HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-16 Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007
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 • ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation. (10 min.)
2. Stan Zemler ITEMlTOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.)
• Wendy's Deconstruction.
In order to prepare the Wendy's site as a potential additional
outlying winter parking area, staff has been requesting bids for a
deconstruction of the site. Superior Contractors, Inc., has
submitted a bid of $35,482, which would recycle 95% of the
building materials, as well as give the town points toward green
construction. Additional dollars will be spent on items such as
asphalt millings, removal of the grease trap, and so on. Staff
recommends paying for this project out of the '07 budget line item
specific to the design/construction of the third fire station.
3. Otis Odell ITEM/TOPIC: Conceptual Ideas for Use of Ford Park and the Vail
Stan Zemler Golf Course. (Joint Meeting wNail Recreation District, e.g.,
Mike Ortiz VRD). (30 min.)
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The joint VRD/Town of Vail (TOV)
subcommittee has been working w/the architectural firm of Otis
Odell over the past several months to explore possibilities for re-
siting various recreational amenities. This committee is comprised
of VRD board members Michelle Hall, Joe Hanlon and Scott
Proper, and Vail Council members Greg Moffet and Mark Gordon,
along w/staff from both organizations.
4. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Loading and Delivery Update. (30 min.)
Greg Hall
Steve Wright BACKGROUND RATIONALE: At the Town Council meeting on
June 19, 2007, staff received direction to develop aCouncil-
supported operational plan for the successful use of a dispersed
loading and delivery network in Vail Village. The direction
reaffirmed policy decisions established years earlier in the town's
ongoing effort to address the various conflicts associated with the
current state of loading and delivery in the Village. With the
completion or near completion of shared delivery bays at One
Willow Bridge Road, Vail Plaza Hotel & Club and Mountain Plaza
(formerly Front Door), .staff convened a 17-member stakeholdE~r
Working Group during the summer to discuss the use arnd
coordination of these additional options, as well as an assessment
of the current policies. Based on feedback from the Working
Group, staff is prepared to make the following adjustments to
improve the current loading and delivery network beginning with
the start of the 2007-08 ski season:
• Identify additional loading spaces on east Gore Creek Drive,
along East Meadow Drive (east and west of Bridge Street),
and the north and south sides of the International Bridge.
• Assign small delivery trucks (UPS, USPS, Fed Ex, etc.) to use
designated loading zones during restricted periods.
• Introduce new Code of Conduct for delivery drivers as
standard operating procedure.
• Create and distribute a loading and delivery map for new
drivers.
• Provide advance notification when special events necessitate
changes in loading and delivery policies.
• Expand staffing hours of code enforcement officers at
Checkpoint Charlie from the current 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. operation
to 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• Increase police enforcement of existing policies.
• Install technical platform that will enable the eventual use of
video cameras at strategic locations in the Village, such as
Hanson Ranch Road, for improvement in enforcement from
Checkpoint Charlie.
With the exception of the adjustments listed above, vendors are
making arrangements to service their Vail customers this winter
based on the current guidelines. However, following the
conclusion of the ski season, when more information will be
known about the functionality of the newly constructed delivery
bays, it is recommended a discussion be held with the Town
Council to seek direction as it relates to the three options
developed by the Working Group. While the Working Group has
completed its assigned task, it is recommended that members be
convened on an as-needed basis as issues arise.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The purpose of today's
discussion is to provide an update on this work, discuss
operational modifications planned for the upcoming winter season
and identify next steps.
5. Don Cohen ITEMlTOPIC: Eagle County Housing Action Team. (20 min.)
6. Stan Zemler ITEMlTOPIC: Discussion regarding proposals for the
redevelopment of Town owned real property commonly referred to
as Timber Ridge, located at 1280 N. Frontage Road, Vail,
Colorado 81657. (30 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentations
from 1) Vail Resorts Development Company; and 2) Open
Hospitality/Lincoln Partners Entity concerning the redevelopment
of Timber Ridge, Discuss the proposals presented and allow for
public comment regarding the same. The Council may provide
direction to staff, via motion, on next steps to take.
7. Nina Timm ITEM/TOPIC: The owners of two deed restricted Employee Housing
Units located at 201 Gore Creek Drive (the Bell Tower building) have
requested a release of the deed restriction on EHUs located in the
Bell Tower. In exchange for the release, the owners will provide the
Town of Vail a Type IV deed restricted unit at 4192 Spruce Way (Altair
Vail Inn). (10 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve or deny the request.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: It is the desire of the Bell Tower
Employee Housing Units owners to remove the two deed restricted
EHUs which total 597 square feet, located at the Bell Tower building
and replace them with a new deed restricted EHU located at 4192
Spruce Way, which is 1,192 square feet. The existing EHU square
feet would then be incorporated into the primary residence located on
the third floor of the BeII,Tower building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development
Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves the
request subject to confirmation of continued compliance of the Bell
Tower building with the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations.
8. Chad Salli ITEM/TOPIC: Alpine Drive Drainage. (5 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Authorize Town Manager
to enter into an agreement with Western Slope Utilities to
complete the Alpine Drive Drainage project.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Staff has received bids October 8,
2007, for the Alpine Drive Drainage project. Western Slope
Utilities was the sole bidder and their bid is within budget. The
project consists of storm sewer installation on Alpine Drive. The
project is scheduled to begin fate October and be completed by
mid November.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Town Manager to enter
into an agreement with Western Slope Utilities to complete the
Alpine Drive Drainage project in an amount not to exceed
$235,000.00.
9. Steve Wright ITEM/TOPIC: Proposed use of electronic restraint devices by Vail
Chris Botkins PD. (25 min.)
BACKGROUND: An informational document is in the council
packet regarding police use of electronic restraint devices. The
document provides background information, a discussion of the
effects of electronic restraint devices, an overview of police use c-f
force and worker's compensation statistics, and cost information.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The police department i;s
requesting approval to deploy electronic restraint devices.
10. Scot Hunn ITEM/TOPIC: An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Revievv
Board's denial of a design review application (DRB07-0330),
pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to
allow for a change to approved plans regarding architectural
alterations (exterior materials) to an existing residence, located at
3956 Lupine Drive/Lot 4, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision, 1'`'
Addition, and setting forth details with regard thereto. (15 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, overturn, or modify
the Design Review Board's .denial of a design review applicatior-
(DR607-0330) pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail
Town Code.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On August 15, 2007, the Design
Review Board 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 (exterior materials) to an existing residence, located ai:
3956 Lupine Drive/Lot 4, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision, 1 S'
Addition.
On September 4, 2007, the Appellant filed an appeals form to
appeal the Design Review Board's denial of a design review
application (DRB07-0330). Please refer to the staff memorandum
dated October 16, 2007, for additional information.
11. George Ruther ITEM/TOPIC: The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company,
represented by Bob Stozek, is requesting to proceed through the
development review process with a proposal to construct
improvements on the Town of Vail owned Tract A, Vail Lionshc;ad
Filing 3, generally located between the Antlers and Lion Square
Lodge properties, adjacent to Gore Creek. (15 min.)
. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
modifications, or deny the request for property owner authorization to
proceed through the development review process.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: It is the desire of the applicant, Vail
Resorts, to apply for applications to amend the approved ArraBelle
project development plan to remove skier drop-off from the ArraBelle
Hotel site and to construct a new skier drop-off parking lot. The
proposed skier drop-off parking lot would be located on property
owned by the Town of Vail. Therefore, the applicant must first obtain
Town Council (i.e. property owner) approval before proceeding
through the Town's development review process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development
Department recommends that the Vail Town Council denies the
applicant's request to proceed through the development review
process.
12. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series 2007. An
Ordinance Deleting Section 5-1-5, Vail Town Code, Regarding
Abatement of the Mountain Pine Beetle; Amending Title 5 Vail
Town Code with the Addition of Chapter 10 "Abatement of the
Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction"; and Setting
Forth Details in Regard Thereto. (10 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny
first reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series 2007.
BACKGROUND: Within the State of Colorado and within the
Town there exists a growing mountain pine beetle epidemic. The
presence of the mountain pine beetle and beetle infested trees
within the Town presents a real and substantial risk to the public
health, safety and welfare, including the increased risk of rapidly
spreading fire. In addition, the presence of dead or substantially
dead trees, regardless of the cause, also presents the increased
risk and danger of rapidly spreading fire as described above. As
such, certain text amendments are necessary to the Vail Town
Code, as they relate to the abatement of the mountain pine beetle,
dead or substantially dead trees and other fire fuels to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the Town and its inhabitants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, amend or deny first
reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series 2007.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny
first reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series 2007.
13. Scot Hunn ItEM/TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2007,
an ordinance approving a major amendment. to Special
Development District No. 4, Vail Cascade, pursuant to Article 12-
9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an
increase in the number of dwelling units, located at 1310
Westhaven DriveNail Cascade Subdivision, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0058). (10 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2007, on fir;>t
reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On October 24, 2007, the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public
hearing on a request for a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 4, Vail Cascade, pursuant to Article 12-
9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an
increase in the number of dwelling units, located at 1310
Westhaven DriveNail Cascade Subdivision, and setting forth
details. in regard thereto. (PEC07-0058). Specifically, thE:
Applicant proposes to increase the number of dwelling units from
eleven (11) to fourteen (14) within the "CMC" building, with no
increase to Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA).
Upon review of the request, the Planning and Environmental
Commission voted 6-0-0 to forward a recommendation of
approval, with condition, of the request to amend Specia!
Development District No. 4, .Vail Cascade, to the Vail Towri
Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Towri
Council approves Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2007, on firsll
reading.
14. Stan Zemler Resolution 25, Series of 2007, A Resolution supporting they
Colorado Forest Management Improvement Act of 2007,
Encouraging the congressional delegation of the State of~
Colorado to actively continue their unified and bi-partisan support:
of the bill and to push for rapid approval by the Congress of the
United States of the same, and to express the gratitude of the Vail
Town Council .for recognition of the delegation of the magnitude
of the bark beetle infestation in Colorado and for the efforts made
in drafting, introducing, and supporting this act. (10 min.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends Town Council
approves Resolution 25, Series of 2007
15. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (9:50 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, NOVEMBER 6, 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.
Q
IB3®~°un~ IE
~'®~~n ®ff ~~nIU V~nll ~~~u°~~~n®>rn ~Dn~¢~°v~~
~anmrn~n~~ ®ff (~®~tc ~~~lrn~ge I~~°~-nlrn4~~~l~g~ ~Drr~ff~ ~-~~~~ ®~~®1~~~° ~9 ~®®9
Location Town Responsibility
:t - VR1D Responsibility
1. ~i?tt?!~.fistk Ait - N ~:. ... Description ainl Thru Tolal W/ 25%
=`
TwnlrJFord Patk Repay Major Structural Issues ' _ . 4~ _•. '.A!>C!' Graifurgand 73rautage _ 2011 2012 T 2012 Contingency
t~: --.: - --_.. - - ;: -...::..... Repair.StavTneads ... :: .... ...... ._...~
otf11"uk .Repit~h4gjor;)- ------.-Ri -: ._.._... ,... A2.Clubhousc=Strucnue-VRDR y: -": --- -... _ 3.51U. _ 1,StU
_..
Trat67s7Fard;~# :. Aii- ~ ;. • ^Parr~atr7rrada ~ - - - -- - - -- - - .. -
Y32-L)ubbEet$t °'$d1tt~~e.TpvPn Rr~trus'~ _
N ~ -. _ _ .. _ _ .. .... 1 000 1,?50 t
-f, ~ ane
' or~lPaiic >.. .. .:'
~` ~ .2;080 2480 „f
Noar ; ~• A,w 6ot1 Sim dk.Tnm
T~eef'tiR1 i'~k All ,. .
A4 ~g y.•"
5"B' #~~ 4 ! 19 s 1
'1'6nrrlsiFotdP l~lorte - _. 44
A, ":
er# .All AS-WipdoiVa` _ -•
.. .
_.
?enaix~otd Pmic Aii ~ Nnnes :
A6•~x4eir u T5 R
Teunis/Ford Park Noae ' - "-• - . _ ..... _ -- ~ `lubhrwsn .. ~ - _
A7.,(, '
_ ...
AlI Painting and Patching - _ -
TennislFord Padr None ~ _ ...... .......: _ _. ... ....._ .. _. _. -
_ A8•Clubhouse.~Va11s and C.eIltn °- ~. .
~ mnislE -- 7,500 7x500 4,3? j
_ .._.. ...... Ail normal mwr sad tear _ 8.1 t2 .. ..
+~ ~_..._. _ordd'~ufc ~ itoulincReritecernntts : '... '.' . . -- ,.._..__ .. ... ___...._ ... -- A9-ClubhouseFlooriug - 8.112. ..10,140 .
Teanis/Foid Park None _. '~D3' erhancixnmuv to fac~itica...... _ A;Ip~. - - _ - ,-. -- - I6.4y5
- . ~.
fiuo
v'•" .. . • _ All repairs and lacements - ._. - ~_ _, --- - - ... _ _ 20.581
...:
.. ~... .. -- ~!,.. . ; .. _ .. V- ...All-Y.itcLenetteLs3i,in~•
._,.. 37465 $?
~: rnxislF'ord Part: .Ail majivr`epaits irtrd r=P~+•'eAlebtS Rrnttnte +rtaintonance : ,- "" - - _ _ .. _ -
Irau4,iaifiord Bark All . .,. A12 _ .. ... __ _ _ .... 7 .... .
~ - 8,9 7
Nope - °~trd!iraiea~ Srnrat.F ... _ ... ..... - 11,222
{
.., ..
,. .
kwais/FuM.Pttd[, All :: AI3. F,2(+0' ;-t t~ ,977
`,:. ~ ... t'lutbsiltding,>Serumhmc~ 534,5,5 5 I
..
,.. ,.
.. ...
:. anc
;.
.. .. "
~(.ennfa~fmtil'ai9c _ - •$ ~ g
AO .:: ,. • : , ~ AY4 CIv4Us31pclti'terieer " 265.5 3 ~;,•918
.. lrvm - _ .... .. .. .4 .
(,;iatnislPra'd.1'~rk A31 .• /4..73.1„~w.$ Roofiag 4;056 9 4,056 3.07/1
:.
32,«SS ,
Twnis/Fard Park Overly s ~ _._ .. R . _. J _. , ` ~t1fr-Oytf?~deA .
{ ..._ - - - --_ ~.._ ,,... .., gili~stKxrrc
__ _, . Y
lrania,~ard _ .. _. __ _.__„_. Rtvaltauturearckfill - .• ._. _ i;t?QO 7t76 55 27,$19+
1 - Pwlr ,S3Yarlnya "''•: .. --.-- ._.. PhaltlVallcways-VRDResp~stb~ty ~i7b 10,2'0..
j 1'ertnir,'FordPa~t AU Reptacenuutts ~ Routine r:acl; fill -_ -__-_- _ _ _ -- _ _ _ - ._._. _.. _. ._ __._... . - .. - -
tt
. - 17•As1i TYxOnHkY :, - ~ 8 971 ~ .
Gown Re~lxrttsibetxti 4.927 11,
t 1'enmA+PQrd P~1c : TcrWtt ~'Fiaor crack fins - - _ . .... _ . .. ... .._
Atli-t9n ;Wxp~trays
47,a~ts
-
;CCartis!EckdPark•;- •~ - . NOnF A19-9t#clcPavexs., - ...
• N~ ..
TcaatsJF'ordPvl: ,, ReP7ace .''•., ' . :.. .. .'. ~ • ..• ~> . ~ A~0-Ik3S$, ', Wa1Is,. ; ~-~~~~ _ .. 3~ 964
1'atnt, k Ma+ntasn . ~~ _.744 6,706
3,3;N
couislPord Pali 17rptcti 4fod InfexmatiouaY A27-?ySt~j,HaitdRsi7mgs _
internal Ferri S' ~ ; .~"•=~g~go - 2.875 2,875 3,194
i i~tnicR"cr¢p+u4t Al! ~ ~
I ~~
Twnis/Ford Park None .,. .. S
-- - ._.
? ,• U itS,'
• 4.09 4,095
P.
. _ ... .
..:., :__::. S,IfB
~.., ...
Temis/Ford Park All `. - - . ,._ .~...._. _ _ _ _
.„
None All A24-13x11 Field Gradip and Dtainag -- -- .
e e
..8 0;.- 2 71D4 2 81 g~7
Twnis/Forti Peek None A25-Bail Field Ghniu Link Fwoe - ~ ~ ~ -
2
,Tennis/Ford.Park None All ~ ~ 2 2,925 . 33 968
A71 A26-Aleachers 2600 .5,20b 5,205 36,507 `
• :. . .
Tennis/FordP A27-~alfFicld:A ,
au4t. ReplacementTBD: .. T' ,. " .. ocessoru"s.. .°'..: ~' I 23.71! 28889
erne clocks- Rcp 23 I 1
lacementTBD '
Tetmis/Ford Park None A28,lrrigatibn Systcxn .:,
~......., .. _ ... . ........ .. ....... . All ° .. ... ' .
`s~~F~' Ail--.: .,:.--- ;--:..-.....-__,._.-_, ,.:_._......r..,.... ._._.,..._..__.s.._;.,..,._:,....,__..:A29-TenuisGourts-Res~ciug._::..::~:.' _._ 4.160 5.200'
Twws/Ford Park • " - ~``°n? ~ • " ' 7130: _ . , 5,000 5,200 5.408 _ 7,312 5,849 6,083 34,832 43,365-,
Replacement of Poles . _.... _. .. • .
1'muis~ortl Palk '~ . -._ , .._ Chain Link Repairs &. wind Screen ___...J. A31 Tw~nis Court l:"euci ~VRD"Pottitxi :- - - ..'•L~`~Q ." ... •, ,-;= - - -- - - -.• _....'._ .... _. ~. _..-_____. _ .. _ ... _ .: _ I $a,i340. _ . z31 OU4
~tt;~{ Po!eu
~' nri~i St•GS m 'All ~ L~h.dp 1.mtc Rrpsies,R-F1hru1 Sereear t)3l=Sepuis ix - y 11,287 ~ ~- - ° -1
;. .
._..
~-- - .. N -. @arir4 • epcin8+?'own•Pgt{laut > --- - - - _ - . .._. _ 13,733 25.020 . 31.?75
Youdr Svcs .. crl,..`...::. , . _ ...; < •{2,ppC .. _
None - v ... _ 'All _ :... .. F3=Strucuirc _ :500 4x000 5,500 '
_.
Yautlt Svcs Nmne Alt , , ° I32-Walis and Ceilings _ - , .
- - ~ _.. ~
X500
Youth Svcs N6ne B3-Fioaring - 5,544 " ~ .. _ .. ._ 335 I
'Youth Svca . None Atl B4,ICitc>sw. 20.000' 4.802 6,930 ,
_ .
Yaudr Svcs All 24 802 31,003
None BS-Televisions 1~ 16
'- 1 167
Vanh9vex -._ . -• - - - >,_ ,--_ All -• 7 15,208
C -_,... -~_ .. Regis . _ . ;. - , _ _ _ _ _ _ B6•Activity Aceetsories _
_ _.,_.... - _iYi
! 040
:Youth Svca ...._..... ADA- Split 509/0/50% ' - .. :....._ . _ tLutnln8 Nfauurnanee :. .. _ . _ _. - _ - --~ - - -- - - - - - - - _ ..
. _„ ADA- S lit 50%!50•,6 F ' • .. ~ _ 1~~ Op __
IYSvcs ::: -- -- - -_._........._P_, .. B8-lileag `- '-- -_. - .. ... - . _ .... _ __ . .. 1 ~ - _ 3
- _. _ ... ,
=S• :. _. _
. .... _... A -plrt5491aj517y~:.`-- _ .. .. _ _ 9 ystem= VRD Poition . _:.. ~ ., . :... • _: ~ - - . '~~`~ ?a,}
.,. ~
Youth Svcs -- _. - • - _?~A- Split 50%/SM6 _ _ _ _ _
_. __ ~Iwe All 7s'leea4of _ _
,fit _, ~ ~ . iYogc : - ~.~R-tadst~kl ~ yr!t _ b 160 141687 - ..11?: $f+ 140:6011.{
~ ~ _ Nom ~ tin - -, - ._ _ 8,447 _10,559
Wt ~ A'71 ~ : ~ - s Npln: C3 'Supe'lstt~t,K6tC , ~ a'OgQ ~~X,w ~ • 97.600. 22,1KIU
~3[4 2~3 ~ '~ i.4-~XtFr{tlP:'t~ ~~^ .~~w ~• ~ ;,s., i~~ ~ "~;'"`-
. -
~ ~ Noar= ~x-- tcnsta Tr1t UP'~Vi~. ~' ~ ~. ~, ,, .., ~ ~' 2,080 ~t I
t.- ,~ _ ~ ~ fXr-Nr~id'[~y~~~~ ~ ~147ri 3;2x'5 ~ .: ;~,.~ ..: - ~ 3;2+5 4.OSb
,. ' x 13°SSb
••~ ~ ~~~+$7°°~'z~~ ~ ln~f,;8~ ~+ ; ~S-~,'~l~tS 'rs ~~'- - rl ~ `- ~ -~, r~,-' ~ ~ ' " '~ ~ ' I
,,
y~at1l ". t' ~eIN~ : L't?el? ...:..x *^ '3 1, 9(r` „~
~i~ ~ ~ =~3tx~ t ,~ ;""y ~-~t 'CI9- ~: rr „~ ~ 5 9~ ~ru~~ fit"' =' "~ ~ '.~s:~ ' 1.'7.14 ~ ,, o- :. 1~~$ a"•:-2.128 • ~3.16@.I
?t56acn ,~ .~ ;° :. -`t°ltme ~« .,. tT.. '' ~ ~ ~` ~5 s ~~ K-E-:~ v f;1~0 •~2,1b3
~•' ' § -_____~N?nc __ ,~3 ~ `~S~R~~~`'~'„~ ~ 4 ~'~° ~ Y ;?S5.5W g44,~83
~-tdMiL51 Slacks _._ . '100 'mac" ,.-J ,t - _
- --~~_ "i:159 12.354 t s ~IdR ,
Page 1 of 3
1Bi®>r>m~
anunn>iFrn~Il°g~ ®Il' CC®~~ ~Iln~u°nun~~ I~tr~~nillinnml~lr~v
~D¢°~ff~ IID~~~~Il ®~~®IlDf~Ii° ~q ~®®'~
Lotatioa Town Responsibility VRI) Responsibility
Dial Th T
A11 _.-. y scription 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 ru Contio enc/
. ~17.tsone~ttteVi'ollcWBYS ® $ Y
'~ AA .: +.. None .:; ~ .. 14-13 pie - 1.825 I.#Z~ 2.281.
Habana:.. q~ ~ , N,me ; .. ...., t'avcrT •. _
,~
_ ~ ..
a
Il?ci#fdoo'" . AN'" - ~ :. F C'i~,ltu:k4Lallp ~ ,. 1,3.38 1,673
•
:Dobson .Replacement ` _ - ?tea. ' _ _ - _- : -- - ~ _ . .:~ifi-F~trzir•rt sP ~ 1,237 • t;I,37 .1.547
- ,
17n~ie .~ Nane _... __ _ . , -Faiating_ _ C17-Steel.Gatc ' ..-- - - ~ 1+'-'~7 ~ _ 7237 t.54'r
- ___.. _.
.... _
- tVi. F - _.. .-.. _:. - _. - ~ ,..... ,1,144 '.
,.
•q .. ... Hone. .. ~ _ _ - - _... .
' S0~3~i
_ ....,.._...._. _.. "Ct9- t'alc~*•? ~ Gellw 1 9rr1 ~
.Dobson Replaoem~ts Bulbs and ligh ' o des -~ ,
57 1 637
Replacements.. _ _ •- -. . ~..--._ .. _t!a$,Egn+ _. _ V. C20WJnteriorl,ightins yRD'Pattian •_~
_ _.. 1,5
.. Ba.bi and l.aXitinrt ... .. _ _.. 3,4- 6R.G"Sq
~.
... .
..
. .
I'-?ebstn ... `Alllit~xivanwis :.,-;!P~a3,. ... ... t:2tRJnte~•tnr4iP~?~ia~_:2'pwti'pot4ion. :,,.....,.:. ,...._. _ .._. ---- _ .............-_ ...
,... ,... x . X4,24
:~:. ~; ~' ~ ~ - .grfilitiopgl coscr.a~~• ~ . ' .
'"c?6sols:. AiiR .. •ade .:' ; .'.;'.. ]8.838 !$,ESB .3 t~
i _. .. aio_vetwus g,{q ~ L"~1-(7r>vatgit+g:Ronms, •....::.:.. ..
...
, .,.._.
.. _. _.-... . _•.g,.,lti(HtdI CS{~t&4A ~rA 'S.. .. ~ ~ •••~+ ~ .. ~~ i• .
;. ,.: A,
'Dobson'.. None. -. • ~ •- i!P~. ~- , .. _ ... _. t_e. fic~.r;?rsa .: •.: , >. :0.796 20,196 IS.Z'f6
..
All - - -. - _~._z.';.:._...:-~.:..,:._..:_;_:-_:..._ .. 2Gi.').
lJobson None C23,btetzlLoclceis - - _.. _ .. _ 34_4'r' .. ~i,215
All _
;Dobson. Nave C24-Concessions : <. -
Bnbson Replacemeae . Allis .. C25-Ice Rink ~ 2,912 2.912 3.640
Iiabsoa. Replacement 1Jp andsandiggandstaining C26-BleacherSeatiag''" '~' M1 1,144 8,212 9,356 11.644
Dobson . ~~ - - ,
.. C27 Hand e. ... ., ::. _', .:... ,.
r_ -.-- - -..._.. .., ..._ RePiacemeut .. ., , Painting Railings ' ". 4,OS4 3 7 3,118 3,898
I tenor Doors 1 9,326
~.... 746
_. ...
__...._
_.., m 8" °.. ~ :..._ ~ _.. _ _ _ _; .r.~._.._..,.; _. _ 1;144 1.287
1')obsoa .. None -. ... ._.. ---...._ .,. _ ... ,. _~ - - - -...__.._ .....- - - ... _.
29-~Jc ,Lt-r7ti•_l~jicyrr~steia.>, ~; 2,431 3,039
- . . _...__ . _........ Y. _ _
Dobson None ~ C30-Sound System - ... -.. _ -. -= . - - .... ~.~t? ~A4.. ._... _ - - :ijr I
,Dobson _ _None All rneboatds ~ 6 #5,816 19.771
. .-_..-- -- .w__.. .; .. C32 Stora~eCait
Rep~eineat , . ,, . - ~ _ _
~autiucmairttrasncr~ . -:."
..
SY33- <
?3obeun A11 ... N .~ - - - - - ----- -~ -. _..... .. _ .. -..
c ..
- na..~ _
t7ofuWa :'1QCabq>t r'sa!-. rYnYCnt ,: w ~:N.-1tt'R''+:xatct fitotnge Taz+lres. , n30,frd<t
RniC ctnra-1f an
*al+um Aep$acc~eat Y - • • f 35-Meat Ptutyss ~ '
~~ n - . lo,ooa 12,5un
7'c RCpltjy~nwtt : '; .ouliueanaintnt (-.'±F.r}ottfgAiia tt8vgvlmtk
_ •" 32twfine atauttaaaure C;37•d?cllzt7b'atrd~tec G'ilcWaticur SyctEat
`r3ohsna Rq?laoatneri; S
. .. !(o:ginc: maitettpiaca _ /~(~ -
,,.. '
('-?r?~"i .. _ Replacement Routine m;Eimcaancg„' _ ;;~g~ ~~~y~ _ ~ 3
. • .• ,;
• '.. ~Y ~IA,r ..
;: 1~lOD
'All .. ~ i,: '
+X__-.... __. Nona -- - ... _._ _ _ _ .. .. .: .. 3
_ •' I' 1
. , 44
.._.. _ __ _ __ __ _ ._ ._ C40-Rink Chiller System
_. .
.. :.. ' "All mcopi tfcJc sysw+u .. Rink .. _ _„ .s ._.,. _ . ~ _ _? 1,44:1 I
' ... item. If any. C,41 - ....., ..:.: ~.. --,.... _.
cltibwm Repl~dtaa ' .. ~ _ _. _ _
. t;aatiae uL371iteNmS:E+ . 7 ?4
2011 ~';. ~ Sao "- 2 4 s "
IJuyiaoa Replacemens ,. '• ~ .. .. Cd2-C:eRttzrl ~Iiatialingl farts 2 28is , - . 2.~7 2,6'11 . i4,5~937... .18aa 1
tCuuinttraainteaacve:~ 71 7ti0 71,760 89,70:)
1.}obv+r, yll ~" C43~:•rxh:Ailt~lt7antl#ealtttg
Ngo4 ~ ,
Dobson .. _.. .None;... _ .- ., ':-~-- =~- - ._. Y~4-~;itarkt2eaiaS?X+~S~!s. -
Dobson Nane ..., a - -_ . ~ _ -. ~- - - .. - - -
C45-~otklift -
13obsan None All C46.. amboni 20,248 20,248 25.309..
;Hobson.: Noae.. '~ C47-ASanLift,
.. All -
21,057
- C48-Washer aced Dry. ~ t OS7 ,
sDo>%ou ." Nane Ail
2 425
.~~ :.. None ":. .. ... .. '' G49=$yeutStege .•.:.,,~'• .. . 22.925 23,656
:
~ ;:
~~~. ,.Nose ` `. A0 ,. C50-EventGhaits.... ':.; ~' 9,880. 9.880 12.350
;>~~ :.. .Noce. , . „ .. - . , 'CS 1-Arena Deck Event F-ooriag . ^, z .: 42.580 42,580 ~ 53,22ti
All
'Da6smi `Nose - C52-Stage hapea~and Cuttaitas .. - -
II 25 0
Dotismc Naae A C53-C>ronvd Control Divides • 0 6 2,500 3.125
All 1,45 1,456 1,8ZU
> None All
.__ __
_.
Athhlelic Fka ld Tcnra _ _ ".. Z
Alb Fri -: ~ rte., ~ + ~" ~ )tom, :.. -, z f?.-C' ~~;terw `: ~wr d "fiueitae - -- - ; 1.I OU ~ ` - • -- 4.274 _ .. 28,074 10,093 _.
:..
;, d L 1~ , ; . t .. N , . .•s. ctated')~C ~ .. 1:100 ],373
,•: _ - .a
~.dt_- t21d '=..~•ioen•r~8tipgenclr~g +~ s'''lnftliorCeOutt a~~ri~ Pospratid~~ ¢ ~.4 _ -'
?S 2:47s 3093
iAthletic Field Town .. . ~•~ FS ~ - - .
~AtbleticF;eld: Crowniu to be lit- None' Lnless golFball damage.. -St Slo frog >p _ . ._ __ _ _ _ . - -
g - ~ _. Ciawnin~ to be irt- VRD to ih8tctain F6-FiedGtadin and e
_.; _
~A~3?ietd, ~ AIi ~y - - - -° - :~' - _ _ C Dramas z 3,500 • 9,997 12.446 ~
I > .,$7.- .._ pfirR, I:~.,, _ 3,500 4,375
~AUtletiaF,ield ..None' .. ._ ... _ ~, _ _ - -- - -- - - _
F8-Football Goal Posts '~-~:: -' `°':97,718 ~• • 13 ...•170;301 137,751 I
AthletlcFietd Nona AO - ...- .- -~ _. • -. _...,.. -..__.__ _ ".... _ .,'I$3 _ : ... - .. - ---
All E9~Soccer Goals
~AthleticField None -
All
. F10-Va1leyball Courts '
'Athleuic Pield None . .. _
All
Fld Chain [;inl; Fencing
IAdikticFleld._ _ Nurse. ___ - ~ >
_. .. - ,
7
13 628 12 746 13 49S
._.___....___. _......_ All.. .... _.. _ .._...__._.. _. F12-UVoor1 Sp1ie Ra.Feuce
11,648
..._. _.._........ _.. ._.___ -,tro211. _ .14,560.
Page 2 of 3
O
IB3®~°un~ IE®~u~n~~~°nvu~ Il~~Iln®~~ ~anuun~nn~~ ®ff CC®~~ ~9n~~°n~ng~ I~~°~lln~rnntm~~y ~D~°~ff~ ~~>r~~ ®~~®IlDt~-° ~9 ~®®9
Location
Town Responsibility VRD Responsibility
Description
2007 Total Thru Total VY/ 25
~Atitletic Field
None
Ail
`
" 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 L'oafingency
Athletic Field .
[
uld TBD• Assume split
' ....:.......:....._...-_....._.~..-. TBD~ Assume splif
: Fla-Aleaclieis
lrripation System- VRD Responsrbility
F}4- - -
r
mtc:~ie;}d;.:..
;Athletic.Field ,:_.•
fl3t)--'Assua3v_aptiP
None .:_.
.._ _....._
.": ._'._" _ ?'Bll:~aumc lit
~AII ~ - ~- ....-_. - . ._ ~...:_-...._-__._..M_:::._..:..-- - -- ._.
- _ -
_ .
_ _._ _Fi,1'.1rtlar System- a, . '9 ~a'1?~~ty-
- _ ...:...._... . ..._.. _ _16,224
~6>°2'1 ... . _ _16,?24
224
1
6 20,280
20.28G
I
?dali>~e L;Ent4t'-' :
' p~ ., ...
-..
.. ...,... - - -..
.~
- `dope .
..
.. - mprovem ..- -_ ..._..- ..._ ._ _..,....
_
.. __
' G15 1j'~~c~"t'rt6c _ - .... _ _
14;559. _ -
.
y ... _ ..... ..
.
- - .-_ .. _ .
,
.
,
14,559
..._ .... .
18.199 '
Nxt<Ri~!C~eister
' tUl, :
-
. •
Nola,
~ • 5,849 ,849 7,3!2
..
NuquoL
errter; All .
. ....~
~:. .:
D4
T6
Vie: C ente#'
... .
Nature Center
.._ Alt.:
None `
_.....: _...1Qotfe
... _..: -- -- . ..... . ... ....
n
t,
..... ..
_ t?~s:. B _ .. ......
:
.
:
~
;NntureCenter EatranceaadTown ~1
~
Ord ua'I sigts
r ri5
.
....
_.
. -- - -
ten
~or.
~1laneousSignaBe _ . _. _-. - _..
~ . -. - - -7.242 - _ _ .-.. - - _ _ . - _ _
-
9,053 -
Nature Centel None
. _..._. ...
~~ -
-,-,..-
_...,_..:..._.._. ...--- -_._..-....,_.„. _.- _
.
G7•W
.----- -- - -- 4,500 3,78fi
5372
.286
5
372
0
16715
NatureCeater None __ . ................. ..
ll ~ . _... _
_
.....'_',__-..u....._._.<[3P!??.~nl~ ~cus~=~.-..:.rv._ __ -....... ~-......_-
..~ :.........V .....
..:.
..... .
- -- ...._, .__..._
- _.......- .
-.- --.....
.k 51:x...
85!7
-
'tt~ti~t~J
;Nature Center Nona A
. - All G9-BenCJtesand•Tablss
GIO^Timber:StairWays _._ ..._ . . ..... ..... . - ..
_
-...3.276 3,276 4,095
~Natnre Ceuler Nacre
rill
GI.1:'p , . ,. ..; . - _
Ntaure Centel ..
r, .... _...._ . -
f
'r
ni
t
t
None
- - ... _ ....... ... ~
-.. ~
~ .-. - .• ... _. .-__.
GI2=Shade Structure :. - . 1000
,
4
18
3
]
:3
ta$
i
1.:._-..._._._..:._...
Gymnastics ;. . .PrrLeas.;.:._....:-:...
Pe
L
st . -~ PotY~eas^.,. _
.-._..-_-.-. - - - -- - - - ....-- - - - - -
_ ~#
-Der?g-4'riuGtiu»~:~;:
- - - -- --_-... ---•- --- .2
-----._ ... .: _..-._..... .... .... ... 4.218
_._.. ..._.. 5,273
-.. ._..~
:Gymnastics : .
r
ea
:
Per lease Per Lease _... ..._....---.....
_
H2`Stucco < _.._.. - - - . - -- • _ ... _ .... . ... . _. _ - - - _.
;
:
,Llymoastics
'
PerLeaae . .. RerLease
Perlerse.
ii CedarSrdmg
-
I~I4-Windows
,05
..
,052
.565
'.Gymaastas
Per Lease
P
l
e .
1,Q00
,.
1,000.
(,250 '
G
yrmiavtics .'
,1. .~,
Ytnn(rs4 Pert-ease
Perie~e , ~
~
,.
p
_..._,..,___ .................._-......; ..._.._._.._._..---._....
:.
-
rjdfng
..._....._H6- Canopiec7.Sunscroeas:.:.' ~,;
.......
~~ - - - -
47
7 _
9
058
~..• ....
CiYatniBttos Por
I
crtse :. per.I.ense • :.
~
;
"
.
;
Fl?~
- -
~Rr ~
~ - ._. _ ... _ ..__ . .
- .
.. .--- - -- .
- - -
~
.
tJY~ ;
,
_:
!'~ L.easc
_
;
.Par
.. L.eax
.
..
"Coaw^r~te-lj~falkr~(t~` dltdStedra
~
~~
H9 Concrete
L~rarRPaa
2 8'+
I SR'
`r'
;?ymmastsdY - .-
`:Gym ties
~.. ' ~ Per Lame _-, ...:_ ....
Pa Lease .. .....:._:: Yez f e4.us ~ '
__, ~
' .__: _:. .:_ _~_
<.
Per Lease' -
.
1170-Reraining Wa
__.___~
. _ .. ._ _ _
~ _ - _ ,.
3 . 5,6pp.
~_ T8~89'7
.__..._.
......_ ...
.._.._.._ 5600
t !1
897 7;OOC~
i
j
?3 621
•
cymnastiea
Per Lease
Pa. I
ease HllrlnterjorFli%or
'enni s
Co
- _ .. .. .... __
,
._ ..
.... - ..-- -
..
,
;Gymaa~ics
PerL.case .
Lease d
HI2
Interior Walls Cer raps
.12,592.
!2,592
15
740
'GYmnastics Perleasc
.. _
. ..
_ ~
igh
nD8
H
'G , ,
GYannasilsa
rYics'
~C
- -
Per LeASe
-,
per L:~ . ,
.
..
._
-
, PC; ;;~ " - -
.. .
„ P
-
- - - -
L
; luny
' I'F
•
5
y~
_ _ -
. .
-
-
1,125
_
.125
1
.. ......
1,406_
.
.
~Gyrnnastics .-.
Pa Lease er ase
._
--
.
Per E
ease
-
k~1
~fdso
- - -
~
_
-
`I. 3~--
- .
17
30$
21 710 f
G,w~tastt~. PerLeasa -.
• .
. _ ...,.- '-`-- ~-`. --- -•.-...-•.--.-^_ _~ . .........
.. Pbr Lease b
H17
.. ... .. _
and Lockers _
- _
~
i
3 P
x - 1,000
. __.
.. , 2.250 ,
.- _ .
3.250
4.062
'y~atrc
Y..
t-iytaaAStiea Pa Lease
Per 1
R Pct l.t;asc `
~ ~ ~
,
i
,
artiac
k11~ 1;0drabt Heat Systern ~ ` ~ - . . _.__ . _ .. ...
j
;~. Y?t!tlais~s ' .
SSe
-" Per Lease ..: _ Pes C.,ease
,. - Per i.ea,~t
.~ 1rza.N~eu Mtthanawal IWpmvetneut
~ .
21-~
~ H
o~~~
7A,000 '
•25,0(Kf 1
:Gymnastics
flyamasacs :Per Lease
Per Lease
.
Per - --. _
Lease
.
...
- _ _ _
Equ
rpment
12
000 . _
_ - - -~
_ !3
498 _
-~
- _ _ .2
4 _ 1.
.
Equipment • ' ,.'
Nane Per L.easo
All m
I-I23-RubbeiFloor ,
' ' 9,360 . .
5,
98
9,360 31,873 .
11
700
Equipment: .None 'All .... 11=Tudarid No~c>;qur
)1-Picku TrurJa; and Pass m
P 8cr Vehicles ~
4 205,5.04 72,999 ' 278,503 ,
348,129
Pga+P~nt
'None
All
J2-Dump Truck ``- 67;!00 71,
48 24,877 49,831 213,256 266,570
Egllipmrat None
All
3~nowmobtle 56.243 5 43
~ 70.304
Equrpment . _ r , .None -_ <.... All
...:. : .-
. '
,.
,..
` 74
•Trailers - - 9.444 9.444 12,430
.
. ...
_ _
_
. _ .. - .. 1;5.00
...... . _ 1,500 1,875
Total Per F3ome Report 1,350,828 430,077 391,9$0 775,483 96,571 266 762 3 311 702 4 139 62~
,.
-..
' •Tota1.VRDCosta •"
~
182,039
_183;165 _
_:312,04! _
'
295,689.
.
81,598 182,784 1,237,314
-
1,546,644
L ~,_ ~ Tcx'a1'L'(rwaC.asyt: , ib8784 ~449t* ?9
99 4Y974i 14974.. 83478 'A74'i87 "S4'~9R^ ~
Difference
Page 3 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Stan Zemler, Steve Wright, Greg Hall, George Ruther
SUBJECT: Loading & Delivery Update
DATE: 10-16-07
I. BACKGROUND
At the Town Council meeting on June 19, 2007, staff received direction to
develop aCouncil-supported operational plan for the successful use of a
dispersed loading and delivery network in Vail Village. The direction reaffirmed
policy decisions established years earlier in the town's ongoing effort to address
the various conflicts associated with the current state of loading and delivery in
the Village. With the completion or near completion of shared delivery bays at
One Willow Bridge Road, Vail Plaza Hotel & Club and Mountain Plaza (formerly
Front Door), staff convened a stakeholder Working Group during the summer to
discuss the use and coordination of these additional options, as well as an
assessment of the current policies. The purpose of today's discussion is to
provide an update on this work, discuss operational modifications planned for the
upcoming winter season and identify next steps.
II. HISTORY
The lack of adequate loading and delivery facilities in Vail Village has long. been
thought to be among the resort's original design flaws. Problems associated with
commercial loading and delivery in Vail were identified as early as 1973 when
authors of a master planning document noted, "...it is literally impossible to walk
without conflict with moving autos, parking autos, or unloading trucks...the
presence of the delivery vehicles, trucks of all sizes, in the pedestrian areas is a
significant problem." By 1977, leaders adopted a resolution which expressed the
community's intent to establish pedestrian malls limiting vehicular use in Vail
Village by which commercial vehicle access was to be limited to properties where
no other reasonable means of access exists. A year later, the Town Council
passed an ordinance restricting vehicular access to Vail Village. Then in 1990,
the Vail Village Master Plan identified "enhancement of the walking experience
throughout the Village" as a top priority with recommendations to minimize the
amount of vehicular traffic to the greatest extent possible. Continued emphasis
on Vail's pedestrianization was identified in 1993 with the Vail Transportation
Master Plan in which suggested alternatives ranged from a tunnel system, to a
centralized system as well as a decentralized operation. In 1998, a traffic count
identified 1,300 vehicles, including 300 delivery trucks, in the pedestrian area of
Vail Village during a 10-hour period. From there, the town, through the
development review process, began requesting the creation of publicly-
accessible dispersed loading and delivery bays as part of private development
projects. The goal of creating dispersed loading and delivery facilities is to
equally distribute delivery bays throughout the commercial areas of town to
service the Village and to enhance the pedestrian experience of Vail.
III. NEW INFRASTRUCTURE
Opportunities to add a dispersed loading and delivery network to key areas of the
Village have been underway for the past three years as part of Vail's~
redevelopment. In all, 27 delivery bays are being constructed for community use
as part of the following developments: 17 bays at Mountain Plaza (formerly Front
Door); 1 at One Willow Bridge Road; 4 at Vail Plaza Hotel ~ Club; and 5 at
Solaris. In addition, LionsHead will be served by 8 public use bays under
construction at the Arrabelle at Vail Square. With many of these bays nearing
completion, the town has been consulting with the loading and delivery
stakeholder group to provide recommendations for use of the new facilities and
to evaluate current operations.
IV. LOADING & DELIVERY WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES
Appointed by the Town Manager in July 2007, the Loading and Delivery Working
Group represents numerous stakeholder groups impacted by the issue. The
group is comprised of 17 members:
Vail Town Council
• Rod Slifer, Town Council
• Farrow Hitt, Town Council
Retail
• Bill Shoff, Gorsuch
• Troy Goldenberg, Troy's Ski Shop
Restaurants
• Matt Morgan, Sweet Basil
• Michael Staughton, Los Amigos/Russells
Residential
• Bill Hanlon, resident
Lodging
• Paul Johnston, Christiania Lodge
• Bob Fritch, Sitzmark Lodge
Vendors
• Bob Dubois, Orrison/Innermountain
• Brad Ryan, Sysco
• Jack Egger, HVH Transportation
• James Cook, Shamrock Foods
• Michael Hinkley,-Coors
• Jim Armstrong, US Postal Service
Chamber
Kay Ferry., Vail Chamber & Business Association
Michael Robinson, Vail Valley Partnership
Facilitated by Stan Zemler, the group met five times during the summer. Their
activities included development of project goals, evaluation of current operations,
and development of three options for future consideration. A summary of their
work is presented below:
Loading and Delivery Goals
Goal #1
2
With a goal to enhance the pedestrian experience during peak guest
activity periods and to honor the residential character of the
neighborhood, there will be "quiet" times when vehicles will be prohibited
from the streets. This will result in a reduction of noise and pollution, and
an improvement in the overall aesthetics of the Village.
Goal # 2
Deliveries will occur in a timely and efficient manner.
Goal #3
Minimize cost increases.
Goal #4
Create minimal impact on vendors delivering goods and merchants; isn't
onerous to vendors or merchants.
Goal #5
Eliminate inefficiency and violations of parking.
Goal #6
Being safe, efficient and cost-effective are key.
Goal #7
By creating periods in which vendors, in partnership with the business
community, use on-street deliveries to maximize efficiencies, the timely
and efficient deliveries of today will be maintained or improved.
Goal #8
When the on-street option is unavailable, the use and management of
public loading and delivery bays will serve as an additional option for the
movement of goods and services to businesses and will not interfere with
the flow of pedestrians.
Goal #9
Exceptions will be well defined.
Goal #10
Above all, the safety of all involved will be at the forefront.
Review ~ Discussion of Existina Loading and Delivery Policies
Bridge Gore
- Mill Hanson Willow Checkpoint Charlie
Street Creek Creek Ranch Bridge
Drive Buildin Road Road
Cars & Trucks
u to 18' Until
8:30 am Until 11:30 Until Until Until Until 6:00 pm ,
Medium Trucks
Until am
Until 6:00 m
Until 6:00 m
U
til 6:00 m
19-35'
Large Trucks
8:30 am
U
i
11:30 am
6:00 m n
11:30 am Until
6:00 m Until
6:00 m
(36' or more} nt
l
8:30 am Until
11:30 am Until
12:00 Until
11:30 am Until
12:00 Until 12:00 noon
Trash Trucks
Until
Until noon
Until
Until Noon
Until
Until
Courier 8:30 am 9:00 am 9:00 am 9:00 am 9:00 am 9:00 am
Services Until
8:30 am Until
6:00 pm Until
6:00 pm Until
6:00 pm Until
6:00 pm Until
6:00 pm
3
What Works Currently
• Good proximity~to businesses; ease of access.
• Timely deliveries are accommodated via nearby adjacent, convenient
outlying delivery areas, i.e.: Mill Creek Building loading zone.
• Trash trucks out by 8 or 8:30 a.m.
Trucks are off Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road early; clears streets
out to accommodate pedestrian traffic.
• 8:30 a.m. time works well.
• It would seem possible to clear Gore Creek Drive by 8:30 a.m., too, if
vendors rerouted.
• Shop owners who use their personal vehicles are off by 8:30 a.m.
• Loading zones at Hanson Ranch Road and Mill Creek Building need to be
considered as part of long-term solution.
• TOV staff has been helpful in managing unforeseen circumstances, such
as road closures and inclement weather.
What Doesn't Work Currently
• Size of spaces too small to accommodate large trucks.
• Police enforcement is lacking.
• Large trucks on Gore Creek Drive after 9 a.m. are unsightly and detract
from pedestrian ambiance.
• Conflicts between best times to access businesses and merchant/owner
availability to accept deliveries.
• Emergency service vehicle (plumber, carpet cleaning, etc.) access
sometimes difficult.
• Traffic gets backed up when someone stops to deliver on Bridge Street.
• Conflicts between pedestrians and delivery carts.
• Special events set-up and tear-down is challenging by 8:30 a.m.
• Need a point of contact for drivers to report their arrival status, especially
if they're running late due to weather.
• Presence of large trucks is not in keeping with pedestrian nature of the
Village.
Development of Three Options for Future Consideration
The Working Group has concluded a dispersed system will augment, not replace
the current ability for on-street deliveries during designated hours. Three options
were identified and reviewed. The Group recommends implementation of a
dispersed system to occur following the 2007-08 ski season with modifications as
required.
Option 1
On-Street Deliveries
• Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road, 4:00 a:m. to 8:30 a.m.
• Gore Creek Drive, 4:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
Required Use of Designated Off-site Areas
• Beyond the restricted times.
4
Pros and Cons
• This option works well for restaurants, but it doesn't work well for retail
deliveries, because the shops aren't open and drivers don't have keys.
• This would case a huge "scramble" for everyone to get out by 8:30 a.m.;
possible conflicts with pedestrians at the 8:30 a.m. time period.
• Impacted lodges are opposed to 4 a.m. start; guests should have the
ability to sleep longer than 4 a.m.
• More closely meets the long-term goals of the town's master plans.
Option 2
On-street Deliveries
• Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road 4:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m
• Gore Creek Drive, 4:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Required Use of Designated Off-site Areas
• Beyond the restricted times.
Pros and Cons
• This option is better for accessing retail businesses.
• Provides better flow for pedestrians and deliveries.
• Impacted lodges are opposed to 4 a.m. start; guests should have the
ability to sleep longer than 4 a.m.
• Does not meet the long-term goals of the town's master plans.
Option 3
On-street Deliveries
• Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch road 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
• Gore Creek Drive, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
Required Use of Designated Off-site Areas
• Beyond the restricted times.
Pros and Cons
• This option is too confined; not enough time to get the job done;
unrealistic.
• This option is the only option that addresses early morning disruption of
lodging guests.
• Best meets the long-term goals of the town's master plans.
Proposed Code of Conduct for Delivery Drivers
• .Turn off engine and refrigeration.
• Keep conversations quiet.
• Take care to be as quiet as possible, especially with movement of ramps..
• Turn radios and cell phones down.
• Use rubber tires on your two-wheelers, where possible.
• Use common sense -people are sleeping in the early morning hours.
5
V. RECOMMENDATIONS, ACTIONS & NEXT STEPS
Based on feedback from the Working Group, staff is prepared to make the
following adjustments to improve the current loading and delivery network
beginning with the start of the 2007-08 ski season:
• Identify additional loading spaces on east Gore Creek Drive, along east
Meadow Drive (east and west of Bridge Street), and the north and south
sides of the International Bridge.
• Assign small delivery trucks (UPS, USPS, Fed Ex, etc.) to use designated
loading zones during restricted periods.
• Introduce new Code of Conduct for delivery drivers as standard operating
procedure.
• Create and distribute a loading and delivery map for new drivers.
• Provide advance notification when special events necessitate changes in
loading and delivery policies.
• Expand staffing hours of code enforcement officers at Checkpoint Charlie
from the current 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. operation to 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• Increase police enforcement of existing policies.
• Install technical platform that will enable the eventual use of video cameras at:
strategic locations in the Village, such as Hanson Ranch Road, for
improvement in enforcement from Checkpoint Charlie.
With the exception of the adjustments listed above, vendors are making
arrangements to service their Vail customers this winter based on the current
guidelines. However, following the conclusion of the ski season, when more
information will be known about the functionality of the newly constructed delivery
bays, it is recommended a discussion be held with the Town Council to seek
direction as it relates to the three options developed by the Working, Group. While
the Working Group has completed its assigned task, it is recommended that
members be convened on an as-needed basis as issues arise.
VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Provide feedback on the modifications and next, steps, as needed.
VII. APPENDIX
A. Recommended Exceptions
B. Working Group Ranking Exercise of 3 Options (high, low, medium)
6
Appendix A -Loading & Delivery
Exceptions
The following exceptional circumstances will be managed by the PD staff at
Checkpoint Charlie:
• Large volume
Current practices with an attempt to schedule during "free" time Town
Manager will have the ability to extend hours due to unusual
circumstances.
• Galleries
Current practices with an attempt to schedule during "free" time.
• Flower shoplperishables
Propose once the."free" time is over, use authorized loading and delivery
spaces.
• Large Items (furniture, etc.)
Current practices with an attempt to schedule during "free" time.
• Weather
Propose once the "free" time is over, use all authorized loading and
delivery spaces.
• Mechanical breakdown
Propose once the "free" time is over, use all authorized loading and
delivery spaces.
• Service trucks (i.e. plumbers)
Current practices with an attempt to schedule during "free" time;
emergencies addressed on a case basis.
• Moving Vans
Current practices with an attempt to schedule during "free" time.
• Road closures
Propose once the ".free" time is over, use all authorized loading and
delivery spaces.
• Couriers
Propose once the "free" time is over, use all authorized loading and
delivery spaces.
• New drivers
Same as current with an attempt to schedule during "free" time. Rules
and maps will be on the Town Web Site. Expectation delivery companies
work to train new drivers. One-time drivers will work with trade
organizations to provide the information. A request was made to show
business locations on the maps.
• Private Auto Deliveries (added since the pervious meeting)
Deliveries which are not heavy.
We could designate 30 minute spaces on the top deck of the parking
structure for those deliveries. Itrs a shorter time to drive frontage Road
and walk from structure as it is to drive to Checkpoint Charlie and walk
and drive back to frontage road. A request was made to identify additional
spaces around town.
• Deliveries which are heavy
Same as current with attempt to schedule during "free time."
• Hazardous materials
Same as current with an attempt to schedule during "free time."
7
• Personal vehicles
Same as current if access to an establishment with private parking is the
destination.
• Special events
All special events are reviewed by the TOV Event Review Committee
to determine load in/out and parking needs; then managed by
Checkpoint Charlie.
• CME, taxis, limousines-until 10:00 pm (in place now)
If it requires large loading of baggage attempt to park close but not on
Bridge Street during peak pedestrian times.
• Taxis and limousines-after 10:00 pm (in place now)
i. Taxis/Limos may not drive on Bridge Street to drop off or pick up .
passengers unless a special circumstance exists such as
assisting an injured or handicapped passenger.
ii. Taxis may not stage at the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore
Creek Drive but may pick up passengers that have called to
arrange a pickup and are waiting at the intersection.
iii. Taxis may not stage in the Village core area prior to 10pm. Limos
are not authorized to stage in the Village core area.
iv. Taxi companies may stage up to two taxis each in the loading
zone on the south side of Gore Creek Drive between Checkpoint
Charlie and the Squash Blossom. Taxis may not stage any closer
to Bridge Street than this. Passengers will be able to hail taxis
from the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive.
v. Each taxi company may stage one taxi in the loading zone north
of Checkpoint Charlie on the south side of the International
Bridge. These taxis can then move up to the loading zone
indicated in #4 as space becomes available.
• Meal deliveries
Propose. once the "free" time is over, use courier spaces on the map.
Other Issues:
• Post office, UPS, Fed Ex
Propose once the "free" time is over use courier spaces on the map.
Identify an acceptable location near Gorsuch or Golden Bear to service:
that area.
• Some Town of Vail vehicles
Same as current with an attempt to schedule during "free" time trash and'
emergencies excepted. Use of courier spaces for non-emergencies.
• Trash
Same as current between 7:00 AM and 8:30 AM.
• Holiday season
Same as current with an attempt to schedule-during "free" time Town
Manager will have the ability to extend hours due to unusual
circumstances.
• Off-season flexibility
If construction/maintenance related will be addressed in the staging
permits issued.
• Handicapped vehicles
There are 2 hour accessible spaces at Mill Creek Court, and one at
Checkpoint Charlie All day spaces are provided at the Parking Structure.
Look at expanding the number of spaces in town.
Horse carriages
Load in and Load out will occur at a staging area or north of the
international Bridge and the truck/trailer will be moved off site.
Off site loading and delivery systems are full (added since the previous meeting)
Town Manager will have the ability to extend hours due to unusual
circumstances. If this becomes an ongoing occurrence, this committee. will be
reconvened to see what adjustments and management systems need to be put
in place to remedy the situation.
9
Appendix B -Loading & Delivery
Working Group Ranking Exercise of 3 Options (high, low, medium)
Loadin and Delive Goal Measurements Option
1 Option
2 Option
3
Enhance the edestrian ex erience 1 3 3
Reduce Noise Pollution 2 3 2
Reduce Air Pollution 2 1 3
Increase Aesthetics of the Villa e 1 3 3
Timel Deliveries 2 1 3
Efficient Deliveries 2 1. 3
Minimize Cost Increases 2 1 3
Minimal Im act and not Onerous to Vendors 2 1 3
Minimal Im act and not Onerous to Merchants 2 1 . 3
Effective loadin olic enforcement 3 3 3
Safet of Vendors 2 1 3
Safet of Pedestrians 2 1 3
Total 23 20 35
Exceptions will be defined
n/a n/a n/a
KEY -Ranking 1 best meets the goal measurement, 3 least meets the goal
measurement
-Option 1 in at 4 AM out by 8:30 AM
-Option 2 in at 4 AM off Bridge Street by 8:30 AM; off Gore Creek Drive
by 11:30 AM (Note: A compromise option may be off Gore Creek
Drive by 10:30 AM)
-Option 3 in at 7 AM off Bridge Street by 8:30 AM off Gore Creek Drive
by 9 AM
10
Getting Going on Housing
A plan shot starts in 2008 to move forward on the Urban Land Institute's
recommendation to develop an e{fective workforce housing program. .
~~
A positive step forward.
Commence implementation of
the ULI recommendations under
the direction and management of
the Economic Council.
Create a strong leadership
force representing top leadership
from both the public and private
sector.
~~Assemble a coalition of county,
town and private sector funding.
Locate the housing office independently to promote a sense of neutrality and private sector
entrepreneurism and flexibility.
Use the Economic Council to begin ramp-up activities for the remainder of 2007 with a full
follow-on funding commitment for 2008.
The benefits of this plan:
It demonstrates positive, decisive action and can be implemented NOW.
It can move quickly and nimbly and can balance different town or private sector interests.
It does not lock any participants into long term commitments.
-The ECEC already has the talent, basic infrastructure and knowledge of the housing issue:
The ECEC is perceived as a trusted and politically neutral organization and it works
comfortably with both the private and public sectors. It is far better positioned to attract
and engage private sector participation.
Eeonomfe Couneil of Eagle County POB 1705 Edwards, CO 81632 T (970) 926-7899 F (970) 926-7890 dcohei~'~economiccouncil.biz
t
A br®ael spectrum w®rk plan.
Arganizational Structure
O Managed by: Economic Council of Eagle County
O Directed by: Housing Action Team Board of Advisors
With $2-$3 billion dollars of
projected development'in Eagle
County over the next 5- I 0 years,
the demand for affordable
.workforce housing will increase:.
Creating a cohesive alternative
housing market with a broad
spectrum of housing products i;s
the goal. This parallel housing
market would not compete witlh
open market products.
Homebuyers, as they do now,
could start in residency qualified
(RQ) housing and move to open
market products as their finances
and interests allow.
O Government representation:Vail,Avon, Redcliff, Minturn, Eagle, Gypsum, Eagle County
O Private sector representation:Vail Resorts, Beaver Creek Resort Company, Polar Stier
Development, I st Bank, (others TBD)
Scope of Work
o Creating new housing opportunities
U Buyer/renter information
O Property inventory database
O Governmental support (data, legislative advisement)
O Program administration and management services
O Public information
C7 Leadership in economic data, community facilitation and public information
Economic Council of Eagle County Workforce Housing Plan 2007/08 2
The BtG picture
Economic Council of Eagie County Workforce Housing Plan 2007/08
i ne Mousing Action Team sits at the center of workforce housing coordination. For
the first time, there will be a single point of service and information clearinghouse to
effectively meet the needs of governments, employers, developers and homebuyers.
Economic Council of Eagle County Workforce Housing Plan 2007/08
,{
Funding
The 2008 workplan budget has been developed at $300,000 with a formula that calls for 75%
governmental funding with 25% coming from the private sector. The percentage of each
governmental entity was determined by using the NW Council of Governments Rural Resort
Region formula which blended I /3 population, I /3 sales tax and I /3 assessed valuation.
2UQ8 Budget $34Q,Q~@0
Vail
Avo n
Minturn
Reclcliff
Eagle
Gypsum
Eagle County
3.34% $7,500
...................
72.14% $ 162,750
75 % $225,000
_.. __
__ _ ... _ ............ $75,000
Private Sector 25%
Economic Council of Eagle County Workforce Housing Plan 2007/08 5
T0161~ OF I'9IL
Department of Police
To: Town of Vail Council
Stan Zemler, Town Manager
From: Steve Wright, Administrative Commander
Dwight Henninger, Chief of Police
Date: September 28, 2007
Subject: The Proposed Use of Electronic Restraint Devices by the Vail Police Department
Background:
Law enforcement leaders are constantly striving to identify new strategies to encourage
safe encounters between police officers and violent persons. One aspect of encouraging
positive outcomes during such encounters is by focusing attention on developing less lethal
strategies that balance minimal use of force with the operational necessity of arresting or
disarming individuals. An important part of a less lethal strategy involves the identification
and deployment of weapons and other technology. The goal is to provide officers with
alternatives to deadly force in order to minimize harm to community members and police.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientist Jack Cover began experimenting
with electricity as anon-deadly weapon. He discovered when short duration (milliseconds),
high energy DC electric impulses were applied to humans, immediate incapacitation almost
always occurred, without direct negative side effects. This finding led to a delivery system
called the Taser. The term "Taser" is often used generically to describe electronic restraint
devices (ERD). However, Taser is a registered trade name fora particular manufacturer of
ERD. The Taser serves as an electro- muscular disruptor which overrides the central nervous
system.
Discussion:
Taser relies on tecluiology differing from other police less-lethal force options. OC
(pepper) spray, the police baton, and non-deadly impact projectiles all rely on pain to
overcome a subject's resistance. Unfortunately, a number of people encountered by police
use mind altering drugs, abuse alcohol, or are mentally ill. These factors, separately or in
combination, can increase pain tolerance and decrease the effectiveness of force options
which rely on pain compliance. When non-deadly force options are ineffective, additional
force options employed to stop the threat sometimes result in serious injury, such the use of
the baton or handgun. These issues generated renewed interest in ERD technology not solely
relying on pain to be effective. According to Taser International, Tasers have been adopted
by more that eleven thousand of approximately seventeen thousand police departments and
sheriff's offices across the country.
The effects of the Taser are well documented, but vary somewhat depending on the
subject and circwnstances. The following are typical examples of subject reactions to the
electrical charge:.
• Falling immediately to the ground
• Freezing in place (involuntary muscular contractions)
• Yelling, screaming or being silent
• Feeling dazed for several seconds or minutes
• Temporary tingling sensation
• Lack of memory or sensation to pain
• Marks caused by Taser probes
The Taser X26 is lithium battery powered and may use both conventional and laser sights
for targeting. One variant is capable of providing a video record of the deployment
(Tasercam). The Taser is aimed and fired much like a standard police sidearm. Two
methods of deployment are available. In the first method, the officer fires the Taser probes
from a distance of no more than thirty five feet. When fired, the. Taser deploys two metal
probes propelled by compressed nitrogen gas. The probes have the appearance of small,
straightened fish hooks and are connected to the Taser by fine insulated wire. When bot1~
probes strike the target, the device automatically delivers several seconds of twenty six watt
electric current. An additional five seconds of current is applied with each additional pull of
the trigger.
The second method is the direct contact (drive stun) mode which delivers current without
probe deployment. No probes are fired; rather the Taser is applied directly to the subject.
This method is~ used in circumstances when an officer cannot achieve a distance separation
from a subject.
Much has been publicized (fact and myth) regarding the effectiveness and potential
lethality of Taser deployment by police officers. Some published articles attribute
in-custody deaths to the Taser. This is a subject of continuing intense study. It appears in
most instances, other overarching factors such as the ingestion of illegal substances, extreme
intoxication, excited delirium, and the exertion of a violent encounter with arresting officers
contributed to lethal outcomes in association with a small percentage of Taser applications.
Tt is clear the use of Tasers has reduced the need for deadly force in some situations.
A study conducted in Great Britain provides insight into Taser use. It states, "Our overall
conclusion, however, is that the evidence suggests that Taser has been effective in preventing
incidents from escalating to the point where lethal force was required. In many instances the
tln•eat of Taser-rather than its actual use- has made the individual become compliant."
After extensive research, the Police Executive Research Forum (PEKE) and the
International Association of Chief's of Police (IACP) endorse the use of electronic restraint
devices. They recommend departments considering acquisition of ERD's have well defined
policies and stringent training protocols in place prior to issuance to officers.
Why is the police department considering deployment of the Taser electronic restraint
device? A review of the police department's use of force reports for the period January,
2003-September, 2007, reveal an average of nine incidents per year in which a Taser could
have been legitimately deployed. The breakdown per year is:
2003- 8
2004- 13
2005- 7
2006- 10
2007- 7 (thru September 17, 2007)
On a per amlum basis, these numbers appear relatively low. Unfortunately, aggregate
numbers do not provide the full scope. of the issue. During this period, two officers were
forced to separate from the police department as a result of permanent injuries sustained
during violent encounters with suspects. Also, during this period, the Town of Vail's
worker's compensation insurance carrier, Pinnacol Assurance, paid out $148,184.68 in
claims to police officers as a result of injuries sustained in violent encounters.
According to Taser International, the following police agencies have reported a decrease
in officer injuries during their reporting periods:
• Orange County, Florida- 80% decrease from 2000-2002
• South Bend, hldiana- 66% decrease from 2003-2006
• Austin, Texas- 50% decrease in 2004
Further, electronic restraint devices provide an option to other less-lethal devices in
particularized environments. For example, the Vail Valley Medical Center has expressed
concenis with the use of OC (pepper) spray within the emergency department. OC spray
requires decontamination of the suspect, other effected parties, and emergency room
equipment exposed to the pepper powder. The use of OC spray is also a concern in high
density enviromments such as schools or restaurants. Electronic restraint devices are much
more discriminatory in these environments. Also, the Taser has been successfillly used in
encounters with aggressive animals, such as dogs or wildlife.
Recommendations:
The Vail Police Department is proposing the purchase and issue of the Taser electronic
restraint device. Currently, each officer carries two types of less lethal equipment; OC
(pepper) spray and the ASP collapsible baton. As part of our methodology, the department .
will adopt the International Association of Chiefs of Police Nine Step Strategy for Effective
Deployment. The nine steps are:
• Build a leadership team (Please see attachment #1.)
• Place the ERD on the use of force continuum (Please see attachment #2.)
• Assess the cost and benefit of using ERD's
• Identify roles and responsibilities for ERD deployment
• Develop ERD policies and procedures (Note: The TOV's liability insurance carrier,
CIRSA, has a model policy for ERD use.. Please see attachment #3.)
• Engage in Community Outreach
• Create a comprehensive training program
• Use a phased approach
• Assess ERD use and determine next steps
Costs:
The, police department proposes the purchase often Taser electronic restraint devices
equipped with the optional Tasercam. A breakdown of the purchase costs is:
• Unit cost- $1204.95 (with Tasercam) _ $12,049.95
• Two training cartridges for devices @ $45.94 per unit = $918.80
• Download kit- $149.95
• Total Cost- $13,118.69
Conclusion:
These facts illustrate the need for an additional intermediate force option. The acquisition
of the Taser electronic restraint device may likely decrease officer injuries, decrease injuries
to criminal suspects, and reduce worker's compensation payouts. The police department has
currently budgeted $5,200.00 in 2007 and 2008 funds. The remaining costs will be funded
from asset forfeiture monies.
Sources:
1-International Association of Chiefs of Police
• Electronic Conn°ol Weapons (20.05)
• Electro-Muscular Disruption: A Nine Step Sh^ategy for Deployment (2006)
2- Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency
3-Police Executive Research Forum
• Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance
(2006)
4- Supplement to HOSDB (Hoi~~e Office Scientific Development Branch) Evaluation Of
Trier Devices: A collection of medical evidence and othe~° source material (2006)\
5-Pimlacol Assurance
6-Taser International (www. taser, com)
Attachment #1
The Vail Police Department Leadership Team for the purpose of examining deployment of
electronic restraint devices will be comprised of the following personnel:
• Chief of Police
• Operations Commander
• Defensive Tactics Coordinator
• A Vail Police representative to the Eagle County Special Operations Unit
• Aline level police officer
Attachment #2
Vail Police Department Resistance Control Chart
Levels of Resistance by the Offender
1. Psychologicallntimidation:
Non-verbal clues, indicating a szrbject's attitzrde, appearance and physical readiness
2. Verbal Non-Compliance:
A verbal response indicating zrnwillingness to canply, or threats '
3. Passive Resistance:
Physical action that does not prevent the ofrcer°'s attempt at control
4. Defensive Resistance:
Physical action which attempts to prevent the officer's control, but does not attempt to harm the officer
~. Active A;gression:
Physical action of assault
6. Deadly-force Assault:
Physical action of assault which cozrld result in seriozrs bodily injury or death
Levels of Control by the Officer
1. Officer Presence:
The identification of police authority
2. Verbal Direction:
Conzrnands of direction or arrest
3. Empty Hand Control:
A. Soft
Technidues l~~ith minimal chance of injury
B. Hard
Technigzres with potential for minor injury/OC spray
4. Impact Weapons:
Impact meapons sb~ikes or Pepperball ('~*proposed placement of electronic resh•aint devices'~~`)
5. Deadly Force:
The use of deadly force
Attaclnnent #~
CIRSA
ELECTRONIC RESTRAINT DEVICE SAMPLE POLICY -prepared August 14,
2006
A. DEFINITIONS
As used in this policy, "Electronic Restraint Device" or "ERD" means a Conducted Energy
Weapon, authorized and issued by this Department, which employs electro-muscular
disruption (EMD) technology, causing temporary incapacitation to the individual. (CACP
20.16)
B. .TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION (CACP 20.13, 20.14, 20.15):
1. Officers must successfully complete the departmentally approved ERD training and
certification program, to include written and practical tests, before they are authorized to
carry and use the ERD.
2. Officers who are assigned an ERD will be required to successfully complete the annual
recertification training as determined by the Training Command.
3. Officers must successfully complete the departmentally approved advanced/instructor
ERD program, to include written and practical tests, before being assigned to serve as ERD
instructors.
4. In addition, ongoing training and periodic updates shall be provided, via bulletins, in-
service trainings, daily briefings, and/or scenario-based discussions, concerning less lethal
force, including the use of ERD.
5. Training topics shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. The Department's definition of "less lethal force";
b. The less lethal force options approved by the Department and available to officers;
c. Department-approved techniques and strategies for less lethal force weapons;
d. Department-approved target zones for less lethal force options;
e. Legal review and updates;
f. Justification for deployment and use of less lethal force weapons;
g. Prohibitions on use of less lethal force weapons;
h. De-escalation techniques;
i. Reporting requirements;
j. Weapons inspection, maintenance, and storage; and
k. Medical attention treatment and decontamination protocols, including probe removal
C. CARRYING OF ERD (CACP 20.17)
l.. Only departmentally-approved and -issued ERDs and ERD cartridges may be carried.
2. The ERD will not be altered or modified in anyway.
3. ERDs must be stored in the ERD storage locker and be connected to their charging
units. ERDs shall be transported either in their protective carrying case or in a
department approved holster.
4. The ERD must be worn on the officer's weak side in order to avoid accidental
deployment of the wrong weapon.
5. Only properly functioning and charged ERDs shall be carried. Before each
deployment, the ERD shall be inspected for damage and tested for a proper pulse rate. Any
damage or improper functioning must immediately be reported to the Chief of
Police or designee.
6. h1 addition to any other downloading requirement established herein, officers will be
required to download data from their assigned ERD when:
a. The ERD is reassigned to another officer. In such situations, one copy of the data
report will be filed with the officer's property inventory~and one copy will be retained by the
officer for one year from the date of downloading.
b. The ERD is retired from the active police inventory. In these situations, the data report
will be retained by Police Equipment for one year from the date of downloading.
D. AUTHORIZED AND PROHIBITED USES OF ERD (CACP 20.18, 20.19, 20.20)
1. The use of an ERD is a use of force for reporting purposes. An ERD may not be
employed unless its level of force is justified:
2. The ERD may be used to control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does
not appear to be justified and or necessary; or attempts to subdue the subject by other
conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand; or there
is reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range
of the subject. The ERD may be used against an aggressive animal.
3. The ERD is intended for use as defensive, less lethal weapon. Officers may use the
ERD to incapacitate, control, and apprehend a dangerous, violent or potentially violent
subject or a subject who is aggressively resisting.
4. Only one officer will deploy an ERD on an individual, unless it is obvious the
deployment was not effective.
~. The ERD will not be utilized under the following circumstances:
a. Against any subject who is already in handcuffs or other restraints, unless the
suspect is actively resisting or exhibiting active aggression, and/or to prevent the suspect
from harming himself/herself or others.
b. Against a person displaying passive resistance (passive resistance means a subject
offers no physical resistance to arrest, simply goes limp, or makes no overt act of aggressive
behavior);
c. When the officer knows that flammable liquids or gases (including but not limited
to alcohol-based Oleoresin Capsicum [OC] spray carriers) are .present;
d. Against a woman who is obviously pregnant; a child who, by physical statLire and
size appears to be under the age of 14; an individual who is visibly frail; or an elderly
individual;
e. In a location where a fall by the suspect may cause substantial injury or death;
£ Against a suspect in physical control of a vehicle in motion (including but not
limited to an automobile, truck, motorcycle, or ATV), except when exigent circumstances
exist.
4. Officers shall:
a. Give explicit verbal commands to the suspect prior to deployment, except when the
suspect, officers or citizens might be placed in jeopardy by first warning the suspect that use
of the ERD is imminent;
b. Avoid hitting the subject in sensitive tissue areas such as head, face, neck, groin or
female breast area;
c. Avoid the deployment of the ERD against a subject operating a motor vehicle,
bicycle, skateboard, or riding on any conveyance where they may fall while the vehicle is in
motion;
d. Use the ERD for one standard cycle (five seconds), then stop to evaluate the .
situation. If one or more subsequent cycles are necessary, the number and duration of such
cycles shall be limited to the minimum activations necessary to place the subject in custody.
E. MEDICAL TREATMENT (CACP 20.22)
1. Ordinarily, au officer will remove the ERD probe once the suspect is in custody.
However, when a probe has penetrated sensitive tissue areas (groin, female breast, face,
neck) EMS will be summoned to the scene. EMS will make a determination to remove
probes or transport the suspect to the hospital.
2. To avoid the potential of positional asphyxia, all suspects, once handcuffed and in
control, will be placed in an upright position.
3. After ERD use, officers will attempt to ascertain from the subject whether preexisting
medical conditions (such as a history of heart problems) would warrant summoning EMS
persomiel to the scene.
4. Officers will notify jail medical personnel, at the time.of booking, that the subject has
been struck with ERD probes or received a drive stun. An examination should be conducted
by jail medical personnel to determine whether the individual has suffered any injury, either
directly from the ERD discharge or indirectly, such as by falling after incapacitation.
F. REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION (CACP 20.21)
1. The officer will notify his supervisor immediately after the deployment of a ERD or
drive stun.
2. Any use of the ERD requires the officer to comply with use of force reporting
procedures.
3. Photographs will be taken of probe/drive stun impact sites aild any other related
injuries.
4. Probes and cartridge(s) should be carefully placed, sharp tip first, back into the
expended cartridge bores and secured. Removed probes that have penetrated the body, should
be treated as biohazards and safety precautions used.
S. Cartridge(s) will be placed in a plastic property bag, a biohazard label attached, and
submitted to the property unit for proper disposal.
6. Officers will document the submission of the probes and cartridge(s) in the offense
report.
7. Officers will download the firing data from the ERD and attach a copy of this report to
the Use of Force foi7n for review by the officer's chain of command. A second copy of the
firing data report will be tagged for retention as evidence. This information is invaluable
when investigating claims of improper or excessive use of force involving the device.
Downloaded data shall be subject to random audits and reconciliations with use of force
reports.
G. SUPERVISORS' RESPONSIBILITIES (CACP 20.21)
1. Supervisors shall:
a. Respond to the scene of-all deployments and/or drive-stuns.
b. Insure all documentation and evidence is completed and submitted.
c, Assure that the Use of Force Form has been reviewed for content and
completeness.
d. Forward a completed Use of Force Form with any attachments through chain of
command to the Chief or designee, prior to entry into the Use of Force database.
H. INVESTIGATION OF ERD USE
a. The Department shall initiate a force investigation outside the chain of command
when any of the following factors are involved:
1. A subject experiences death or serious injury;
2. A subject experiences prolonged ERD activation;
3. The ERD appears to have been used in a punitive or abusive manner;
4. There appears to be a substantial deviation from policy or training;
5. The ERD appears to have been utilized on a person in one of the categories set
forth in Section D.S.e (a woman who is obviously pregnant; a child who, by physical stature
and size appears to be under the age of 14; an individual who is visibly frail; or an elderly
individual).
RESOLUTION 25, SERIES OF 2007
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COLORADO FOREST MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 2007, ENCOURAGING THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO TO ACTIVELY CONTINUE THEIR UNIFIED AND BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL AND TO PUSH FOR RAPID APPROVAL BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF THE SAME, AND TO EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO FOR RECOGNITION OF THE
DELEGATION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE BARK BEETLE INFESTATION IN COLORADO
AND FOR THE EFFORTS MADE IN DRAFTING, INTRODUCING, AND SUPPORTING THIS
ACT.
WHEREAS, An infestation of bark beetles has killed and is killing hundreds of thousands
of acres of lodge pole pine and other conifer species in the State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, The dead trees threaten human life, safety, dwellings, businesses, and
municipal and county government facilities, along with their associated jurisdictions; critical
infrastructure (including but not limited to: municipal, agricultural, and commercial water
collection and distribution systems; high pressure gas transmission pipelines; inter- -and intra-
state electrical transmission lines; micro-wave and radio broadcast and relay facilities; and
highways and other public and private roads); entire watersheds, including those of the
headwaters of the Colorado River and its tributaries; valuable tourism destinations, including ski
areas, scenic view corridors, lakes and reservoirs, and other amenities natural and manmade
that .are essential to the economic health of Colorado; and wildlife through increased risk of
catastrophic wildfire due to dead timber and the related massive fuel loading; and associated
post-fire erosion, sedimentation, debris flows and the associated costs to mitigate the resultant
damages; and
WHEREAS, Insect killed trees are susceptible to "blow down" by high winds, on large
and small scales, and that such blow down endangers the health and welfare of people,
property, and infrastructures in and around the effected forests; and
WHEREAS, The entire Congressional Delegation of the State of Colorado has
recognized the magnitude of the problem, the lack of resources of local jurisdictions to address
the situation, that policies of the federal land management agencies need to be altered to allow
more immediate and long term actions to mitigate the consequences of the insect infestation
and to provide for means to reduce the likelihood of such infestation in the future, and have
addressed this problem in a bi-partisan and unified fashion by introducing the aforementioned
Act to the 110th Congress; and
WHEREAS, There is a sense of urgency that the provisions of this Act become available
as rapidly as possible in order to forestall the negative consequences of the infestation and to
make use of the forest materials before decay renders them valueless.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Colorado Congressional delegation is applauded for their bipartisan introduction
and unified support of the Colorado Forest Management Improvement Act of 2007;
and
2. The delegation is urged to promote the Act, to gain support in the Congress, aind to
actively pursue its passage as soon as possible; and that
3. The Town Council of the Town of Vail do hereby affirm their support to the Colorado
delegation in this matter.
INTRODUCED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VA,IL
TOWN COUNCIL, AND SIGNED THIS 16"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007.
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
October 3, 2007
J. Matthew Mire
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail Colorado 81657
RE: Repeated power outages to Town of Vail Streetlights in Lionshead Village.
Dear Mr. Mire,
The Arrabelle at Vail Square LLC has received your letter dated September 17, 2007.
The issues outlined in your letter were addressed immediately and a nightly light check
has been implemented by Shaw Construction. These measures have been successfully in
place for the past 2 weeks. The Arrabelle at Vail Square LLC apologizes to the Town of
Vail for burdening the system with complaints and creating a nuisance to our neighbors.
The Arrabelle at Vail Square LLC will continue to accommodate and communicate with
our neighbors and look forward to permanent power and new light poles in place prior to
the 07-08 ski season.
Respectfully,
Robert Stozek
Director of Construction
137 BENCHMARK ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX 959 • AVON, COLORADO 81620
(970) 845-2535 FAx (970) 845-2792
~nu~ofuna
October 2, 2007
AUGUST 2007
VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW
Overall August sales tax increased 9.1 % with Retail increasing 2.6%, Lodging increased 15.1 °Io, Food and
Beverage increased 9.6% and Utilities/Other (which is mainly utilities but also includes taxable services and
rentals) increased 17.4%.
Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet are available on the Internet
at www.vailgov.com. You can subscribe to have the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet e-mailed
to you automatically from www.vail ov.com..
Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as
opposed to actual gross sales.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Judy Camp at (970) 479-
2119.
Sincerely,
Sally Lorton
Sales Tax Administrator
August 2007 SALES TAX
VAIL VILLAGE
August
2006
Collections
Retail
Lodging
Food &
Beverage
Other
Total
August August
2007
Collections Change
181,072 182,815
92,231 105,464
184,265 198,747
8,'i 76 8,383
465,744 495,409
1 ~0% ~
14..3%'
7..9%
2..5%
6..4%
LI®NSHEAD
August August August
2006 2007
Collections Collections Chan e
Retail 36,553 34,528 -5~5%
Lodging ..66,284 75,470 1309%
Food &
Beverage 35,671 45,680 28.1
Other 3,365 4,290 27.5%
i
Total 141,873 159,968 12.8°~°
August 2007 SALES TAX
CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIUSANDSTONEiwFSr vnn
August
2006
Collections
Retail
Lodging
Food &
Beverage
Other
Total
~~
140,249
57,839
60,362
5, 556
264,006
138;106
62,188
63,466
5,868
269,628
August
Cha
-1.5`,
7.5°
5.1
5.6%
2.1 % I'I
OUT OF TOWN
August
2006
Collections
~ _ __ _
Retail 52,300
Lodging 1,535
Food &
Beverage 1 327
Utilities & I 129,268
Other
Total 184,430
L_
August
2007
Collections
August August
2007
Collections Change
___
65,432 25.1 % j
7,590 394.5%
785
153,315
227,122
-40.8%
1 fR.6%
23.1
August 2007 SALES TAX
TOTAL
August
2006
Collections
__
Retail 410,1.74
Lodging 217,889
Food & ~
Beverage 281,625
Utilities & ~~ 146,365
Other ~~ _
I
Total 1,056,05
August August
2007
Collections _ _Chan~e
420,881 2.6%
250,712 15.1
308,678
171,856 9.6%
17.4%
1,152,127 9.1 °i°
RETAIL SUMMARY
August
2006
Collections August
2007
Collections August
%
Chan e
FOOD 111,194 110,166 -.9%
LIQUOR 22,868 23,750 3.9%
APPAREL 59,872 67,864 13.3%
SPORT 81,797 80,924 -1.1%
JEWELRY 24,731 23,240 -6.0%
GIFT 12,569 9,091 -27.7%
GALLERY . 11,615 8,236 -29.1 %
OTHER 84,880 97,302 14.6%
HOME 648 308 -52.5%
OCCUPATION
TOTAL 410,174 420,881, 2.6%
Zur,~:~ ro. r~, oh , w ro
PETER B DUNNING
1461GREENHILL000RT
VAI L, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a sinl;le family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entirE~ Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a sinl;le family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence: Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entirE~ Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRE~07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461GREENHILL000RT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a sinl;le family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a singlE~
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entirE~ Board, only for himself: The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many.
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Boarcl
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a singlE~
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DR607-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines; which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461GREENHILL000RT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore sha11 include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don`t want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone. outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 vvith unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed
within a single structure with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vaif Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of
compatible building materials, architectural style, state, roof forms, massing,
architectural details, site grading and landscape materials."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to .deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different fa4ade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true.. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461GREENHILL000RT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB carp add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity: The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Boarci
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461GREENHILL000RT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 shalt be designed
within a single structure with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DR8 to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on mariy
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Boarci
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a singlE~
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461GREENHILL000RT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Revievv Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Boarci
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a singlE~
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT"
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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." .
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Board
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a single
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DR607-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Boarcl
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a singlE~
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
PETER B DUNNING
1461 GREENHILL COURT
VAIL, COLORADO
To the members of the Vail Town Council
Re: Howard Appeal
This appeal is not an isolated situation. The Design Review Board has ruled on many
applications requesting variance from the Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development section
of the Design Review Standards and Guidelines, which states in part:
"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 with the use of unified architectural and landscape design.
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."
Unified design therefore shall include all of the mentioned items and the DRB can add
additional items. For many years the Board has consistently interpreted this section to deny
duplex or primary/ secondary homes which want to present different facade materials and
appearances. Further definition occurs in the Building Materials and Design section:
"The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and
any accessory structures upon the site."
Certainly the intent of the guidelines is to promote a similar appearance to all parts of a
building and any accessory buildings.
If this decision is overturned it opens up an opportunity for duplex homes, which are attached,
to look substantially different from each other. This would set a dangerous precedent that the
DRB would not be able to avoid in making future decisions. We don't want mirror images but
we don't want incompatible structures either.
The appeal claims the DRB has not applied the same standard to all types of residential
development. That statement is not true. The DRB is very aware of its responsibility to apply
guidelines and standards with uniformity. The appeal cites a statement made by a Board
member that a similar application by a single family residence would be approved. The Boarcl
member was not speaking to an accessory structure situation but to putting stone on a singlE~
family residence. Regardless of the interpretation the appellant put on the statement, the
Board member cannot speak for the entire Board, only for himself. The appellant cited no
decisions of the DRB to support his case.
I also want you to know that the DRB offered to approve a change that would have only a
minimal amount of stone outlining the garage doors on the east residence. But the east owner
wanted no stone.
The Board voted unanimously to deny DRB07-0330.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
RE: Notice of Special Meeting
DATE: October 24, 2007
Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Vail Town Charter, th
requested a special meeting of the Vail Town Counc
conducting the business set forth in the attached agenda,
held on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, from 3:00 p.m.
Town Council Chambers at the Vail Municipal
Frontage Road, Vail, CO.
cc: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
e Town Manager has
it for the purpose of
The meeting shall be
to 5:00 p.m., in the
Building, 75 South
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 8 PUBLIC NOTICE
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
3:00 P.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 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. ITEM/TOPIC: TABLE, TO NOVEMBER 6, 2007, PUBLIC
PRESENTATIONS from: 1) Vail Resorts Development Company;
and 2) Open Hospitality/Lincoln Partners Entity concerning the
redevelopment of Timber Ridge. Because negotiations are still
ongoing, any presentations from the above-referenced entities
would be premature. (5 Min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Table item until
November, 6, 2007 Regular Council Meeting.
2. 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, Re:
Satisfaction of Vail Resorts' Housing Obligations. (115 min.)
3. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (5:00 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, NOVEMBER 6, 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.