ri tre:nen n;;:roci,ate~ with l,~.r:dsc~.tfrin~ ::.rld sicr[.~~?E." ZY~P Cucrr,t,lUU still rsn:r~lns t~ b ~ r• ~ .~ (:~. ^ ;' ~ !~~ r._r1~IVer~~--V~;:r"-Z' 1J ; +;jr' :if~~~.! ^.'1~C~'Ut~iL :~. :l~li ~. L'... Ll• •lla~ l,tt Jr VJ.: 1.. .J'1 '~~i .r lUfi~ L`.~~J~J~'~'~ T•~ ~• ~•~ ry ~u il' kL ' ~ 1 ~ t Feb-06-06 03:07P .S P_04 pc~.~~4 4 In our orinion i.he. aj•cY:1Lec;.uri:1 churact~.r of tt,t Pror~o3ed :tt=•uct~u~•r.: to rP~l~r•ee t:e Rc~o~t i~ a;; i:~ea bEtiri :r;er~t.iot'i~_c]--t;.,at of '~ cc~okic-cutt.f:r, t.l~r:-risc.~, must o±'f ti:e ittter~t.:::t.c ovE:rni~~r;t ~.cc•or~;t;oc'~:Lion f';ur:d in ~.r~y "run of Lr:~ mill'' a~rc~ ::aro:;U Lre r,~t~5.oY1. .,t: :~rcr;~ te..,l.ural. ch,~,r:ac ..e=: r• c~oe~ r.ot rE ~ lF et i,t:F dell standr~.r~d of exec 17~~r1cF as exhik~itFd 1n tr:c; "record c;;tl~truct.lc;n" bt;ildi n~ pro,~er,tQ tt,F town cnur_ci1 ~:us bF%n prouc'1 tc a~:r;z'ove i~nd f'.~~.cili i.ratE. :'rc ~,ro~o~ECC: etruct,urc will npt r~c1C to. Veil's :~ppe:til _i3 tl ~_rcc.t plrick: to livE:, ti~ork ;at]d pl~~y. ~'ow~r~ "Si_iti" F~• e.c-~C11F ~;ill~i~~r: Cotlc:os L'nit C I~ie~3coti~ Ftid~e Rorie:; J~3i1, CO tit F:G;"7 e a.o '~c~~pec tf ully ;grid siricE rely , ~ i i~c~ellE C. .F'ickin~r, h ward i+1. Pickirl~ lI~ ~ CC Lorevi zw L.:irid J'ot~nstown, P~, ' 1 ~,"~,}~~ e~ Feb-06-06 O4:26P Veil 'l own Co:~noll n Yro_~osecl" :;t•r'u,:t.ur~e to r•cr~lr~c~:;. L'r.:;: Koost De.?r Council ~~nc•rncE:r;;, P_O1 7•t:i~, letter is n;~:~r.nt. to ~i.ec:ulnx~a->.y ;uy wit'P' , 1.~ttFr v!' FeUrut~.r;ya,2'~~6, ~~t,ich~~~~:'ully' enaarsP. In :~.dc!it.ion Lo t.ite inap~:ropri3tprTess oP urct~~Lec:L;arc~l desi,n to cnr.a:tce tt!e et,t~:r~oter oP tt'.e co;;.:t,unity that AcF11e czGC:rc;,,:~:FS, I cave a coui;lo a'' ~ii:(:.t.E.rs tri:it tr;ublEr me. i~otificr:.;.lc~r~. I sr,:C t!':at notif~riri~ tt',;e Pr~:;ic.ic:riL c,P a Condo ia~;sociaction is de.i mFCt ;;uffic:ictlt sr~ tl:~: cods fpr• code: c:t,r~n~-F;;. 1 bclie:ve it wuul~: he !core c;i;uit~~ble (I dutl't know• tr.e; 'lf:;~~,il iru?11er.,i.ic!rla) to noti#'y ad~r.ic;c,rit f,roper't,y owner,, not ,ust a:,soc::t{t.~nr: l,e:::~ds. Ur;less dircct~c~ to Diu so, t~g;::ocic~t.lon pre,lciFpt doc~~;; not sl:c:,~k t'or +~E. It; this c:~;;e wc: tire; "1wte" ~h•att: our arac~;rv:~tiotl..'• c:uE: t,v iE>s~, L!',;;I,n t''1r0Y'UU$ G'C:t1(j0 '•.'..~.~^~,UCii:.t1.C'C: :l~.tifiCc+,Z.lOtl :~F,L(;~. 'j'Iij;; CjuLf;'L].0r:1ab1.e nctif'_c3tic~:a s,;; tFtt ,i!r~y also api,l,y Lo tl•.e c;ocle Cl:a;r.~c't; Sri L.•tc.; :!liii ~=~•J's for tki~ r~or:sL ~r•Upcr•Ly :illuci~cl Lo ir. t::t public 4,C!P.~s. bu;ldin~' he l.:iit. 1t StCttl:3 L•c;, u;~ tt:F i:c>i~rt' ~~uc;;tic?t2 is 1c~~itluicxtF sirTCe tree i:~ten~., .z" 1 !~t1c]et'~ttitlCl it, ',~~~ s to pr•c:vE~rit "viEw olock".~r~", rTOt to et','~ k,1r; 1 L. I, t. ~.pn~..ar•s ttie "pro;~o:,ed" bu i lcir~c wa:~ cFS{ ~?rir,d frcrt, .~ P:~1] :.c9c:1 ~~~t;iri ~~,~ ~•~ ' a ~~r s l~i;rsr,fct]vc;, r.?.t.i~et' t::tir ';r, :ar•c:t•;itrct tr3-±nEr tU ucc:c;vt~,•.~J:.:Lf> :i.ri F~rit,rr•p;••is4 Ir:LO its,; sui';'CUI7C:iCt~:'. 1~,~r1P~iS c"ilec: II!L t'lOir!f; ifl l.rl.te u::.r1U:A•r'y'• 1iP Wl: ~ r'C Lur'I'i c~ebr•u;• r~y ~~! ~:.'~~ )E:. !'1 or. > > ~:::1 ~.iE .Civ i 9C' U S .t tt'iE: ~.1:: tl?( ~:l;C:r't^•,''S ~ ` - U 2' r'i~i'i'.tS, ;S~%:1!7(:ICl~*~ :: r:i~ t~(ii.l.rir' tU ZAC;(r'~;5~; t.r.1$ is:;ue ir: Eaet•sorc with cr,u:icil ~ara uT• ciLr.c;rs. ui!io~.r'~ly, l~ l:owr,rci -n, I'ie~.il~~ ll:i E~GB~l@ (,'. 1'~iL1S~.'11~ ti• F:111 Vide Cor~G~ l.t~lt C ,;ti~~rcowr;ic]~e Fic;r;.ci J:~.i 1, CO u 1 E':~7 9'; C-4'~E,;-1~~~, ~ :).~ Lont,vic~w Lire ~oYi ,;Lawn, 1'~i 1 ~•,,,)~ t3 t ~-~>5_4; y~~; ~~ l~~®® m~®~ ~~ THE IDI GROUP COMPANIES GIUSEPPE CECCHi, PRESIDENT February 2, 2006 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Vail Village Council: Our names are Giuseppe and Mercedes Cecchi. We own two condcrninium units (108 and 106) in the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums next door to Cross Roads. Let us begin by saying that we are in support of the re-development of Cross Roads into a new mixed-use project, which we believe will highly benefit the Village and its residents. However, we want to express our concern about the architectural character and appearance of the project submitted to you for approval, because in our opinion, it is not consistent with the character of the Vail Village. First of all, it is too tall to fit into the surrounding buildings mix. The height of the elevation of the Village should not exceed a total of seven stories. Secondly, the architectural appearance does not seem to blend well with the character of the Vail Village. One of the main reasons we decided to buy in Vail is the wonderful architectural character of the Village, which you have preserved over the years. Please continue to preserve it in this instance! Sincerely, f1 ;-~ iuseppe & Mercedes Cecchi ROSSLYN METRO CENTER ®1700 N. MOORE ST., ARLINGTON, VA 22209 ®703/558-7300 ®FAX 703/558-7377 !il ;li --__ ._ __. _ - _____.__~. _ ~;; ~~ Emest Schaller, Jr. !' i Village Inn Plaza-Condo 303 100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 - -- - - -- - - - -- _ _ -- -_ _ -- - - - i - -- - -_ - G_~ Zoo ~? _ - - - -- - - -- - - - - - __ - ---- -- __ __ ~~. ~ - ----- ,, _ ----- - ---~--- ------___~-~_r-'~_._ _. -...__.__.~. -- - - - - - ~~-- r ~--1-_ ;; -- - -- -- - -- - - --- - -- -- - -- .. A _ _ __ ~ g, _ __ __ _ _ _ -- _ _ ___ ___ -- -----w"e-L.,~.-- .,. --- -- _. - ----- --- -- ,; - _ - - - - -----._~ P.A- ~ - - - ---- - __ ,~~- -- _~.~-,~. -- - --- .- .~-t.a.:- _.__ _. - __ _. -- - - - - s ~~' -~--- L-P -- --- - - - ' --- in L __._.__ ._. _.___,_ __. _..__ cT ~ _ ,\ ~Y~~i ~ _ _ _ ` ----... -r ~- __ '' - _- ___. III _ .. -_.. __.._ I - __._ .-.______ ._.__~__ • `_ __._. ---_-------- --- - - ---- -- ------ - - - -- _~:~.--~ ~-~__~-z.~_ ~~ - --' --- ,~r ,~ - __ _ _... _ -- _- - - -- /~ _-- ---- ____ - - - --- _ _ , -- - -- ---- -- -- - - -- -- --- ~. - - - - . _- _ _.___._ ---- ~-- -, --- -_. - -- -- -- - --- - --- - - -- - -- - - . ----- --- .__ ~ ~- _---- - -- ~- ,. _- _-. _-_ - ---.--_ -_-- - - -; .. _-_ - - --- , ~ D ~ ~ ~ N~ nic c ~ ~ ~- d ~,D~~V /-~-~~~ ~~ f7 -- ~ ~ L~ ~} c~z .Z. c . ~ ~~ ~~~ d cz . /~e .~ rte.. Q ~ _ ~ - v ,~ - ~o / ~- ~ u. ~~ /~ ~ zcos \ ~ ~ ~ / ~ f ~~ D /J'` ' ~' % g~ 8 Q .e, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-+- C~ ~ ~' p r 1 l P~~ ~v ~. vZ. d ~ ~ ~' G ~ ~ ~ ~ <<~ e. ~o''v~' o c~~i'ao ®-f~ ~ oa = a_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ ~~ ~~ 6/~i'91 ~~ ~ Gr CJ //Q/ t/ I , ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ l Z~ e ,, ' ~, e N~/V ~ ~ SiS - S /~~~ c- Gf~ ` ~~~C~~` C~ ~C ~`T 11 ~~ `v e s e/' ~ c A Q ~ G ~ ^~ ~~ ` O c~ ~ G h ~- r/ ~~ m _ ~, C, - r ~ ~ U S ~ / i ,~, a ©. 9 ~~ ' ~ ~ J~ / Z~? ~l~ ' G~r ~ ~ /~' ~` ~ ~ l~f? G ~ ~ ~ A~~~ ~ '~ D _ r.~ r _ /'~ r~ l ~ 1 ~~ f _ ~ - ~ . ~. _ ~~ d D ® ~ Ca /~--~' C~1~~~ ~ ~ -s ~` e ~ ;` ` ~ ~ ~Q / ~Q~~1 II ~. ^ ~ 9 7 ~ / ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ G 4 6' ~ L-P/ ~ 1r '~ ~ l ,` e ~~~~ of e ~ ~ ~e5-- t~ ~ l~yft/~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ` G / ~ ~ ~ I r~ ~ ~`C- ~ 6 ,~ ~ ' i / t ~ ; ' ~ ~L a f t~ ,~ o o v' ~~~e ~.~ r ~ ~ r' o ~v ~e /~ ~ ~ ,~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ d a. l I ~ ~ ~- e~~~ ~ ~ /J~ 4 l ~~ ,- _ ~, _~ ' J~ ~ v r ' ~ O' ~~ ~ ~C ~v ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ c~ e ~ ~C~r~'1 ~cJ ~d'~ ~ Gl i ~ C -~ f ~ ~~Q~ ~ n ~ ~~ ~'S^ ~, ~3 ~ ; ~ C S ~, J~t ~ ~~ I I ~~ < ~ o ~' \ `~ QQ ~C..~ / n ,9 C~1 d ~ r ©~" r ~' ; cx 0 S U S O ~'h ~! Uc~ i `h ~~ ;` ~~ Sv~ra~n~~` e ~~ Jr~ l ~ -~ -~ ~ e~~f - ~ i~`~ ° r ~ y © t7~J ( !~ ~ + ~ ~ :~~ s ~~ e / e ss ~~ict ~ c~c r~- -~ `~ n~ ~~ ~~ - ~~ a~ _ / ~ ,` e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L r~ v ~- A P <<~ ~ f ~ e ~` ~'~ ~I? ~ % ~~ _ R c ~ `( o -- ,-~ , t~Q G' ~1rd~ c~e r Q-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `ter ~ ~~_ G ~ _ ~ ~''~ a^ ~ `v'im _ _~~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~f~m ~ ~ h e ~~~ ~- ~- ~ -~ ~~ -e-~~`~~~ ~ ~ `~ i ~/ U ~ a ,~ ~ yc/l1 e ~ ~ o~ J~~ Q © ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~` , ~ ~ 1r~ ~ ~~ i ~~ ~~ n a ~~ f ~ ~ - _~ ~5,~~ ;, ~~ ~ L, ~;c~ r~e c ~ r - - vs :I ~ d ~~, oLitie~ ca f~ and by~~ ~ ~- ~ r r` t ~ ~ e ' P ~ ` S ~ ~~ ~ S ~ v~ ~ ~-... , ~ ci c~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ V` ~~~ ~/i `~`' 9 ~ (.~ '~ C ~ ' Gt r - ~ J ~ ~~l l F~ ~~JZ~~ < V' ~ a ~. ~ e ~~ s , ~q ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1~ h~~ ~°s ~~r~o~~.~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ I 7 0~,,l~ - r~ ~ ~ - ~ r L^ ~ ~ 0 OO ~/ Pal B (~(1 ~ ~ 9 ~ ~/~ a.: ~ l +'~ ~ ~/ ~' ~Gf i` ^~ ~ d ~h e ., ~- G /.. _ ~ ~- 3 1'h~rt~-- C Q r'~ of G ~'- ~ '~ /2 ~ Q i/ ` S d~ ~ ~.O C ~ 7 D _ ~ -c ''c/ _ _ /' L_ ~ - I'Q ^ S ~ J ~ ~ . '_L' . _ ~- ~ _ -- L 'Q ~ UlL _ ~ - - _ ~~ ~~--~--~--~~' ESQ _~CLC C D rv-~ ~ v'r~ D d ~ l ~~ /` ~~2fP ter bra tL~1- -r ' ~-- ~~ ~ ~ rr ~`~ ~ °~- i ~L~ r~10~? ~~~ c ,~ ~/ ~ - ~5--- _ __ ~ - ~ ~ p ~ ~l r Q ~ ~ e_ /~ ~ o ~ ~ S - ^~ - ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ /' S 1 - ~ ~~ ~' o cJ g (~ f ~~~t/fi ~ dl~l G %~~ ~- , ~, ~~ L t ' 1 ._ l ~ -e. ~ < ,~ u~ ~ ~ ~~ ~J ~~~~- ~ ~~ ~f~~~ ~~~ -~ ~ ~. Z ~~ ~ 7 ~~ // C~ c , ~'~ -,~ b U ,~ l ,• s .~ ~a ~~ e ~~ - J- ~~~ ~ ~~ e.. ~ ~ ,~ j ~, ~ /~ a cc D s~~ v ~ ~ ~ l ~ ,~ l/ r ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7, ~T ~D " ~? ~ ~ c P ~ G~ CJ 1_~ G - f ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ O ~~~ ~i~ ~~ P/ ~~ ~~ t I ~/ ~ ~~~~ ~` ~~ G V ~ ~' f 1 .~, ~ e~ ,~~ fl uhf ~ e ~ ~/ ~ T ~.. l /~~~ V ~ ~( ~ r V-` V - ~~ ~Je t ~~ r. ~ ~ S°~ ~ ~' ~ B~ , ,° - w re < ~ t, ~, ,. - ~~ L- P ~2 D / Y~ /- /G/~ /~2G C, C~ -, . ~ r .S E p ~ ~~ /~ ~- / / .t ~~ ~I 6 C e ~ ~~ (.%/~ i 5 ' ~ ' f'` C' `G ~'~ ~l~c~. 1 I ` ~ Ar / i / I { f / li' / V / / L/-f ` O /.~ ~ ~ ~V _ 1i9~-7To,~/ a~ ~~l ~- ~/~ L S/D~ ~ l J ~ / /AVr/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ` ~ ____ r ~ 8L~ C : ~ ~ _ ' ~~ L ~ H~ ~ 4 ~I ~ ~ ~~ ~ iS ~ ~S ~Gl/ -- ~~~ ~ ~~< ~fl/ ~` - J ~ ~ /~ February 7, 2006 Dear Vail Chamber Board of Directors, The Parent Teacher Association at Red Sandstone Elementary School' is currently working to make improvements to the school that will benefit not only the students but the community as a whole. Red Sandstone is a high quality schoo! with a wonderful and•dedicated staN" "The surrounding property however is in a state of disrepair and desperately needs a playground upgrade" Located on the North Frontage Road at the'base"of the Pedestr+an Overpass, Red Sandstone is an extremely visible and prominent amenity. As we all know a strong public school is an important asset to any thriving community. Presently, the playground at RSES is filled with outdated play equipment -and is in poor condition: This area is also in need of landscaping as well as hardscape improvements.. The retaining walls are falling apart and the lack of vegetation fails to reflect the. first-class resort community we are. The PTA has limped along with this issue for several years and the time has Come to make. important improvements to this visible front entry. As we consider the redesign of our playground and the overall experience, we an: also working to construct a.community garden. This garden will serve as both an outdoor Gassroom and a space dedicated to storytelling and creative thinking. This will be a space for children of this va-ley to connect with natu~ally grown foods and truly begiri to understand with"their head, hearts, and hands how important nutritious food is for a strong healthy body and mind. Our inspiration for this teaming garden comes from Alice Waters of Chez Panisse and the Edible Schoolyard she has created in Northern California. This improved play ground'and community garden will create an ~ . opportunity for community members to join in and connect with the children. We have begun discussion with the Town of Vail Public Works Department regarding this project and have the support of the: Red Sandstone Elementary School administration. Should the Chamber-determine this a project of interest, we are pleased to submit a budget and timeline for your review. Thank you for your consideration, Kay Graybill ' Playground tmprovernent and Community Garden Chairperson Red Sandstone Elementary School Vail, CO . " ~a;~ ~haimber & ~: ~ business association 241 S. Frontage Rd. E., Suite 2 Vail, Colorado 81G57 Phone: 970.477.0075 .FAX: 97U.A77.0079 E-mail: infowailchauther.org Tn: Chamber members FKUM: Board of Directors RE: Spending recommendations DATE: January y, 2(N)fi 1)ue to the recent defeat of the Cutlterence Centcr in Novembers electio.ris, the Town oi' Vail. has over $7 million in excess funds that were already collected through lod~*ins taxes over the last year. The Town wi.l.l soon bc; discussing how to realluc;ate this money. The Chamber is soliciting ide;~s from you, our membership, on how you think this money should be spent. Refunds, parking solutions, a new reC center, and a West Vail firehouse are a few ideas that. have been thrown around, but we w<)nt to know what you would like s~ that we can present these ideas to Town Council. Please fill out and return this form to the address, fax, ~r email above. `I'hc best use of the excess funds left from the Conference Centcr would be NAME & CnNTACT INhn (optional): }CAGY,,, GftA~(g11.,1, Ig7Z BuFFEHR CREElG VA)~ CO 81657 976.9076 $Icve liosemhol, Prc..'rdcnr Colurwln Footwear Mm'ka Drcnncr lilac Sly Mortbu~c. Ghiyul -IoC(Itrul laughing M~nkcy Vail Chamber Board of Directors I>:dc Rugby, v(CC' ~•I'P.31l~P.nr Run Weinitrin,.Srr.. •7ims Kaye F'crry, t~etl,ri~~e Uirecrar Vail HcsPr( RCIIWlS 1ZOxy K. F'crry, Inc. ~Allll (~a1K.~WC.II I.pIR(ICS Fcrzacca The Syuash Ibluscgm L;r'four NiCO1C IW(fln~u Dill Jenscrl T6t. Ruckr:xek Vni) kaeorts Tom Gormrn vv Metrical Ccmcr Kich tcnlinlak Mnnor Vnil T~T'd 9L06 9Lb 0L6~01 :W021~ 22~TT 9002-Z0-83~ The Edible Schoolyard ~ Our Garden ~~,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~'x~-~ Tl~>/ EDIBLE ~~H~~LYARD ,.ta~nty r_ttr~r~R rcrnrG. J~, raranr r sca~pnr_ • a~R~rr.rr. ca ABOUT QJS OUR GAR.LSE[V ac~R cA~a~N ~ ovtrvitw a day en tic harden ~asden orientation ItOW lg WOI~CS Tessor<s tote garden manager „6'E'$terr use~t t~ ~garderz ~ t fast daj; I. ores ~rmd b,~r del of tl~ tbirtgs t,~iat .~ s~ " .~e~t, Gth Gra~'e OUR K~~"[:[-iEN Ci_ASS~t0011~ Page 1 of 2 HOME 1'EOFL~ F90W TO The Edible Schoolyard garden is located on the eastern side of the school, looking over the campus, the San Francisco Bay, and the Golden Gate Bridge An acre of beds is planted with seasonal produce, herbs, vines, berries and flowers and surrounded by fruit trees. Pathways wind through the beds to the Ramada, seed propagation table, tool shed, chicken coop, and pizza oven. Students and adults work together to prepare the beds, sow the seeds, transpla compost, water, weed, and harvest. HOW OUR GARDEN WAS CREATED In the spring of 1995, the school hosted a design symposium, inviting landscape architects, chefs, gardeners, teachers, and other design professionals 1 share their visions of a future garden. An abandonec lot adjacent to the school was selected as the site of our garden. In December 1995, students, teachers, a community members began to restore the land - removing asphalt, weeds, and debris and planting a cover crop. The one-acre garden took off in the summer of 1997 -its design was ultimately determined on-site by the students in collaboration with David Hawkins, the original garden manager. The structure of the garden continues to evolve as crops are rotated and beds are reconfigured. Visit of History_ section for a complete overview of the program's development. FROM SEED TO TABLE Student participation in all aspects of the Seed to Table experience occurs as they prepare beds, plant seeds and seedlings, tend crops, and harvest product Through these engaging activities, students begin to understand the cycle of food production. Vegetable: grains, and fruits, grown in soil rich with the compo of last year's harvest, are elements of seasonal recipe prepared by students in the kitchen. Students and teachers sit together to eat at tables set with flowers from the garden, adults facilitate conversation, and http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/garden.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard ~ People ~. ~~ ~r,, ~~' TIDE EDIBLE ~CH~C~LYARIJ ~tr~xTtty [.t.n-trrit r<rKC. )rt. ~t>~n~,ra sc:r~ao-. • a~Etr~ri,r•.Y. e.a :4B0~.7T 415 OL1R. taAaL~FdV PEQPL,E OZ1It h.i'I"GHEN C~LASSIZ4C~M ~ uvervitw ad.oce waters 5A]~,1-50CCer3 executive committee staff mem-sers americorp mem6ees Yli-Zt~ ~r, II3i~[#it SC-1L}p- vp-umt¢ers "~~ grrd ec~n ~frty tber'r jobs wire dorm 1 shared rro~ eag Atli C~~rlaste 6esre,r ear w~aa sn1~I~,- .~'~~R1y, 6tF~ grade ®2006 The Edible Schoolyard S COMMUNITY ' Page 1 of 1 HOME PEOPLE f-BtSw 'I'(~ The Edible Schoolyard program thrives because of a vibrant and dedicated community. Teachers, students chefs, gardeners, farmers, donors, volunteers, neighbors, and. parents are all part of the diverse network involved in our success -they are reflective the same Principles of Ecology_ that help guide our work: ' Community is a fundamental value of The Edible Schoolyard. As a process emerging from mutual interest, community. encompasses the involvement of everyone at King Middle School as well as those fron outside the school. Participation is encouraged by the sensitive decision making of distributed leadership. Different aspects of the process of community are manifest in the functioning of the program: ' ~ New relationships develop between teachers an students working outside the classroom; . Students encounter adults other than teachers - , garden staff, mentors, volunteers -with whom ' they often recognize affmities of interest or -: personality; •: Program teachers acquire a common experience i of place and process, and of cooperation in the achievement of common goals; All members of the school may contribute to ai :~ benefit from the success of the project; The contribution of outside expertise links the school more closely with the society in which i functions, as do the amenities and products of t garden and kitchen; Most importantly, the notions of mutual dependence and of appropriate production and consumption may be translated from the progr~ to the world-at-large. http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/people.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard ~ Our Garden ~~; t ~~~~,,,,y~~-~~TI-lE EDIBLE SCHOC~LYARD l~ MARTIN l,Ir'TFlFSR KIIYC., JR, MI[)J?Fa~ SC:WCJQI,. • AGRKi'l.rY, C.A Page 1 of 4 HOME :46gt1'T Q15 ~Ult GAKUEN otruz ~r.~c:Eb~N 4~.ASSIt~DOt~ P~UP~.E HQ~W XQ oU~ GA4ID~~1 A MESSAGE FROM THE GARDEN MANAGER ~Ye=v=tom Kelsey Siegel app ~~ ~~e ~~~aen garden arientat~oa how it works lessaffis ~ the garden manager rrl learned tout dc~rrraattf mleuras that t~ ~r~arau ~ to sleep...li~e bi6~er~>ati~1~, ,° 14Yeati, 6a51r Ca~rads Working with youth has not always been a passion f me. As a student of environmental studies, I intender to use my knowledge towards helping small farmers return to sustainable agricultural practices. My professional experiences led me down a different pai Along the way, I was fortunate enough to have great mentors. Among them was David Hawkins, the first garden manager of The Edible Schoolyard. What I treasure most about the time I spent with David was the attention and value he placed on our personal interactions with the students whom we worked alongside in the garden. He often emphasized that it was ourconversations with them that would have"a t lasting impact on their lives`: The process of creating f beautiful garden has provided the time for thousands {of such conversations to occur, and has provided a space that .nourishes the community: I believe that th nourishment occurs in many ways. It manifests itself ;_ physically in the food we grow, eat, and share, but it ,also occurs in less tangible ways. It is a deeper ,nourishment that comes from the experience of ;working collectively to create a space that, in all its permanence,."is ever changing and growing just like r students who provide me with inspiration and ,motivation every day that I spend with them. There are certain fundamental experiences that I wai all of our students to share through their work and participation in the garden. I hope that they gain an appreciation for the food they eat everyday - an understanding of all the cycles that are necessary for that delicious first bite of a freshly picked ear of con to linger on their tongues. This is not an easy task considering that the local corner store or fast food chain offers them a plethora of sugary and salty snac for under a dollar. Few of them, like a majority of of culture, even consider what it is they are eating, whe it came from, how it got there, and where all the exti packaging will go once they are finished. In the garden, as they become more familiar with food picl http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/gar manager.html 2/7/2006 'The Edible Schoolyard ~ Our Garden Page 2 of 4 right off the vine or dug out of the earth, they begin i develop an interest and longing for freshly picked food. Sure, the raspberry patch is always the most popular attraction, but our students are willing to tas and try anything that they have helped cultivate in th garden including: fresh corn (not loaded with butter and salt), pepino dulce, cape gooseberries, broccoli florets, cherry tomatoes with a fresh basil leaf, carro~ edible flowers, and even a slightly sour Meyer lemon Often, in the process of harvesting this constantly changing variety of fruits and vegetables, students az distracted by other small wonders of the natural wor: - finding a garden spider and its egg sack in the raspberry canes, or the steam rising off of a newly b~ compost pile. It is our role as teachers and mentors t. encourage, with a gentle guiding hand, this time of wandering and observation through the garden; takir time to facilitate discussion and answer the questions that our students bring back from their experiences. We do this with the faith that these experiences and questions will become memories they will return to again and again. I was reminded of what the garden means to our students when Randy, a former student of Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School, who had recently transferred to another school, came by to visit. I was sure that he came to hang out with his friends, but he insisted that he had only come by to visit. the garden and say hello to the staff. As we walked and talked, i the garden he seemed a little disappointed with the dormant raspberry patch that had recently been prune but he didn't find it hard to express what he missed about the garden: "I just miss working in the garden...do you remember when we dug the hole for the fruit tree? I just miss working like that, he continued, but I don't miss the time that I fell in the horse manure." Randy's memories of his garden experience came with the realization of what was missing in his education: "We don't have a garden at the school I go to now." We need to acknowledge that most students will not inspired to become gardeners or chefs. For many of them participating and contributing to something rea with tangible results is unique and memorable. Through their work in the garden we simultaneously introduce them to .the natural world and provide ther, cooperative work experience where they learn from each other. Most of our students have difficulty seem http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/gar_manager.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard ~ Our Garden Page 3 of 4 beyond their adolescent selves, and sometimes all w• can do is introduce and teach by example through oL own attention and wonder. Some students have had little exposure to the natural world, and they exhibit fear and anxiety when they first come out to the garden. Trying to foster a sense well being in the garden is often the first hurdle as tr begin to learn in an unfamiliar environment. How ca we expect them to be curious about the natural work it is -not a place where they feel comfortable and safe Frequently, it is the social relationships that occur in the garden that stimulate and allow this curiosity to develop. Getting knee deep in the compost pile is no first choice activity for any individual student, but jumping in together to turn the pile makes it fun and reinforces the importance of group work. One of my continuing observations is that the garden provides a place that helps level the educational playing field. It helps to subvert some of the disparit that occur within the classroom or even on the playground. In the garden students have equal opportunity to take on the challenging jobs, to be loi and learn at the same time, to be active and energetic or to be quiet and pensive. Through this kind of play exploration in a group our students learn about the earth, each other, and problem solving. By working collectively with each other, teachers, staff, and volunteers, the students at MLK feel safe in a natura space that they have helped create and care for. Each student's experience in the garden is individual and unique. My goal is to help make all of these experiences memorable and meaningful in the Conte: of the students' own lives. I'd like to think that all of the students at Martin Luther King Jr. Middle Schoo would include The Edible Schoolyard as a paragrapl in their life story..Perhaps they will come away with favorite fruit or vegetable that they took pride in growing, a trellis or fence that helped construct, a problem they solved, a friendship they made, or may they simply enjoyed foraging for a particular fruit or vegetable in the garden. I want them to come away with a sense of accomplishment in the food they hav grown and the space they have created, but I also wa the garden to be a place where they can gaze at the world and discover something new about themselves back to top http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/gar_manager.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard ~ Our Garden ,ti ,, ~. - ``~~-~' ~~ Tx>; ~DIBLE SCHO~LYARD \~tARTifY I,iaTk(~R KING, jFt, ls9ipn[,13 SC:NQQi. • RFsRKT1.rY, CA ABORT ¢JS OlJR GARL)~N OCiR GAhtD~~i OLlR 6:dX'C:I-9sN CLASSROOM uverv:ew a day in the garden ~aedea orienta¢ion h®ev i¢ words lessoets site garden utanager "I ehin~ arty~otp dia~ the Est ~nrk €~ach~y. ~6'e htarb:~Bea~ wee u~ha~e ~.shets taneatcas." Isabel, nth Guide A DAY IN THE GARDEN Page 1 of 2 Hors P.EOPI,~ HOw ~ O Each ninety-minute garden class begins in the Ramac a central shade structure, where students and classroc teachers meet with the garden staff. Garden teachers greet students and introduce them to the day's jobs ar. to the Question of the Day. The Garden Manager wri the jobs on a white board and explains each one -the are typically four or five options, depending on the number of adults available and the scope of the work itself. The Question of the Day, which varies with ea• class, is presented and provides a focus for students' contemplation during their class in the garden. Some examples are: "Name a dormant plant" or "If you wee a garden superhero, what would your superpower be` or "If you could make a recipe using something from the garden at home, what would you make?" Students then choose a job and break into small grow Accompanied by an adult, each group goes in the are of the garden in which they will work to hear a more detailed description of the job, including the tools the will be necessary to complete it. A walk to the tool shed to get tools, protective clothing, or harvest bask follows. Typical jobs include: mulching, weeding, compost turning, bed preparation, harvesting food fog the kitchen, vermicomposting, planting, seed starting transplanting, a variety of hardscape jobs, cooking, as garden crafts. Tasks are based on the daily and season needs of the garden. Students take breaks for water o: foraging, but must ask permission of an adult before leaving a group. About twenty minutes before the end of the class period, a garden teacher signals the beginning of cleanup by ringing a cow bell that can be heard acros the garden. The cleanup process is organized: studen~ are taught how to clean tools properly, use sand and linseed oil to prevent rust, and to store them utilizing clearly labeled racks, bins, shelves, and hooks. Following cleanup, everyone returns to the Ramada f the closing circle. The closing circle consists of a reflection of the day's work, and a go-around in whic http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/gar_aday.html 2/7/2006 The Edible 5choolyazd ~ Our Garden ® 2006 The Edible Schoolyard Page 2 of 2 each student shares his or her personal response to th 'Question of the Day'. Class is dismissed by the classroom teacher. On the day following their garden class, students wri~ about their experience in garden journals. These journals encourage students to record observations, experiences, or share something they have learned. T journals also provide anecdotal evidence and insight classroom teachers about the impact of the program and how to maximize these experiences through connections to classroom study. back to top http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/gar aday.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard (About Us Page 1 of 1 ~ ~~~ 4 0 yh ~ --, ,.., ,~,,r TxE EDIBLE SCHOOLYARD ~tARTTI~t [,LTE<1RR K1NG. JR. RilAA1,I; SCI°IOOf, • R<;RKf1.TY, CA HOME ABOUT US OU1~L CiA~LllI~IlV OUkt [:ITCHI~N ~LASSKOOA9 PEUPLL•" HtJw'r0 ABOUT US 1VIISSION overview mission :The mission of the Edible Schoolyard at Martin Luther King,. Jr. histoey Middle School is to create and sustain an organic garden and vaiwes ia~ ptace ,landscape that is wholly integrated into the school's curriculum contact information land lunch program. It involves the students 1n all aspects of sulrporG the farming the garden -along with preparing,. serving and eating the edible schooi~ard food - as a means of awakening their senses and encouraging awareness and appreciation of the transformative values of nourishment, community, and stewardship of the land. GUIDING PRINCIPLES "GoarEmrariity is a pie c~.~,ere ~opde tai] cur¢rt~rt do ea~ c~t~xer unr~ euel~ne can be t~sre ~rld car] rem t~ each ot~~er'~ Is~l~ne~, 6th ~~ ® 2006 The Edible Schoolyard The following principles guide the design and conception of the Edible Schoolyard: Participatory The Executive Committee, Steering Committee, staff, teachers and students who help plan, develop, and manage the garden reflect the multicultural and demographic diversity of the school and community. Ecological The Garden is designed and maintained using sound ecological practices that are reflected in all aspects of the project, from the way the food is grown, harvested and prepared, to the recycling of waste back into the earth. Aesthetic The goal is to create a beautiful environment that will inspire personal and social responsibility, one that will also function as a model for other schools. ~. VALUES IN PLACE ~ TH15 2 MIN S1.11)E. SHAW 5AY5 1T ALL ~ View the Values in Place Slide Show, created by Alice Waters with images from the Edible Schoolyard. , back to toy http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/mission.html 2/7/2006 Alice Waters -Show Food, Slow Schools Page 2 of 3 Luther King, Jr. Middle School, in Berkeley, California, provides a hopeful model. King School is a public school with about 1,000 students in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. It is an astonishingly diverse group, socially, economically, and culturally-mover twenty languages are spoken in the students' homes. A decade ago, this school was surrounded by large schoolyard covered with blacktop. The school's cafeteria had been closed because it was no longer large enough to accommodate all the students. Microwaved, packaged food was sold from a shack at the end of the parking lot. Members of the community dismayed by the state of the school began speaking with other parents and teachers. We noticed that the blacktop,schoolyard was large enough for an enormous garden and talked about initiating an edible landscape. We suggested that the students could plant and care for a garden and even learn to cook, serve, and sit down and eat together in a renovated cafeteria and lunchroom. These ideas would have been nothing more than well-intentioned fantasies had King School not had an enlightened principal. He understood that a new school garden and a renovated cafeteria and lunchroom meant more just the beautification of school grounds. He understood that these were the central elements of a revolution in both the lunch program and the entire school curriculum. Presently the Edible Schoolyard consists of a one-acre organic garden and akitchen-classroom. In the garden, students are involved in all aspects of planting and cultivation; and in the kitchen-classroom, they prepare, serve, and eat food, some of which they have grown themselves. These activities are woven into the curriculum and are part of the school day. A new ecologically designed cafeteria is being built and the program is preparing for the transformation of the school lunch program. When the cafeteria has been built, lunch will be an everyday, hands-on experience and an essential part of the life of the school. Such a curriculum is not a new idea in education. Waldorf schools and Montessori schools, among others, practice similar experiential, value-oriented approaches to learning based on participation. This kind of participatory learning makes all the difference when it comes to opening minds. The Edible Schoolyard, for instance, has shown that if you offer children a new dish, there's no better than afifty- fifty chance they will choose it. But if they've been introduced to the dish ahead of time, and if they have helped prepare it, they will all want to try it. .Learning is supposed to be a pleasure, and afood-centered curriculum is a way to reach kids in a way. that is truly pleasurable. At first, the kids may not quite believe that they are allowed to have so much' :fun outside in the garden. But before long, they all know what compost is. And all know what's ripe and what's not ripe, and when. This is knowledge they have learned without realizing. it from experiences like picking the raspberry patch clean every morning. While they are touching, and smelling, and tasting, so much information floods in-because they are using all of their senses. What better way to learn about geography than by combining twenty seven aromatic spices to make an Indian curry? This is the beauty of a sensory education: the way all the doors into your mind are thrown wide open at once. Esther Cook, who teaches in the kitchen at King school, says it so beautifully: "the senses are truly the great equalizer. They are the key to a beautiful life, a really fulfilling life, and they are available to anybody." A slow school education is an opportunity that should be universally available-the more so because kids aren't eating at home with their families anymore. In fact, in the United States, many children never eat with their families (an observation confirmed by our experience at King School). Our most democratic institution, the public school system, now has an obligation to feed our children in a civilized way around a table. And students should be asked to participate-not just as a practical life exercise, but as a way of putting beauty and meaning into their lives. There are countless ways to weave a food program into the curriculum at every level of education. The creation of the Slow Food University in Pollenzo, Italy, which will open next fall, clearly shows the seriousness and wide reach of an eco-gastronomic perspective. It is reconfiguring gastronomy as a subject of academic inquiry. The depth and breadth of the subject-its relevance in ecology, anthropology, history, physiology, and art-assures it could easily be integrated into academic studies of every school, from the kindergarten to the university. http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/alice message.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard ~ ~ ~. ~' THE L~~~d~~~ ~4/~V ti+ldX66~~ MARTINI LUTHER IC13JG, JEt. M.I.[?L~LE tC:H4QL • BI3ftKILE,Y. CA AI5OLIT US D[JR CARaI=N - ~~~ ~~I '~ . ;' ; I .A xTb'd~ssag~ f min ~ ~i~e ~'~ters: Stow .1~o~d.,, Stow Sctioo~s » click hens cn read ~~irr~:~,~ ,~~hovl L~I'icta A growing movement has emerged to transform school lunch into a vibrant expression of education for sustainability. The Center for Ecoliteracy has launched the Rethinking School Lunch initiative as part of the national effort to restore the connection of farms to communities, meals to culture, and health to environment. » click here to read more OUR KIT`CIdEN CLASSROOA4 Page 1 of 1 PEOPLE I-DOw'TO ~ `~ r ~. 7 ~ 4 ~,~ ~.,'' , 1 +, ~~ ~ ~i `~~ 1 - tit ~` ~-' ~ - - The Edible Schoolyard, in collaboration with Martin Luther King Junior Middle School, provides urban public school students with cone-acre organic garden and a kitchen classroom. Using food systems as a unifying concept, students learn how to grow, harvest, and prepare nutritious seasonal produce. Experiences in the kitchen and garden,foster a better understanding of how the ; natural world sustains us, and promote the environmental -~ and social well being of our school community..`. FRt]M S;~I~D T0'TAI3LE Children learn about the connection between what they eat and where it comes from, with the goal of fostering environmental stewardship and revolutionizing the schoo lunch program. DEYELC)PING EGOLITFiRACY Linking garden and kitchen activities with classroom lessons using ecological principles, students develop a deep understanding and appreciation of how nature t sustains life. HOW `r0 S'rAR7 A SCHOOL GAItULN Since the inception of The Edible Schoolyard, the school garden movement and the demand for fresh, organically produced foods has spread nationally.-. We are at a threshold of growth in the shift toward sustainable food ~, systems --these resources may guide your involvement. © 2006 The Edible Schoolyard http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/homepage.html 2/7/2006 CEL ~ Rethinking School Lunch Page 3 of 3 Berkeley Unified School District The Edible Schoolyard at Martin Luther King Middle School, Berkeley, Califoi The Fertile Crescent Rletwork - a Northern California farm-to-school networ by the Center for Ecoliteracy The Food Service Directors' Roundtable - a roundtable convened by the C Ecoliteracy The Center for Ecoliteracy is a partner in "Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids: The Farm to School Program." This statewide network of farm-to-school projects by the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College, through the generou the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. f~~~l~uuvl~ulro~ ~ar~®®U ~aalro~~ wars pia'®~lau~~~9 ~~l: Zenobia Barlow, executive director Janet Brown, writer, content editor Karen Brown, designer Holly Coleman, html programmer IUiargo Crabtree, senior researcher Jo Farrell, production assistant Misa Koketsu, copy editor Jim Koulias, project manager i~aomi Lucks, editor Sara 1lflarcellino, researcher flflichael K. Stone, writer James Tyler, photographer Eric lfllallinger, administrative Rlobuko Yamada, financial adv Copyright 2006. Center for Ecoliteracy. All Rights Reserved. Site Map Credits http:/Jwww.ecoliteracy.org/programs/rsl.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard ~ About Us ~~~~ 4 ~ ~n'V ~'~ T1~E ~DIBLE SCH40LYARD I+tART1N 4t~TF~t~R KIfVG, Its, r.4ron[.r sc:[~~at. • n~~~rr.r:Y, c.~ ABOUT US QUIZ flAlitl~EQV flLIIZ I~ITCHLN (:I.A~SIZflflM Page 1 of 2 HOME I'~UpL~ FUC3~J 70 ABOUT' US ~ cwtrview raeission history values im place contact i.®formativ[[ support. the edible schoolyard "Yestardcry w,sz want to t~~s~den a.a~ frarveste+d cf~ard, a~rrt~, aarrl jcar' '. I~t, Paz r~r[a ir[t+3 t,~r drit[ atnd too,~ea~ a[v~LF~ tivi~ t~irraa. It iA~t15 t~f~l~tC~S~rr ristc~r,~r ~ ~it~r ~r~~r The Edible Schoolyard is anon-profit program located on the campus of Martin Luther King Junior Middle School in Berkeley, California. The cookin€ and gardening program grew out of a conversation between chef and author Atice Waters, and former King Middle School Principal Neil Smith. Planning commenced in 1995 and two years later, more than acre of asphalt parking lot had been cleared. A cove crop was planted to enrich the soil, and in 1997, the school's unused 1930s cafeteria kitchen was refurbished to house the kitchen classroom. Today, the program is integrated into the middle school's daily life. The organic garden is flourishing plants feed and outgrow the adolescents who nurtun them, and the kitchen is filled with delicious smells, music, and enthusiastic young chefs. Garden classes teach the Principles of Ecology, thee' origins of food, and respect for all living systems ' Students work together to shape and plant beds, amend. soil, turn compost, and harvest flowers, fruit' ~; and vegetables. In the kitchen classroom, students prepare and eat delicious seasonal dishes from produce they have P 4w grown in the garden. Students and teachers gather a ~n~0`~'~~. the table to share food and conversation during eacr q ~ class. The cycle of food production is completed in the kitchen, as students eat fruits, vegetables, and grains grown in soil rich with the compost of last season's produce. FROM SEED TO TABLE Student participation in all aspects of the Seed to Table experience occurs as they prepare beds, plant seeds and seedlings, tend crops, and harvest produce Through these engaging activities, students begin to understand the cycle of food production. Vegetable: grains, and fruits, grown in soil rich with the compo of last year's harvest, are elements of seasonal recip~ prepared by students in the kitchen. Students and http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/abaut.html 2/7/2006 The Edible Schoolyard ~ About Us ® 2006 The Edible Schoolyard Page 2 of 2 teachers sit together to eat at tables set with flowers from the garden, adults facilitate conversation, and cleanup is a collective responsibility:.. They complete the Seed to Table cycle by taking vegetable scraps back to the garden at the end of each kitchen class: The Seed to Table experience exposes children to food production, ecology, and nutrition, and fosters appreciation of meaningful work, and of fresh and natural food. back to top http:l/www.edibleschoolyard.org/about.html 2/7/2006 herself wanting to do more. She The idea, she says, of the land teach ,:~health-and-nut it onethe presenatian~~ ds K•anted to share what running the dren to be stewar e m urish th s Q3 -' ` restaurant had taught her: that food le e h m them how to no Al as- mmunicate at th by getting loc 1 p oduce s and par could be a way for people to care for for their health and for each L d to co pests of foo amrodQ ,nn n Waters says, d of school reform "Because it ki an , the other. As she puts rt, at the restaurant, harv sting, in the grog gi' g serving a ki n a ve, it changes the pedagogy she and her staff were "preaching to the saved." She needed to find a way to ng, coo l o ~ hrou h the the table. In add g of school » Waters hopes to expand the reach more people. But her model was program, making it an integral part a local one. How could she bring it to of curricula across the country. As her . a larger audience? vision has grown, so has her idea of One way, of course; would be com- whatfood can do for people. "If people mercially: franchising the restaurant, know how to feed themselves from the going on TV, becoming a celebrity land; she says;."know how to cook and , chef in the mold of other talents in her ;ham- they pleasure of the table; know field. But what Waters believes in isn't `how to care for each other-it just for sale. The brand of food apprecia- seems like this is the road to peace:' lion she encourages is, at its essence, Like her friendship with the a form of democracy And democracy woman with the single peach tree, already belongs to everyone. (Waters' belief .in ~the~power~ of food So she turned to whatshe calls "the iis. grounded n~ a deep appreciation, last truly democratic institution"-the • a reverence almost; for relationships ' ~~ " public schools. "I felt,° she says, "that going re reall School S ~tt~a i to E ' ression x r di ' b~~re y the only way we we t~ make change is if we educated w~ri the s a h o ship bet p e ate te and imme f those relationships. ~ The bottom;- our children." Thus was another the Chez pa,nisse Foundation, the les- f the schoolyard can be spread o ~ e . revolutionary conceptborn: the Edible sons o throughout the entire curriculum, rn And if it has values at its in commoi~ ' Schoolyard. clag4es such as history and science. re giving core, then that's what you ' The Edtbt@ ~S~h00{~Cd' ~ ~ The project has been an enormous someone when you feed them : "It's difficult to tell people to pay he Edible Schoolyaid turns school success, not in least part by getting "We discov~ ` attention to each other," she says. "We Tlunch into an academic subject eat. J children to actually os°mo ered~ tharwhen-,hids~grow~itand cook•`% n `f n e l a livin ,growing, interactive one. g At Martin Luther King Jr. Middle ~ (it, they eat.it;,,+Waters says. More than - o eel good rt and ea ck g ether during those few hours, but t School, just down the street from og program .reaches ~ that, she says; the class then the feeling goes away. You need other - that wa Chez pan~sse., an old asphalt lot has cre . ,_. y students. un-a t. The kids love this: They es don something you're exchanging. And ' been transformed into none-a be . ~ we care ahout them. I'rri%a that feel ~ that's where food comes in: en organic garden. A classroom has built just for the garden, complete . . ~ ' believer t}5at~this can be a transfor` nowned chef ardd author, Alice Waters is R wieh kitchen, airy dining room and matioual. experieuee:Tliere are a lot ~ of kids that'excel arthis.that don t in e :f the founder and prrnsident of the Board o. f communal tables. t~ * Says Waters, "We wanted to reach f other~subjects. Directors for' the Edible Schoolyard. For her ues awarded the Jnhn Stanford h i e r s, s children through a place of pleasure- And the-pragram's effects extend e,(for ond the sclroolyard: "It address=~' Education Heroes Award ire 1999. be l' s if u food that. was delicious and beaut y . February 2, 2006 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Vail Village Council: Our names are Giuseppe and Mercedes Cecchi. We own two condcminium units (108 and 106) in the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums next door to Cross Roads. Let us begin by saying that we are in support of the re-development of Cross Roads into a new mixed-use project, which we believe will highly benefit the Village and its residents. However, we want to express our concern about the architectural character and appearance of the project submitted to you for approval, because in our opinion, it is not consistent with the character of the Vail Village. First of all, it is too tall to fit into the surrounding buildings mix. The height of the elevation of the Village should not exceed a total of seven stories. Secondly, the architectural appearance does not seem to blend well with the character of the Vail Village. One of the main reasons we decided to buy in Vail is the wonderful architectural character of the Village, which you have preserved over the years. Please continue to preserve it in this instance! Sincerely, i~) ~. f ~~~. iuseppe & Mercedes Cecchi ROSSLYN METRO CENTER ®1700 N. MOORE ST., ARLINGTON, VA 22209 ®703/558-7300 ®FAX 703/558-7377 Emest Scheirer, Jr. Village !nn Plaza-Condo 303 100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 -- - - -- - -- __ - ------- - - -- G 2.o a ~ _ __ _~_ _ -- - - - --- -------- - -_ -- -- _. - -- _. ___ _ - - __ , _ -- - _ ._ - --- -- - _. -- - ~ ~ _~__ _~~-r.a.q,c- -- - - -- -- - _ _ ___---__ __ - ------ - . ~, - - - _._ ---.- ,; ____ r _ ..._- -___ _~_ , - -- -- ~- .- - - - - -ram- _ _ --- ~-~-.'~: ---- .- -- - ~: - -- ~ --- , _ __ _- - --- --- -~ ~~ __ Ci-,~ I ~y O --- --- -a~ --- _ ~~ _~-e ---- -- -- - =-- - -- ---- ~ ~_ _ -- - -- ----- ----~-~--e-t~-- ; , -~- v" -- -- - - ._-. -- - - ~-t/?-,..> ,cam, ---- - -- - --- ~_ - _ __. - -- __ r / ' - . ~ _ --- i t... __ .`-__~__ i . . U -- - -. _. ._ i i _, - - - ---- i'~- _ _ _ -- I ----_- -_ -- I ~ .._._--- -- ---- .'i - - - --- -- _ _---- i i ~___.~ r - - -- --- - - - .___.__ --- - - --- ;,, -- , - - ---- ~I '. --- ---- -- --- - - __ - ---- -- - - ---- - -- c~ -. __ -- . i . ~ _._.. .. ___ S - 1 _,. _.. __ _. ____.. f _~_ _.._ __ _..__. _.__ ._ . ''. .. _ _. _ _- - -- -. t - _ . _ ~ - - -- _ _.. _ _ _ - - - -- -- __ .. _------ - - ----- - - - -- •~, - - -- . -- - - - -