The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-05-15 Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionTOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 2:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007 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. George Ruther ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update. (15 min.) 2. George Ruther ITEM/TOPIC: Discuss the proposed development review process Nina Timm for the potential future redevelopment of the Timber Ridge Affordable Housing project, located at 1280 North Frontage Road with the Vail Town Council. The purpose of this work session is to present the proposed development review process needed to facilitate the future redevelopment of Timber Ridge and to get feedback on the proposed process from the property owner (e.g., Town of Vail). (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide feedback and direction to the Community Development Department on the above mentioned item. 3. ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update. (10 min.) • Discussion regarding meeting time change in July 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (10 min.) 5. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1.) C.R.S. § 24-6- 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding LionsHead parking structure redevelopment and other Town of Vail property interests (60 min.) 6. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (4:35 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2007 IN THE 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. Please note: There are no PEC results since the last Council meeting on May 1, 2007. t ~_ BOARD TRAINING PROJECT ORIENTATION MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Dantas Pete Dunning Brian Gillette Margaret Rogers SITE VISITS 1. Giordano Residence - 1107 and 1109 Vail Valley Drive 2. One Willow Bridge - 1 Willow Bridge Road 3. Vickers Residence - 375 Forest Road Driver: Bill PUBLIC HEARING -TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1:OOpm 1:30pm 2:15pm 3:OOpm 1. One Willow Bridge DRB07-0072 / 10 minutes George Final review of changes to approved plans (catwalk) 1 Willow Bridge Road/Lot 2, Sonnenalp Subdivision Applicant: Vail Dover Associates, LLC, represented by Resort Design Associates ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Dantas SECOND: Dunning VOTE: 4-0-0 CONDITION(S): The applicant shall submit a revised drawing depicting an increase in the spacing of the pickets to 8 inches on center to reduce the visual weight of the fencing. 2. 811 Potato Patch Drive, LLC DRB07-0095 / 15 minutes Final review of new construction (duplex residence) 811 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 32, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision Applicant: English & Associates, represented by K.H. Webb Architects ACTION: Tabled to May 16, 2007 MOTION: Dunning SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 4-0-0 3. Vickers Residence DRB07-0140 / 10 minutes Conceptual review new construction (single family residence) 375 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 3 Applicant: Gregory Vickers, represented by Peel Langenwalter Architects ACTION: Conceptual, no vote DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING May 2, 2007 3:00 P.M. Council Chambers MEMBERS ABSENT Tom Du Bois Bill Bill Page 1 f i 4. Giordano Residence DRB07-0161 / 10 minutes Bill Conceptual review of new construction (single family residence) 1107 and 1109 Vail Valley Drive/Lots 7 and 8, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Donna Giordano, represented by VAG Architects & Planners ACTION: Conceptual, no vote Staff Approvals Theriault Residence DRB07-0084 Bill Final review of a residential addition (roof forms, entry, hot tub) 2585 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 13, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13 Applicant: Alexander Theriault, represented by Studio Spinnato, Inc. Morris Residence DRB07-0099 Bill Final review of a residential addition (connect garage to main building) 2945 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 11 Applicant: John Morris, represented by Michael Pukas Dayton Residence DR607-0122 Bill Final review of change to approved plans (roof) 344 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 3 Applicant: John Dayton, represented by K.H. Webb Architects, PC Rosenbach Residence DRB07-0138 Bill Final review of change to approved plans (roof, pool) 107 Rockledge Road/Lot 7, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Gary and Susan Rosenbach, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Fischer Residence DRB07-0141 Final review of a minor alteration (patio, retaining walls) 2695 Davos Trail/Lot 17, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Randy and Paul Fischer Rachel Olson Residence DRB07-0142 Bill Final review of change to approved plans (dog run, fireplace, exterior materials) 1785 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Valley Filing 3 Applicant: Curtis and Kristin Olson, represented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. Barroso de Franklin Residence DRB07-0143 Warren Final review of a residential addition (dining room, dormer) 600 Vail Valley Drive/Northwoods Condominiums Applicant: Gina Diez Barroso de Franklin, represented by Beth Levine Architect, Inc. Millrace Condominiums DRB07-0145 Rachel Final review of a minor alteration (windows, door) 1380 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village Applicant: Millrace Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Page 2 Morris Residence DRB07-0148 Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping) 5117 Main Gore Drive/Lot 5, Block 1, Bighorn 5th Addition Applicant: Linda Morris, represented by Happy Trees, LLC Loftus Residence DRB07-0151 Final review of a minor alteration (window) 5020 Main Gore Place, Unit M-4/Gore Creek Meadows, unplatted Applicant: Brian Loftus, represented by Rusty Spike Enterprises Cerisola Residence DR607-0135 Final review of a residential addition (exercise room, garage) 805 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Applicant: Pedro Cerisola, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects Lifthouse/Montauk Restaurant DRB07-0139 Final review of change to approved plans (roof, railings) 555 East Lionshead Circle, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Lifthouse Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Poncher Residence DRB07-0155 Final review of a minor alteration (landscaping) 4298 Nugget Lane/Lot 1, Bighorn Estates Applicant: Sheila Poncher Fritzlen/Pierce Residence DRB07-0157 Final review of a minor alteration (doors) 4969 Meadow Drive/Lot 11, Block 5, Bighorn Subdivision Applicant: Lynn Fritzlen and Bill Pierce Lodge South Condominiums DRB07-0159 Final review of change to approved plans (vent) 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Lodge South Condominiums, represented by Stan Cope Field Residence DRB07-0162 Final review of change to approved plans (windows) 586 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 Applicant: Larry Field, represented by Zehren and Associates Kaplan Residence DRB07-0166 Final review of a minor alteration (windows) 3030 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 5, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 11 Applicant: Werner and Gilda Kaplan, represented by Michael Hazard Rachel Rachel Warren Warren Warren Rachel Bill Rachel Rachel The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING tx May 14, 2007 Tl~il~iOFVA~ ' 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS I PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo Michael Kurz Bill Pierce David Viele Site Visits: None MEMBERS ABSENT °R,~r 5 minutes 1. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, located. at 3977 Lupine Drive/Lot 1 A, Block 1, Bighorn 1St Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0023) Applicant: Todd and Cindy Oliver, represented by TAB Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their support for the application. 5 minutes 2. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, located at 5119 and 5121 Black Bear Lane/Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0024) Applicant: Lisa Augustine, represented by JMP Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant must execute the relocated utility easements prior to the recordation of this amended final plat. 2. The applicant and his successors and assigns, shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this amended final plat for Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision, on the basis that the resulting approved plat created a physical hardship for developing these lots. Page 1 r Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed general support for the application. Rollie Kjesbo asked for clarification of Condition #2. 10 minutes 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Two-Family Primary/Secondary District (P/S) to Low Density Multiple Family District (LDMF), located at 1817 Meadow Ridge Road/Lot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0018) Applicant: Capstone Townhome Association, represented by Marc Levarn, President of the H.O.A. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Recommendation of Approval with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1. That Lot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, shall be limited to no more that six (6) dwelling units regardless of that allowable under Low-Density Multiple Family District zoning. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Mark Levarn, applicant, was available for questions. There was no public comment. Anne Gunion generally supported the application, but would be opposed to any future variance requests which encroached further into the setbacks. Bill Pierce asked Warren Campbell to clarify how steep slopes could affect the property. He does not support an additional dwelling unit. Michael Kurz agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Gunion. Dick Cleveland noted h'is concern that variances may still be needed for future redevelopment. He does not support an additional unit. Warren Campbell clarified that approval of this request would eliminate the need for density variances, which were denied in the past for this project development. Rollie Kjesbo agreed with Dick Cleveland. David Viele had no comment. Bill Jewitt stated that this property was mis-zoned when it was annexed into the Town and the zone change is more appropriate with how the site is developed. 30 minutes Page 2 4. A request for a work session to discuss the development applications necessary for the review of the redevelopment of the Clock Tower Building (Gorsuch Building), located at 263 East Gore Creek Drive/Lots D and E, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and Lots Cand FSlifer/McBride Subdivision (PEC07-0025) Applicant: David and Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associates Planner: Scot Hunn/V1/arren Campbell ACTION: Worksession, no vote Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson and Gordon Pierce,. applicants' representatives, presented an overview of the proposal. John Gorsuch noted that their intent is to construct a new building that looks like it's an original Vail building. He also noted their intent to construct a "green", environmentally friendly, construction project. Dave Gorsuch explained the history of the existing building. Michael Kurz stated that the Gorsuch store is part of the brand of Vail, and he's pleased to see the. proposal still meets the core values of the Town. He believes it's a good start. Dick Cleveland is encouraged that the Gorsuch's are the first to bring a major renovation to the Village. He's concerned about the Bridge Street presence of the building. He's also concerned about the clock tower and believes the current design is the icon and branding of Vail. He would like to see the new tower emulate the existing design. He suggested the tower could go up, but should not be wider. He was very positive about the other portions of the building. Rollie Kjesbo he likes the overall massing of the building, but the same as Dick Cleveland he does not support the wider clock tower design. He generally supports the proposal. Bilt Jewitt asked the applicant to further describe the construction staging and the third floor dining area. He echoed Dick Cleveland's concerns about preserving the design of the clock tower. He believes the redevelopment of this building within the Town's design parameters will set the tone for of renovations. Bill Pierce identified concerns about preserving view corridors and reviewing this proposal in context with the surrounding buildings. He'll miss the liveliness of a deck on the Bridge Street side of the building. He's concerned that the two different tower styles on the building contradict each other and about the proportions of the new tower. He recommended breaking up the plane of the south fagade. David Viele doesn't have as much attachment to the current tower and supports the proposed design. He noted concerns about preserving vitality along Bridge Street. He supports the overall design of the plans. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's Association, is impressed with the initial design. He did note concerns about loading/delivery and construction staging. He agreed with Bill Pierce's suggestions concerning articulating the south elevation. He noted concerns about need for a strong presence along Bridge Street. 60 minutes Page 3 5. A request for a work session to discuss the development review applications necessary for the review of the redevelopment of the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regards thereto. (PEC07-0019, 0020, 0021, 0022) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corporation, represented by Mauriello Planning Group LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to June 11, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE:7-0-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Tom Miller, Vail Resorts, introduced the development team. Gary Wakasuki, Callison Architecture, introduced the design team. Steve Harmon, Callison Architecture, introduced the LEEDs environmental design program. Michael Lee, Callison Architecture, introduced -the proposed development. Crystal ?, Callison Architecture, introduces the branding of the project. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group,. summarized the application review process. Dick Cleveland questioned how creating a village with a parking structure and lift that doesn't draw away from Vail Village or Lionshead. Tom Miller stated that they area pursuing visitors from other resorts and capturing missing markets here in Vail Michael Kurz asked about consistency with the Vail brand such as Vail Village. His opinion is that this is a dissolution of the Vail brand. Bill Jewitt noted his concerns about constructing an additional ski portal. David Viele clarified that he is not associated with the proposed development and he does not have a conflict of interest in reviewing this proposal. He noted that the Commission's role is to review the project based upon the zoning regulations and not the marketing aspects of the project. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, noted his concern about possible delays in the review process associated with approvals from CDOT on road re-alignment and from the Town on parking issues. He is concerned about the design of the parking structure and the subterranean construction. Dominic Mauriello stated that their plans assume a road realignment will occur. Bill Pierce questioned if there is another option to realignment, such a building above the Frontage Road. Jim Lamont noted concerns about additional issues such as skier drop-off, branding, location of the water treatment plant, construction of a grand boulevard, creating an entertainment center, creating vitality, etc. Page 4 David Viele commented that he is on the water board and the district is of the option that the treatment plant site is not the highest and best use of the site. 5 minutes 6. A request for a work session to review the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 11, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 5 minutes 7. A request for a work session to review an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 11, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 8. Approval of April 23, 2007 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-1 (Viele recused) 9. Information Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 11, 2007, in the Vail Daily. Page 5 .MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: George Ruther and Nina Timm DATE: May 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Proposed development review process to facilitate the redevelopment of Timber Ridge Village Apartments I. Introduction The Town of Vail purchased Timber Ridge Village Apartments in July, 2003 for $20,000,000. The previous deed restriction on the property had expired so The Town purchased the 198 rental units to ensure the rental housing stock remained in town. Upon purchase of the property the Town of Vail placed a deed restriction on the property which restricts the units as rental housing f or Qualified Residents. Timber Ridge is the largest rental development in the Town of Vail. Part of the Town's concern regarding the potential for redevelopment, prior to the Town's ownership, is the fact that the property does not have. underlying zoning. It is a Special Development District without underlying zoning. To facilitate future redevelopment of this property in particular, the Town created the Housing District. As stated in Section 12 of the Vail Town Code the "housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone districts. It is necessary in this zone district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project... and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the district. The housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the zone district is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Yail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. " II. Proposed Zoning .Process The Community Development Department would. propose that the first step in rezoning the property would be an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan will then provide a framework for future decisions related to the redevelopment of the property. It will allow the Town to put some parameters around the expectations for the property's redevelopment. Concurrently an application would also be made to change the zoning to the Housing District. A "roadmap" of the proposed process is attached to this memo. III. Redevelopment Considerations The existing deed restriction on the property calls for the provision of deed restricted rental units in perpetuity. The goal in acquiring the property was to maintain at least as many rental units on site, 198 units. Conversations are currently underway with the prospective redeveloper of the Lionshead Parking Structure. In addition to redeveloping the Parking Structure they would like to redevelop Timber Ridge and meet their employee ho using r equirements o n t he p roperty. T hey h ave also b een engaged in conversations with Vail Resorts to potentially meet all, of Vail Resorts' existing and anticipated future employee housing requirements in the redevelopment of Timber Ridge as well. The proposed redevelopment concept will be focused on meeting the employee housing needs of the developments that are generating the requirement. In the Town's inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage requirements it does not state that the Town would like to target a specific segment of the employee housing market. There are minimum unit size or square feet per employee requirements which suggest the Town is interested in creating an optimal living environment for employees. Attached to this memo are two basic scenarios that show what possible redevelopment of Timber Ridge might look like. They simply show potential unit and bed counts to meet the employee housing requirements. They have not had any check against a financial model. IV. Action Requested of Town Council Provide staff with direction on the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning of the property. Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Process Roadmop May 15. 2007 Town Counci I Call-Up Town Council Call-Up Start Construction Land Use Plan Amendment Civil Drawing Review Approval Initial Meetings with Town Staff Deveopment Plan Approva3 esign Review Application Approval Building Permit Approval Building Permit Application Review Rezone to Housing (H) District Initiate CDOT CDOT Approval Approval Process OPTION A -does not meet all of VRI's anticipated obligation Rentals # of Units Sq Ft/Unit # of Beds Emps/Units Total Sq Ft Existing Use -Seasonal 4 Bed 169 1,000 676 4 169,000 Existing demand/use today Existing Use -Traditional 2 bed 29 788 65.25 2.25 22,852 Existing demand/use today OHP -Seasonal 4 bed 25 1,000 100 4 25,000 Estimated Seasonal demand OHP -Traditional 2 bed 45 788 101.25 2.25 35,460 Estimated Traditional demand VRI -Traditional 2 bed 64 788 144 2.25 50,432 Existing VRI obligation TOTAL 332 1,086.5 302,744 Units Per Acre 32.9 Sq Ft Per Acre 30,034.1 Beds Per Acre 107.8 Net New Beds -not obligated 142.5 Minimum Required Unit Size Dormitory - 4 emps 1,000 sq ft Two Bedroom - 2.25 emps 788 sq ft Addresses existing .deed restriction and demand on the property Addresses OHP anticipated requirement of 200 beds Addresses VRI existing requirement of 144 beds OPTION B -meets all of VRI's anticipated obligation Rentals # of Units Sq Ft/Unit # of Beds Emps/Units Total Sq Ft Existing UserSeasonal4Bed 169 1,000 676 4 169,000 Existing Use -Traditional 2 bed 29 788 65.25 2.25 22,852 OHP -Seasonal 4 bed 25 1,000 100 4 25,000 OHP -Traditional 2 bed 45 788 101.25 2.25 35,460 VRI -Seasonal 4 bed 54 1,000 216 4 54,000 VRI -Traditional2 bed 65 788 146.25 2.25 51,220 TOTAL 387 1,304.8 z 357,532 Units Per Acre 38.4 Sq Ft Per Acre 35,469.4 Beds Per Acre 129.4. Net New Beds -not obligated 143.8 Minimum Required Unit Size Dormitory - 4 emps 1,000 sq ft Two Bedroom - 2.25 emps 788 sq ft Addresses existing deed restriction. and demand on the property Addresses OHP anticipated requirement of 200 beds Addresses VRI existing requirement of 144 beds Addresses VRI anticipated requirement of 217 beds for Ever Vail Existing demand/use today Existing demandluse today Estimated Seasonal demand Estimated Traditional demand Estimated Seasonal demand Existing VRI obligation Bil-, Unfortunately I was the only council person o amplified music, pposed to chap in PM on Frida The new regulation allows amplified sound to g g the hours allowed for the week, y and Saturday nights onl . be extended from 10;00 to 11:00 Rod Slifer Y It was not what I wanted but is better than eve rY night of .... , From: Bill Cox mailto:bcox ~~ ~~~~~ Sent: Wednesda @CormanConstruction.com) Y. May 09, 2007 3;10 PM To: towncouncil@vailgov.com _ _ Cc: wha@vail.net Subject: amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment Members of the Town Council: As an owner of Unit #309 in the Brid to the proposed amendment. ge Street Lod owners to while I understand the d soelof the loca merchants make Vail Village a live) Y opposition wishes of those of us who Y entertainment destination, I ho in my o inion, make up the residential com Pe the Council will cons der the as P has as much to do with the quality of life pornthosef of e Vilia e, it does with Vail being a lively fun night spot. us who own and rent noVail'I The Council's job is to fashion to ensure the continued success of the " a win/win solution for both parties, since each side needs the does not shut down the bar or restaurant, but it does alto those Vail Experience". Ending the outdoor other who just want to read a book w those of us with o nusic at 10:OOPM Vail is a or turn in earl y 9 children or great destination precise) y~ to do so without bein upscale y because it has maintained a g kept up until almost midnight. residential communit Proper balance between an y and a lively. night life. Please keep the balance and reject the amendment! Sincerely, Bill Cox Bill Cox Corman Construction, Inc 12001 Guilford Road Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 Office (301) 953-0900 Ext 233 Fax (301) 953-3159 Mobile (301) 343-5401 email: bcox cormanconstruction.com Page 1 of 2 Rod Slifer _ __ From: Ray Kidwell [erkidwell@chartertn.netj Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:54 PM To: towncouncil@vailgov.com Subject: Town of Vail Noise and Amplified Sound Control I recently read in the Vail Daily News that the Vail Town Council has been revisiting the matter of outdoor amplified sound control and in particular that an extention from the 10 PM limit to 11 PM is under consideration. I had previously emailed the council regarding this matter on 8/13/06 and am taking the liberty of enclosing a copy below. In the intervening months my feelings have remained the same. I have been interested to learn though that the topic of noise pollution continues to be a mounting concern in our country. Besides the attention shown by the EPA and scattered local groups, the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse (ww_w.nonoise,o~) gives an interestring perspective regarding the sublect. At the least I would like to offer two brief quotes from this site for your consideration: First: "The air into which second-hand noise is emitted and on which it travels is a "commons," a public good. It belongs to no one person or group, but to everyone. People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. On the contrary, they have an obligation to use the commons in ways that are compatible with or do not detract from other uses. People, businesses, and organizations that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others' use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. Although perhaps unknowingly, they nevertheless disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs." Second: "In seeking to advance an ethic of the commons, we first need to recognize that competing uses that exclude other uses of the commons or damaging uses that detract from other uses are not wise uses of a public good. The commons should be used in as many non-competing, non-damaging ways as possible. Noise, like many other pollutants, precludes many enjoyable uses of the commons and is not a wise use of the commons: loud late night parties, early morning garbage pick-up, or aircraft take-offs trump sleeping, reading, working, or listening to music." In closing I wish to stress that whether amplified sound ends at 10 PM or even at 8 or 9 PM, there is no reason that the entertainment cannot continue indoors, even until the wee hours. The town core consists of both businesses and residents; we are neighbors. I believe that it is widely acknowledged that good neighbors keep their noise to themselves. Sincerely, Ray Kidwell Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:31:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eugene Kidwell" <erkidwell@yahoo.com> Subject:Town of Vail Noise and Amplified Sound Control 5/14/2007 Page 2 of 2 "Kent Logan" <klogan@vailgov.com>, "Greg Moffet" <gmoffet@vailgov.com>, "Kim To: Newbury" <knewbury@vailgov.com>, "Farrow Hitt" <fhitt@vailgov.com>, "Kevin Foley" <kfoley@vailgov.com>, "Mark Gordon" <mgordon@vailgov.com>, "Rod Slifer" <rslifer@vailgov.com> CC: 'Lorelei Donaldson" <Ionaldson@vailgov.com>, "Dwight Henninger" <dhenninger@vailgov.com>, "Stan Zemler" <szemler@vailgov.com> It's come to my attention that some aspects of the Town of Vail's ordinances concerning noise and amplified sound control may be under scrutiny during upcoming town council meetings. Specifially I have been told that Pepi's Restaurant and Bar has requested an extention to the 10 PM limit set for amplified outdoor sound. I would like to offer some thoughts regarding this matter. My wife and I have been coming to Vail since 1982, and for almost 20 years we've owned our present condo at 281 Bridge Street. It is on the third floor and fronts both on Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. Our stays were limited to a few weeks a year until my retirement four years ago. Since then we've been priviledged to come three to four months each year. Though we are not full time residents, we do feel we have a home in Vail. Over our years here the noise of the crowds has often been troublesome (especially when the bars emptied out); but this was to be expected in a resort area, and we've had no complaints in this regard. We've come to regard the outdoor amplified sound quite differently though. On most evenings the decibel levels noted in the town's ordinances are exceeded. Even with windows closed in our residence the sound is very loud. In essence we must wait till after 10:00 pm to have the luxury of listening to music of our own choosing. This brings me to the matter at hand. The town's ordinances require that outside amplified sound end at 10:00 pm, and nightclubs and bars quite frequently do not comply. Some also fail to close windows and doors at 10:00 pm to keep amplified sound indoors. Since phone calls to these establishments in years past proved unrewarding, we have asked the police to assist on many, many occasions. I suspect the officers who have responded are as weary of hearing our complaints as we are in making them, but they have assisted whenever possible. We truly appreciate their efforts and regret they have had to contend with such matters. The sound from Pepi's outside speakers poses a particular problem since they face away from their own customers and directly toward our building and the streets. Thus their willing and participating audience, and also those residing in that hotel, are spared the worse of the volume that is inflicted upon the rest of the neighborhood. One might well argue that some music in the village streets can contribute to a pleasant ambience. I question, though, whether that pleasure. is proportionate to the volume involved, especially when it becomes so loud that some of your residents and visitors come to perceive it as noise and not as music. I appreciate your consideration of my remarks and hope you will support the continued enforcement of Vail's present sound ordinances and will not extend the time allotted for amplified outdoor sound. If there should be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, E. Raymond Kidwell MD 970-476-1917 erkidwell ahoo.com 5235 Caintuck Road Kingsport TN 37664 423-288-7642 5/14/2007 Page 1 of 1 Rod Slifer ..._.......... .. __. From: Connie Knight [connieinvail@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 2:34 PM To: Farrow Hitt; greg moffet; kept logan; kevin foley; kim newberry; mark gordon; rod slifer Subject: No to Village Music Hours Please Isn't it enough living with construction noise without extending the hours of outdoor music in Vail Village? Sure we're a resort and lively is good, but isn't there something to be said about peace and quiet? As much as I love having Rod Powell serenade me, so to speak, six nights a week with windows open in the summertime, enough's enough. If bar and restaurant owners want more business, `please bring it indoors after 10 pm. As for Mark Cordon's caustic comments that living in the village seems to be aself-inflicted wound," this wound would be inflicted by him and fellow council members. Will you please reconsider this proposal and vote against it? Thank you, Connie Knight Connie __ _ _. ......................._....._..... . __ . ..................... __ eed Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail _~&A for reat ti s from Yahoo! Answers users. 5/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Rod Slifer From: Charles Viola [CViola@vailresorts.comj Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:24 PM To: towncouncil@vailgov.com Subject: Noise Ordinance To the Town Council: As the local representative for Lodge Apartment Condominium Association I feel that it is important to express our strong objection to the proposed changes to the noise ordinance. The current times for allowing amplified sound seem to be adequate. The current 10:00 time for amplified sound is a reasonable time to expect noise in the Village to subside. It is a compatible with many guests and homeowners schedules. I fully support the efforts to have an active Village. Unfortunately, allowing amplified sound past 10:00 outside establishments does nothing to further this goal. One of our biggest complaints comes from noise beyond what most consider a reasonable time. It has been my experience that the guest feel that 10:00 is reasonable, 11:00 is far to late for those wishing not to engage in the festivities. Those wishing to experience the nightlife can easily do so in the establishments offering the entertainment. The proposed ordinance seems to benefit a few at the expense of many. I also question what the benefit or goal really is. Having competing music in the Village does not enhance the ambiance nor does it drive additional revenue. Those looking for entertainment will seek out venues to enjoy their evening. If the goal is to increase bar sales resulting in increased sales taxes I ask that the Town also consider the impact lodging sales. The negative impact on lodging could far exceed the positive impact on bar sales. I have dealt with the noise complaints for 17 years. We seem to have reached equilibrium that maintains guests satisfaction with the current ordinance. Here in the Lodge at Vail we presently have 17 homeowners located on Gore Creek Drive. Amplified sound does affect these owners to a greater extent than those in other locations. There is also an economic impact for these owners when rental guests ask to be moved to a quieter location. Sincerely, Charley Viola Lodge Apartment Condominium Association The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail Thank you. 5/15/2007 ~_~~ ~ T (5115/2007) Corey Swisher -'Re_Fwd: amplified sound ordinance ~~~~ ~~ e e .~ ,Page a=roma Kim Newbury To: bubeli®aol.com Date: 5/14/2007 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: amplified sound ordinance CC: cswisherC~vailgov.com We'll certainly take your concerns into account when making a decision on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to comments. Best regards, Kim Newbury Vail Town Council Member »> <bubeli@aol.com> 05/13/07 4:52 PM »> ---- Original Message ---- From: bubeliC~aol.com To: bubeliC~3aol.com Sent: Tue, 8 May 2007 3:30 PM Subject: amplified sound ordinance To the Town Council, Do not overlook the fact that condominiums inside the village core are also businesses generating income for the owners, but more importantly, providing consumers. I have spent much personal time and money fighting "noise" in the village which my renters complain about. Make no mistake, people move out, both renters and owners, due to inhospitable conditions. Most homeowners are renting to the exact people you are trying to cater to-don't chase them away. Not all people who come to stay in Vail do so to party the night away. By changing this law you are allowing conditions which a large group of people won't tolerate. Over the long term you will alienate these people, and they will no longer occupy the condominiums in the village. Robert & Natalie Bissegger Bridge Street Lodge condominium owner AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. (5/15/2007) Corey Swisher - Re: Proposed Amendment to Outdoor Amplified Sound Ordinance Page 1 From: Kim Newbury To: Michael.Meiners C~ EndurantEnergy.com Date: 5/14/2007 7:47 PM Subject: Re: Proposed Amendment to Outdoor Amplified Sound Ordinance CC: cswisher(~vailgov.com We'll certainly take your concerns into account when making a decision on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Best regards, Kim Newbury Vail Town Council Member »> Michael Meiners <Michael.Meiners ~ EndurantEnergy.com> 05/10/07 3:30 PM »> Members of the Town Council: As an owner of Unit 362 in the Lodge at Vail, I would like to express my opposition to the proposed amendment. While I understand the desire of the local merchants and restaurant owners to make Vail Village a lively entertainment destination, I hope the Council will consider the wishes of those of us who make up the residential component of the Village. The success of Vail, in my opinion, has as much to do with the quality of life for those of us who own and rent in Vail as it does with Vail being a lively fun night spot The Councils job is to fashion awin/win solution for both parties, since each side needs the other to ensure the continued success of the 3Vail Experience2. Ending the outdoor music at 10:OOPM does not shut down the bar or restaurant, but it does allow those of us with young children or those who just want to read a book or turn in early, to do so without being kept up until almost midnight. Vail is a great destination precisely because it has maintained a proper balance between an upscale residential community and a lively night life. Please keep the balance and reject the amendment! Sincerely, Michael P. Meiners ----- - (5/15/2007) Corey Swisher - Re: Amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment Page 1 ~ ~ ~~_ From: Kim Newbury. To: MGalvin C~harrisonst.com Date: 5/14/2007 7:48 PM Subject: Re: Amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment CC: cswisherwailgov.com We'll certainly take your concerns into account when making a decision on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Best regards, Kim Newbury Vail Town Council Member »> "Mike Galvin" <MGalvinC~harrisonst.com> 05/10/07 11:41 AM »> Dear Members of the Town Council: As an owner of Rowhouse 12, 303 East Gore Creek Drive, our Galvin family respectfully conveys its opposition to the proposed amplified sound ordinance amendment. Most, if not all, visitors and. residents that are inspired and motivated to stay out past 10pm to enjoy a place where they can partake of a drink, dance or music, likely already well know the available options before 10pm. To the new tourist and resident, these destinations are quite evident visually and audibly for seven consecutive hours during apres ski and when walking to and from village restaurants before 10pm. And those visitors that travel to Vail Village from other Vail communities for such entertainment after 10pm have mostly been apprised of their options ahead of time, which is why they are making the effort to travel into the Village for such. And for those few that may not already be apprised of their entertainment options after 10pm, hotel concierges, residents and tourists are very generous with post-10pm word-of-mouth suggestions as to late night options for such. Extending sound advertising to 11 pm is unnecessary and unfairly favors commercial over the vast majority of individuals and families that seek peace and quiet starting earlier than that late hour. We believe a balance where outdoor music advertising is curtailed at 10pm gives merchants ample time during the apres ski and dinner segments of the afternoon and evening to capture the imagination of prospective passersby, while extending a courtesy to the majority of those families and visitors that come to Vail for its other compelling appeal, i.e., its mountain serenity. We respectfully urge the Council to protect the balance in rejecting the amendment. Sincerely, Michael P. Galvin Rowhouse 12 er - Re: Amplified Sourid Ordinance Arnendm 303 East Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 . _~ (5115/2007) Corey Swisher - Re Page 1 From: Kim Newbury To: Bill_Morton C~jackmorton.com Date: 5/14/2007 7:49 PM Subject: Re: CC: cswisherCi?vailgov.com We'll certainly take your concerns into account when making a decision on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Best regards, Kim Newbury Vail Town Council Member »> "Morton, Bill (NYC-JMW)" <BiII~Morton@jackmorton.com> 05/11/07 2:56 PM »> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of our Town Council: We have lived in the Mill Creek Court Building overlooking the Village and Pepi's face since 1990. Kay and I are deeply disturbed with the potential adjustments to the sound ordinance for the Village. Having had to call the police on many occasions over the years for the violations of The Tap Room for going beyond the 10pm limit, as well as the decibel level being above code, this will create an unreasonable burden on the residential neighborhood. We respect the bar's need for entertainment, and knowing Skieka had requested merely a 15-minute extension, this could be a reasonable compromise for everyone. We all enjoy the music and the Village activity, but we should be concerned about the incursions into reasonableness. William Morton Chairman /Jack Morton Worldwide / tel: +1.212.401.7330 / f: +1.212.401.7017 / http://www.jackmorton.com 5/2007 From: Kim Newbury To: Arth urG ~ aoLcom Date: 5/14/2007 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Proposed Amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment CC: cswisherC~3 vailgov.com We'll certainly take your concerns into account when making a decision on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Best regards, Kim Newbury Vail Town Council Member »> <ArthurGC~3aol.com> 05/10/07 9:55 AM »> Dear Town Council: We've been apartment owners at the Villa Cortina for the past 15 years. I'm wholeheartedly against extending the outdoor amplified sound to 11:00 at night. It's intrusive, unacceptable, and can only result in a reduction of the wonderful experience Vail offers all of us. Sincerely, Wilma & Arthur Gelfand ****Yt**k********rt*~F********Yr*k}'******* See what's free at http://www.aol.com (5/15/2007) Corey Swisher - Re: Noise Ordinance Page 1 From: Kim Newbury To: CViolaC~vailresorts.com Date: 5/14/2007 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Noise Ordinance CC: cswisherC~vailgov.com We'll certainly take your concerns into account when making a decision on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Best regards, Kim Newbury Vail Town Council Member »> "Charles Viola" <CViola@vailresorts.com> 05/14/07 5:24 PM »> To the Town Council: As the local representative for Lodge Apartment Condominium Association I feel that it is important to express our strong objection to the proposed changes to the noise ordinance. The current times for allowing amplified sound seem to be adequate. The current 10:00 time for amplified sound is a reasonable time to expect noise in the Village to subside. It is a compatible with many guests and homeowners schedules. I fully support the efforts to have an active Village. Unfortunately, allowing amplified sound past 10:00 outside establishments does nothing to further this goal. One of our biggest complaints comes from noise beyond what most consider a reasonable time. It has been my experience that the guest feel that 10:00 is reasonable, 11:00 is far to late for those wishing not to engage in the festivities. Those wishing to experience the nightlife can easily do so in the establishments offering the entertainment. The proposed ordinance seems to benefit a few at the expense of many. I also question what the benefit or goal really is. Having competing music in the Village does not enhance the ambiance nor does it drive additional revenue. Those looking for entertainment will seek out venues to enjoy their evening. If the goal is to increase bar sales resulting in increased sales taxes I ask that the Town also consider the impact lodging sales. The negative impact on lodging could far exceed the positive impact on bar sales. I have dealt with the noise complaints for 17 years. We seem to have reached equilibrium that maintains guests satisfaction with the current ordinance. Here in the Lodge at Vail we presently have 17 homeowners located on Gore Creek Drive. Amplified sound does affect these owners to a greater extent than those in other locations. There is also an economic impact for these owners when rental guests ask to be moved to a quieter location. Sincerely, Charley Viola Lodge Apartment Condominium Association Page 1 of 1 Rod Slifer From: Charles Viola [CViola@vailresorts.comj Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:24 PM To: towncouncil@vailgov.com Subject: Noise Ordinance To the Town Council: As the local representative for Lodge Apartment Condominium Association I feel that it is important to express our strong objection to the proposed changes to the noise ordinance. The current times far allowing amplified sound seem to be adequate. The current 10:00 time for amplified sound is a reasonable time to expect noise in the Village to subside. It is a compatible with many guests and homeowners schedules. fully support the efforts to have an active Village. Unfortunately, allowing amplified sound past 10:00 outside establishments does nothing to further this goal. One of our biggest complaints comes from noise beyond what most consider a reasonable time. It has been my experience that the guest feel that 10:00 is reasonable, 11:00 is far to late for those wishing not to engage in the festivities. Those wishing to experience the nightlife can easily do so in the establishments offering the entertainment. The proposed ordinance seems to benefit a few at the expense of many. I also question what the benefit or goal really is. Having competing music in the Village does not enhance the ambiance nor does it drive additional revenue. Those looking for entertainment will seek out venues to enjoy their evening. If the goal is to increase bar sales resulting in increased sales taxes I ask that the Town also consider the impact lodging sales. The negative impact on lodging could far exceed the positive impact on bar sales. I have dealt with the noise complaints for 17 years. We seem to have reached equilibrium that maintains guests satisfaction with the current ordinance. Here in the Lodge at Vail we presently have 17 homeowners located on Gore Creek Drive. Amplified sound does affect these owners to a greater extent than those in other locations. There is also an economic impact for these owners when rental guests ask to be moved to a quieter location. Sincerely, Charley Viola Lodge Apartment Condominium Association The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail Thank you. 5/15/2007 Page 1 of 1 Rod Slifer _ ___ _ _ _ _ From: Connie Knight [connieinvail@yahoo.com) Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 2:34 PM To: Farrow Hitt; greg moffet; kent logan; kevin foley; kim newberry; mark gordon; rod slifer Subject: No to Village Music Hours Please Isn't it enough living with construction noise without extending the hours of outdoor music in Vail Village? Sure we're a resort and lively is good, but isn't there something to be said about peace and quiet? As much as I love having Rod Powell serenade me, so to speak, six nights a week with windows open in the summertime, enough's enough. If bar and restaurant owners want more business, `please bring it indoors after 10 pm. As for Mark Cordon's caustic comments that living. in the village seems to be aself-inflicted wound," this wound would be inflicted by him and fellow council members. Will you please reconsider this proposal and vote against it? Thank you, Connie Knight Connie __ __ _. .........._ ....................... _. Need Mail bonding? _ _ _ _ Go to the Yahoo! Mail _Q&A for great tiffs from Yahoo! Answers users. 5/6/2007 Notice - ent From: <ggellis@aol.com> To: <towncouncilC~vailgov.com>, <infoC~pepis.com>, <estonerC~vaildaily.com> Date: 5/8/2007 5:45 P(vl Subject: Re: VVHA/JFL: Action Notice -Proposed Amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment CC: <wha@vail.net>, <ggellisC~aol.com> To the Town Council and Shieka, As a multiple owner in the Mill Creek Building, I am writing in response to the notification of the request for extended music being played on open patios in Vail Village. My feelings are mixed on the issue: On one hand, I like hearing some music while walking through town, but last summer later at night, it was difficult to hear and talk while walking past both Pepi's and Red Lion as the sound levels were so high. It was almost as if there were dueling performances! Rather than preventing businesses from having their music an hour later, could there be a restriction orr the sound level? For Pepi's, eating the delicious food they serve, listening to the music and still being able to carry on a conversation without yelling at your table partners would be my choice. In places like the Red Lion, it appears that the louder the band plays, the louder people talk and everything gets escalated. We have a nephew that owns a Lodge apartment on the Gore Creek side -- soft music might be appealing -- the loud music is offensive. When two or more establishments are playing music and they try to outdo each other, it is truly offensive (even if dueling is not the musician's intention -- it is the outcome). When making your decisions on the matter. of extending the time businesses are allowed to play outdoor music, please try to find a compromise that allows Vail to be "fun" but not offensive -- I suggest that significantly limiting the decibel count (or amplifier size and levels) would allow most people to be happy with an extended musical time limit. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Gail G. EIGs Mill Creek (201/2, 301/2, 203, 303) -----Original Message----- From: whaC~vail.net To: ggellisC~aol.com Sent: Tue, 8 May 2007 7:43 AM Subject: VVHA/JFL: Action Notice -Proposed Amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment VAIL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. President -Alan Kosloff Secretary -Judith Berkowitz Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director - Jim Lamont Directors: Dolph Bridgewater -Ellie Caulkins - Richard Conn -Gail Ellis -Eugene Mercy Bill Morton - Trygve Myhren - Gretta Parks -Emeritus: Bob Galvin To: WHA Membership and Interested Parties From: Jim Lamont RE: Update -Amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment It is recommended that letters be sent to the Town Council by those concerned with the one hour (10 pm to 11 pm), Friday and Saturday extension of outdoor amplified sound. The matter will be decided by the Council on second reading at next Tuesday's (May 15th) evening meeting. Residential property owner opinion could effect the outcome of this matter. towncouncil C~ vailgov.com r - Re: VVHA/JFL: Action Notice- Proposed Amplified Sound Ordinance Amendment Pape 2 The matter may also be influenced by contacting Skieka Grammshammer. info~pepis.com Kaye Ferry and a limited number of other business interests have taken up Skieka Grammshammer's initial request fora 15-minute grace period, pushing it to a full hour extension. Recently there is a trend from some political /business leaders that Vail Village is an outdoor entertainment center rather than along-standing, well established "enclosed" mixed-use commercial and residential center. Many Vail Village residential owners have owned their property for years, well before outdoor amplified sound became an issue. It is noted that the amplified outdoor sound amendment is part of an increased effort to use the public streets and other outdoor venues more frequently as a means to supplement private and public business income. Public comments from some elected officials indicate it is a trend that will increasingly treat residential/lodging owners in Vail Village as an expendable constituency and cliental. Condominium officers, lodge and property managers should be particularly concerned with this matter, as owners and guest complaints will be directed to them. They should insure that all outdoor amplified sound complaints are promptly registered with the Vail Police Department and Town Council members. Additionally, condominium officers may wish to have their individual owners weigh in with the Town Council by letter as well. Please forward as appropriate Bars may get to make music later Under proposal, guitar music can waft onto Bridge Street until 11 p.m, on Fridays and Saturdays Edward Stoner Vail, CO Colorado Vail Daily May 1, 2007 VAIL -Jim Lamont said he didn't want his organization to be a killjoy. "It's not killjoy, it's buzzkill," said Councilman Greg Moffet. Lamont, executive director of the Vail Village Homeowners Association, was the only person at a meeting Tuesday who opposed a proposed law that would allow bars with singers to keep their windows open a little longer on weekends. The proposed law would extend the deadline for "amplified noise" from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays in Vail Village and Lionshead. Homeowners oppose the change and will be calling the town to complain, Lamont said. "People go to bed at 10," Lamont said. Despite Lamont's protests, the Vail Town Council gave preliminary approval to the proposed law. Vail is supposed to be a fun place, and that's why many people visit town,Moffet said. `There are so many quiet residential areas in the town that (living) in the village seems to be aself-inflicted wound," Moffet said. Sheika Gramshammer, longtime owner of the Gasthof Gramshammer and Pepi's Restaurant on Vail's main corner, campaigned to loosen the rules after she got a noise ticket last summer because her singer was playing on her deck too late. The music adds to the vitality of the town, she has said. But several homeowners have written fetters saying they don't want the law to change. The proposed law is a good compromise between bars and homeowners, Councilman Kevin Foley said. And it could be adjusted down the road if needed, Foley said. `This summer, we can monitor it," he said. Rod Slifer, who lives in the village, voted in favor of the proposal but said he might vote against it when it comes up for final approval, citing neighbors' potential concerns. Staff Writer Edward Stoner can be reached at 748-2929 or estoner~vaildaily.com. Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 FAX: (970) 827-5856 E-mail: whaC~vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.