HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-20 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
TM Ova
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
6:00 P.M., APRIL 20, 2010
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 Input.
2. ITEM /TOPIC: Month of the Young Child Proclamation. (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Kevin Foley
3. ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 12, Series of 2010, a Resolution of the Vail
Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado in support of the goals and
concepts proposed by Greenport for a long -range commitment to stimulus
activity by establishing a Unique Transit Oriented Economic Development
Corridor. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications,
or deny Resolution No. 12, Series of 2010.
BACKGROUND: On April 6, 2010, Mr. Vince Cook appeared before the
Vail Town Council to present the goals and concepts for a valley -wide
Transit Oriented Development Corridor. According to Mr. Cook, the idea for
the corridor ties together rail and bus transit, workforce housing and
concepts for sustainable communities. Upon conclusion of the presentation,
the Vail Town Council instructed staff to return with a resolution in support of
the goals and concepts of Grennport for the Council's consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution
No. 12, Series of 2010.
4. ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler
5. ITEM /TOPIC: Appointments to the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA)
and the Vail Local Licensing Authority (VLLA). (10 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Town
Council interview each of the applicants for each board at the work session
4/20/2010
and appoint new members of each board at the evening meeting.
There is one vacancy for the VLHA, for a five -year term which ends June 1,
2015, two vacancies on the VLLA for two year terms, which end June 1,
2012 and one vacancy on the VLLA to replace a vacancy for a member who
resigned and that term ends June 1, 2011.
BACKGROUND:
VLHA:
Applicants for the VLHA must be full time, year -round residents of Eagle
County who either are residents of the Town of Vail or work for a business
holding a Town of Vail business license. Authority members must have a
proven ability to be an effective advocate for a full range of housing projects
and be able to promote a vision for local employee housing that has been
approved of by the majority of the Authority.
The role of Authority members is to act as Board of Directors for the
business of the Vail Local Housing Authority. The duties may include Budget
Approval, Adopting Policies, Advocacy, Staff Oversight, Strategic and Long -
Term Planning, Setting Development and Acquisition Parameters and
potentially managing the existing Town of Vail deed - restricted housing
inventories.
Technical experience in one of the following areas is also desirable:
Financing of Large Projects, Development, Construction /Construction
Management, Planning, Design, or Legal. The Town received two
applications.
The applicants are: Jeff Leistad and Steve Lindstrom* (asterisk indicates an
incumbent board member)
VLLA:
All applicants to the LLA must be citizens of the United States, qualified
electors of the Town of Vail, and have resided in the Town of Vail for not less
than two years preceding appointment, and shall have no direct financial
interest in any license to sell alcoholic beverages or any location having any
such license. Duties of the five - member board include review of all Town of
Vail liquor license applications.
There are currently three vacancies on the LLA. The Town received five (5)
applications for the vacancies. One of the vacancies is to fill the position left
by a member who resigned last month and that vacancy expires June 1,
2011 and two vacancies are for two year terms that end June 1, 2012. The
Council needs to interview the applicants at the work session and then make
the appointments to the LLA at the evening meeting.
The applicants are: Cody Kennedy, Kaye Ferry*; Robert McKown *, Matt
Miller, and Ted Steers. (Incumbents have asterisks after their names.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please appoint one person to the VLHA for a
five year term ending June 1, 2015; appoint one person to the VLLA to
replace a member who resigned and fill the vacancy for a term ending June
4/20/2010
1, 2011; and appoint two persons for two -year terms each, ending June 1,
2012.
6. ITEM /TOPIC: Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign Presentation. (20 min.)
7. ITEM /TOPIC: Request to proceed through the development review process
with a proposal to construct a golf course tee box on the Town of Vail owned
Ford Park, generally located on the eastern boundary of the Vail Nature
Center site at 841 Vail Valley Drive /Unplatted, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (20 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Bill Gibson, Planner and Mike Ortiz, Vail Recreation
District
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the applicant's request.
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Vail Recreation District (VRD), is
requesting permission to proceed through the development review process
with a proposal to construct a golf course tee box on the Town of Vail owned
Ford Park, generally located on the eastern boundary of the Vail Nature
Center site at 841 Vail Valley Drive. The applicant can not proceed with
development applications without first obtaining the Town Council's property
owner authorization for the proposed improvements on the subject Town
owned parcel.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Vail Town Council, as
the property owner, approves the applicant's request to proceed through the
development review process with a proposal to construct a golf course tee
box on the Town of Vail owned property, located on the eastern portion of
the Vail Nature Center site at 841 Vail Valley Drive, and setting forth details
in regard thereto.
8.
ITEM /TOPIC: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town
Code, of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's
determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does
not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site
must operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (30
minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Don Zelkind, Appellant and Bill Gibson, Planner
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council shall uphold,
uphold with modifications, or overturn the Planning and Environmental
Commission's determination pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town
Code.
BACKGROUND: The Administrator determined that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet
Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required
parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking meets the
standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of the Vail Town
Code.
The Appellant, Donald Zelkind, appealed this determination to the Planning
4/20/2010
and Environmental Commission.
On February 22, 2010 the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld
the Administrator's determination by a vote of 7 -0 -0.
The Appellant has appealed the Planning and Environmental Commission's
determination.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Town Council upholds
the Planning and Environmental Commission's February 22, 2010
determination per the review criteria and findings identified in the Staff
memorandum.
9. ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010 - A resolution adopting the
Town of Vail annual fee -in -lieu amount for Commercial Linkage and
Inclusionary Zoning. (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Nina Timm
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Approve with
Modifications or Deny Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010.
BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Town of Vail adopted Commercial Linkage
and Inclusionary Zoning requirements for new development and
redevelopment. One of the five methods of mitigation is a fee -in -lieu of
providing the required housing. Each year the Town of Vail is required to
adopt the fee -in -lieu for the year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Town Council approves,
with modifications, Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010.
10. ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2010, An Ordinance Amending
Section 6- 3C -6(B) of the Vail Town Code Regarding the Possession, Use
and Display of Cannabis; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. (15
min.)
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire / Buck Allen
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications,
or deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2010, on first reading.
BACKGROUND: The public display or consumption of cannabis within the
Town of Vail (the "Town ") is of public concern and efficient police regulation
of this crime would preserve the general welfare of the citizens and guest of
the Town.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with modifications, or
deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2010, on first reading.
11.
ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010, a Resolution Approving an
Intergovernmental Mutual Aid Agreement for the Provision of Law
Enforcement Services and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. (10
min.)
PRESENTER(S): Dwight Henninger
4/20/2010
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny Resolution
No. 8, Series of 2010.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail and the Eagle County Sheriffs Office
entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement authorizing the Municipal
Officers to perform law enforcement functions and enforce the State law's
within portions of Eagle County. The surrounding Eagle County
Municipalities, including the Town, wish to enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement allowing the Municipal Officers to aid and assist each other by
the exchange of Municipal Officers services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No. 8,
Series of 2010.
12. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment. (TBD p.m.)
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT OT CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING SESSION WILL
BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, MAY 4, IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
4/20/2010
IL
'OWN ff VA, .
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Month of the Young Child Proclamation.
PRESENTER(S): Kevin Foley
4/20/2010
TOWN (ffr VA M
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 12, Series of 2010, a Resolution of the Vail Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado in support of the goals and concepts proposed by Greenport for a long -
range commitment to stimulus activity by establishing a Unique Transit Oriented Economic
Development Corridor.
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny
Resolution No. 12, Series of 2010.
BACKGROUND: On April 6, 2010, Mr. Vince Cook appeared before the Vail Town Council to
present the goals and concepts for a valley -wide Transit Oriented Development Corridor.
According to Mr. Cook, the idea for the corridor ties together rail and bus transit, workforce
housing and concepts for sustainable communities. Upon conclusion of the presentation, the
Vail Town Council instructed staff to return with a resolution in support of the goals and
concepts of Grennport for the Council's consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 12, Series of
2010.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 12, Series of 2010
4/20/2010
RESOLUTION NO. 12
Series of 2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO IN
SUPPORT OF THE GOALS AND CONCEPTS PROPOSED BY GREENPORT FOR A LONG -
RANGE COMMITMENT TO STIMULUS ACTIVITY BY ESTABLISHING A UNIQUE TRANSIT
ORIENTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town "), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado
is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter "); and
WHEREAS, the members of the Vail Town Council have been duly elected and qualified;
and
WHEREAS, a Regional Master Plan for the Vail Valley, to be developed, for a new
Greenport Development Corridor and Rail Transit System would connect the region's workforce,
businesses and tourism with an advanced rail /bus transit system;
WHEREAS, the long -term economic activity and environmental sustainability of the
region are of great importance to the Town;
WHEREAS, a regional development corridor and rail transit system that incorporates
leading edge green technology would be beneficial to the Town of Vail and the region;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council further supports the formation of the Greenport
501(c)(3) organization as a Colorado private - public corporation;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council intends to cooperate with Greenport to achieve the
goals and concepts proposed.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. The Vail Town Council hereby supports the formation of the Greenport
501(c)(3) organization as a Colorado private - public corporation and intends to cooperate with
Greenport to achieve the goals and concepts proposed.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Vail held this 20 day of April, 2010.
Richard Cleveland
Town Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson,
Town Clerk
Resolution No. 12, Series 2010
4/20/2010
3 -I -I
IL
'OWN ff VA, .
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager's Report.
PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler
4/20/2010
TOWN (ffr VA M
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Appointments to the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) and the Vail Local
Licensing Authority (VLLA).
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Town Council interview each of
the applicants for each board at the work session and appoint new members of each board at
the evening meeting.
There is one vacancy for the VLHA, for a five -year term which ends June 1, 2015, two
vacancies on the VLLA for two year terms, which end June 1, 2012 and one vacancy on the
VLLA to replace a vacancy for a member who resigned and that term ends June 1, 2011.
BACKGROUND:
VLHA:
Applicants for the VLHA must be full time, year -round residents of Eagle County who either
are residents of the Town of Vail or work for a business holding a Town of Vail business
license. Authority members must have a proven ability to be an effective advocate for a full
range of housing projects and be able to promote a vision for local employee housing that has
been approved of by the majority of the Authority.
The role of Authority members is to act as Board of Directors for the business of the Vail Local
Housing Authority. The duties may include Budget Approval, Adopting Policies, Advocacy,
Staff Oversight, Strategic and Long -Term Planning, Setting Development and Acquisition
Parameters and potentially managing the existing Town of Vail deed - restricted housing
inventories.
Technical experience in one of the following areas is also desirable: Financing of Large
Projects, Development, Construction /Construction Management, Planning, Design, or
Legal. The Town received two applications.
The applicants are: Jeff Leistad and Steve Lindstrom* (asterisk indicates an incumbent board
member)
VLLA:
All applicants to the LLA must be citizens of the United States, qualified electors of the Town
of Vail, and have resided in the Town of Vail for not less than two years preceding
appointment, and shall have no direct financial interest in any license to sell alcoholic
beverages or any location having any such license. Duties of the five - member board include
review of all Town of Vail liquor license applications.
There are currently three vacancies on the LLA. The Town received five (5) applications for
the vacancies. One of the vacancies is to fill the position left by a member who resigned last
4/20/2010
month and that vacancy expires June 1, 2011 and two vacancies are for two year terms that
end June 1, 2012. The Council needs to interview the applicants at the work session and then
make the appointments to the LLA at the evening meeting.
The applicants are: Cody Kennedy, Kaye Ferry*; Robert McKown *, Matt Miller, and Ted
Steers. (Incumbents have asterisks after their names.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please appoint one person to the VLHA for a five year term
ending June 1, 2015; appoint one person to the VLLA to replace a member who resigned and
fill the vacancy for a term ending June 1, 2011; and appoint two persons for two -year terms
each, ending June 1, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo to TC for VLHA and VLLA Vacancies
Letters of Interest for VLHA and VLLA May 2010
4/20/2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Lorelei Donaldson
DATE: April 14, 2010
SUBJECT: Appointment of Vail Local Housing Authority (VHLA) applicants and
Vail Local Licensing Authority (VILLA) Applicants
There is currently one vacancy on the VLHA. The Town received two (2) applications for the
vacancy. The applicants are as follows: We have one incumbent member of the VLHA (noted
by asterisks below).
The applicants are as follows:
Jeffrey Leistad
Steve Lindstrom*
Staff is requesting that the Town Council appoint one member to the VLHA for a five -year term,
ending June 30, 2015.
There are currently three vacancies on the VILLA. The Town received five (5) applications for
the vacancies. One vacancy is for a 1 year term which ends June 1, 2011. This vacancy is
needed as Mark Conlin, one of our members, resigned last month. The other two vacancies are
for two years terms which end June 1, 2012.
The applicants are as follows and we have two incumbent members of the LLA (noted by
asterisks below). The Council needs to interview each applicant at the work session and then
appoint three applicants to the LLA at the evening meeting. One term for one year and two
terms for two years.
The applicants are as follows:
Cody Kennedy
Kaye Ferry*
Robert McKown*
Matt Miller
Ted Steers
Staff is requesting that the Town Council appoint two members to the LLA for two year terms
each and one member for a one year term.
4/20/2010
5 -1 -1
VAIL LOCAL
HOUSING
AUTHORITY
April 7, 2010
To Wham It May Concern:
My name is Jeffrey Leistad, and I have lived and worked in the Vail Valley for almost
five years. I currently live in East Vail at the Booth Falls Townhomes. I am also a Vice
President of Wells Fargo's Business Banking Group, and have worked for the company
for nearly six years in Colorado. I am very interested in getting more involved in the
community and with The Town of Vail.
1 have four years of experience working on commercial and residential development
projects and construction lending in The Vail Valley. As a result, I have a very good .
understanding of credit and financial analyses as they relate to underwriting loan
requests. I have also learned a significant amount about local development projects by
working with builders, contractors, and architects. I'd like to get more involved with The
Vail Local Housing Authority to provide valuable insight from a lender's perspective, as
well as assist in advancing the town's affordable housing initiatives. Since I've lived and
worked in Vail for several years now it's apparent there are significant challenges related
to these issues. It is certainly a dream of every local to be able to live and work here at an
affordable price. I would like to do what I can to help make this a reality for every local.
I want to take advantage of this opportunity to better understand these issues and help
develop strategies that will improve [lie overall situation.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Leistad
4/20/2010
5 -2 -2
Jeffrey A. Leistad
3094 Booth Falls Rd., #14— Vail, CO 81+657 — (970)4fl1 - 0451
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
• Knowledgeable in a variety of financial, investment, banking, and entrepreneurial studies
• Ambitious, motivated, goal- oriented, and eager to learn
• Strong work ethic, driven to succeed
• Excellent communication skills, both verbal and written
• Proficient in a variety of financial, business, and analytical software applications
• Trained in several financial sales environments
• Graduate of Wells Fargo Bank's Relationship Management Institute Program (2006)
• Graduate of 'Wells Fargo Bank's College of Commercial Credit (2008)
EMPLOYMENT
• Loan Officer, Innovative Mortgage Associates, Denver, CO (.January 2003 - May 2004)
• Investment Executive, Trilogy Financial Services, Denver, CO (May 2004 September 2004)
• Personal Banker, Wells Fargo Bank, Boulder and Avon, CO (October 2004 - March 2006)
• Business Relationship Manager, Wells Fargo Bank, Avon, CO (March 2006 - PRESENT)
EDUCATION
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA Central College Abroad, Fall 2001
Bachelor of Arts in Finance Leiden, The Netherlands
Certificate of Entrepreneurship Elective Coursework:
3.8514.00 G.P.A. Language, Culture, Art and Architecture
SCHOLARSHIPS
• Frank Warner Memorial Scholarship, 1999
• Chester A Phillips Scholarship, 2000
• Presidential Scholarship for Study Abroad, 2001
• Frank Warner Memorial Scholarship, 2001
• Central College Study Abroad Scholarship, 2001
ORGANIZATIONS AND HONOR SOCIETIES
• University of Iowa Honor Student
• Member, Financial Management Organization
• Golden Key National Honor Society
• National Honor Society of Finance Students
• Member, Avon Business Association
• Member, Vail Chamber and Business Association
*References Available Upon Request
4/20/2010
5 -2 -3
�41712I110} Lorelei Donaldson - TEXT page
Town Council:
I currently serve on the Vail Local Housing Authority, and would like to serge on the VLHA for an additional
term.
Thank you,
Steve Lindstrom
974 - 476 -3035
4/20/2010
5 -2 -4
VAIL LOCAL
LICENSING
AUTHORITY
F E R Z A C +C A Management
1 1 i
%Z1W
m
11 RFD SUUC[ ioi nT s• .1 LlI S- 1301
To whore it may concern,
I am writing this letter to express my interesting, and gain a seat on the liquor board for the Town
of Vail. I have lived and worked here since December 2007.
Food and beverage is not only my passion, but what I enjoy. I have a strong liquor background
having achieved my Certified Sommelier certificate as well as my USA Bartenders Guild
membership. 1 have been dealing with the Iiquor idiom of for over ten years as both a buyer and
supplier.
It would be an honor to sit on the board so that 1 can influence and shape our community for the
greater good for years to come.
Sincerely,
Cody J. Kennedy
Director of Operations
970 -476 -4403
ZaccaZa! 0101 Fawcett Road I Suite 100 1 Avon Colorado 81620 970.748.4848
La Tour 122 C. Meadow Drive Vail Village, Colorado 81657 970.476.4403
4/20/2010
5 -2 -6
(4/712010) Lorelei Do naldson - VILLA - - Page 1 I
10 0 7 EAGLE'S NEST CIRCLE
Vail, Colorado 81657
Vail Town Council
75 S. Frontage road
Vail, Co. 81657
Please accept this as my application for another term on the Vail
Local Licensing Authority.
After serving 6 years, 4 as the chairman, I think we have
developed a very good working relationship with bars, restaurants
and special event promoters in the Town of Vail. As a result, we
have not had any violations of any of our licenses in over 2 years.
I think my background as a restaurant and bar owner and work on a
variety of special events has brought a valuable perspective to the
VLLA and I look forward to serving a final two years.
Sincerely,
Kaye Ferry
April 2, 20 10
-- 4L2W2010 -
5-2-7
April 3, 20 10
TO: Vail Town Council Members
FROM: Robert A. McKown
Box 4361
2 092 Zermatt Lane #D
Vail, CO 81657
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to inform you of my desire to be appointed to the
Local Licensing Authority.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Robert A. McKown
4/20/2010
5 -2 -8
April 5, 2010
To: Vail Town Council Members
From: Matt Miller
2095a Zermatt Lane
Vail CO 81557
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to inform you of my desire to be appointed to the local licensing authority.
Respectfully,
Matt Miller
� I i
4/20/2010
5 -2 -9
1 (4/7/2010) Lorelei Donaldson - V ail Liquor Board Page 1
From: Ted Steers G tsteers @sonnenalprealestate.com>
To: <L Donald son @vailgov.com>
Date: 417/2014 10:59 AM
Subject: Vail Liquor Board
Ted Steers
PQ Box 1302
Lodges at Timber Creek C -11
Vail, CO 81658
97(7.331.4995
Hello Lorelei,
I would like to offer my service to the community as a member of the
Vail Liquor Board. I have lived in Vail from 1991 until today in
2010. While I have lived and worked in Denver for 6 of those years. I
have and always kept some residency in Vail. I have done work
non -stop in Vail for all of those 19 years.
Early in my career I worked as a bartender at Clancy's in the Cascade
Village. I have also worked with food and beverage in Beaver Creek.
Since then I have worked 10 years in the corporate event planning
field, including a Denver based company, All Season Ventures inc.,
bringing fortune 500 companies to the !Vail Valley. During that time I.
have hosted at least 30 events in Vail and Beaver Creek. I currently
am a licenced realtor and the rental manager at Sonnenaip Real 'Estate.
As a corporate event planner I have worked in close to a dozen
countries, giving me a unique view of how liquor is managed around the
world. It is currently my job to introduce new visitors to Vail and
explain to them why the Vail Village experience is the best in the
world. My personal webs4e is www.vailvillagerentals.com.
I would like to offer my experience to the Vail community in ways that
keep the public safe, but with a primary focus on a vibrant and
entertaining atmosphere for our guests..
Thank you for your consideration.
TED
Ted Steers
Rental Manager
Sonnenalp Real Estate
970.331.4995
4/20/20 t 0
5-2-10
IL
'OWN ff VA, .
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign Presentation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Hidden Gems Presentation
Hidden Gems Vail Summary
Poll Results
4/20/2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department and Town Manager's Office
DATE: April 20, 2010
RE: Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal
I. SUMMARY
The Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign is a grass -roots effort by Colorado
conservation and recreation organizations over the past ten years to study and
propose congressionally designated wilderness areas in the White River and
Gunnison National Forest Region. The Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal was
submitted to Colorado Congress members for review and potential sponsorship.
This proposal includes 243,850 acres of proposed wilderness and special
management areas in Eagle and Summit Counties, with other areas slated for
future proposals.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on the Hidden Gems
Wilderness Proposal and to allow the Vail Town Council to provide input on this
proposal.
II. WHAT IS WILDERNESS?
"Wilderness" is a designation placed on public lands that can only be made by an
act of Congress for the purpose of providing the highest level of land protection
that preserves the land and its resources. Wilderness areas are protected for the
use and enjoyment of the public, as well as to conserve resources in a natural
state. Wilderness areas are set aside to provide opportunities for primitive
recreation and solitude. Hiking, horseback riding, photography, rafting, canoeing,
kayaking, skiing, bird watching, and wildlife viewing are some of the activities
allowed in Wilderness areas. Hunting and fishing are also allowed in Wilderness,
except in national parks.
Mechanized vehicles are not allowed in Wilderness areas. This includes off -road
vehicles, motor bikes, and mountain bikes. Under the Wilderness Act, mining
operations and livestock grazing are permitted to continue in Wilderness areas
where such operations existed prior to Wilderness designation. Where public
travel by motorboat or aircraft was established prior to wilderness designation,
these methods of travel are grandfathered in.
Wilderness designations were authorized by the Wilderness Act of 1964, which
defined wilderness as meeting any of the following:
• lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition
• an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by
man
4/20/2010
6 -1 -I
• an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation
• generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature,
with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable
• has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation
• shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific,
educational, conservation and historic use
III. PROS AND CONS OF WILDERNESS
The following are pros and cons of wilderness designations:
PROS:
• Watershed protection: clean drinking water
• Provides a place for spiritual and emotional renewal as refuge from the
noise and clutter of industrial society
• Preserves biological diversity and critical habitat areas for rare and
endangered plants and animals, as well as game
• Scientific /Medical value: an irreplaceable living laboratory
• Helps to meet the growing demand for outdoor recreation and quality
hunting and fishing
CONS:
• Certain recreational activities are not permitted, including mountain
biking, mechanically- assisted rock climbing, snowmobiling and all- terrain
vehicles
• Eliminates logging opportunities for future bio -fuel plant use and other
uses
• Reduces ability to manage pine beetle forest health issues within
wilderness areas
• Reduces ability for high - altitude army training site (HARTS) to operate in
the region
• Limits ability of ERWSD to install new water storage facilities
• Hunters will not be able to bring game back to roads using mechanized
travel
IV. HIDDEN GEMS WILDERNESS PROPOSAL
The Hidden Gems campaign utilized the following values in order to determine
lands to be included in the proposal:
• Under - represented ecosystem in existing protected areas
• Rich biodiversity
• Core habitat
• Habitat connectivity
• Low - elevation habitat
• Outstanding geologic, natural, scenic and recreation characteristics
• Backcountry hunting
4/20/2010
6 -1 -2
The proposal for the Second Congressional District, submitted at this time for
consideration and approval by the 111th Congress, now includes 23 areas:
• 11 additions to existing wilderness areas
• 8 new free - standing wilderness areas
• 1 interim protection special management area
• 1 wildlife land bridge special management area
• 2 area subject to additional discussions, now active.
Twenty of the areas include national forest land. Three areas are on Bureau of
Land Management land. Sixteen areas or portions of areas are in Eagle County
(201,220 acres), eight in Summit County (42,630 acres). The complete proposal
in the Second Congressional District encompasses 243,850 acres of unique and
essential public lands. Since meeting with local stakeholders and getting
comment from the community, approximately 40,000 acres have been eliminated
and 1,400 acres have been added to the proposal.
The proposal areas that are within close proximity of the Town of Vail include the
following, which are found in Attachment A as reference:
• Crazy Horse Creek, located near Piney River Ranch adjacent to Eagle's
Nest Wilderness
• Freeman Creek, located near Piney River Ranch adjacent to Eagle's Nest
Wilderness
• Lower Piney, located south of Crazy Horse Creek proposed area
• Elliot Ridge, located adjacent to Eagle's Nest Wilderness and Lower
Piney proposed area
• Spraddle Creek, located just north of 1 -70 up Spraddle Creek to the east
of the North Trail
• Corral Creek, located along 1 -70 at Vail Pass adjacent to Eagle's Nest
Wilderness (special management plan)
V. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
The Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal has been submitted to Congressman
Jared Polis' office for review and potential sponsorship. The Vail Town Council
may wish to provide input to the Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign as well as
to Congressman Polis' office.
V1. ATTACHMENTS
A. Portions of Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal located in close proximity to
the Town of Vail
4/20/2010
6 -1 -3
Attachment
Hidden ���o�U������ems
Ma,,6�n/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Crazy Creek
������z� �uK���se ����ee��
�
6,920 acres /zo'8 square miles)
Setting
The proposed Crazy Horse Creek Wilderness oc-
cupies the n"rG`*rvtcro portion "f Piney Ridge,
ao arm "f the Gore Range that di,idcvShccphoro
Creek from Pioc River. T7` r towers 7 ,c � ca ca *c above
the Colorado |li,cr. which lies less than amile
away. Several springs, including Cottonwood
&Jcva Spring, Blav Spring, and High Trail Gulch
Spring, feed streams that flow down off Piney
Rj6,c� ]��c cicvadnoioG`�ar�arao�cvfr"ru
- Fore meadows emblematic ^f the ura
about 7,uoo feet near the Colorado River t"
10 , 3 0 feet on Piney Ridge. The large vertical relief supports a variety of vegetation types, with spruce/fir
6vrcxm dominating the highlands on the ridge, *ith]"6,cpolc pine and aspen iothe drainages, and dry
shrubby woodlands "n the lower slopes.
What's special about it
Wildlife: The proposed area supports large herds "f elk and mule deer, and provides an important cor-
ridor between the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area and lower-elevation BLM and state-owned rangelands in
the Krcnuzuliogarca, and to the o"rG`cro Gore |laogc and Flat Tops area.
Recreation: Use by hunters ix quite heavy here io the autumn.
Potential threats
Motor recreation: The area ix vulnerable t" irresponsible and destructive off road vehicle use.
Logging: Significant l � l i rt li l f � i i beetle io6c
"�� o�� " �c�" c pine mortality tyax result " the current mountain pine cct c xta-
d"o has resulted ir, calls for salvage logging. Roads required for any timber treatments would cause soils
damage, introducing noxious weeds, silt streams, usher in greatly expanded human uses, and generally
destroy the important wilderness values that currently exist here.
Outreach results
In response to c"zneraad"ox with local outfitters and users, several boundary adjustments have been
made t" ensure continued motorized hunting access t" select rcax. See attachments for details.
31 Wh//v8/ur,Wi/d.o/g 4/20/2010
��.�� Gems
/0o,c6-go/o »�'
���m�w
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
FD
CO
TZ
4/20/2010 Wh/teRin,rWilJ o/g 32
d
��"�� Gems
/0u,,6Qo/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
����. ��.'�
���x�«��[ ���K�K���
�
/ �
5,090 acres `�� square miles)
Setting
Elliot Ridge is a6Jr6. rocky divide on the crest of
the Gore Range. him a prominent spine "f Pre-
cambrian granite. Its steep talus aodvcrccficldx fall
away into rolling hills blanketed iol"6gcp"lcpine
forests that have seen some historic logging. The
terrain here consists of the northern crest ofElliot
|li6,c and part ofthe Elliot (]rcck drainage that
flows northeast into the Blue River, just below the
d^zu of Green &J"vnoaio Reservoir. The cic,^dno
ranges from 8,Goo feet at Elliot Creek t"n,G45 Fra tundra meadow "" Elliot Rid
feet "o Elliot Ridge.
What's special about it
Dx�� �
Ecology: The proposed Elliot Ridge Addition to the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area contains excellent sum-
mer range for big game. As a result, this area supports large herds of elk and mule deer. The animals use
this landscape as a movement corridor between lower-elevation BLM lands in the Colorado River basin
to the north, and higher- elevation mountains in the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area to the south. The Ma-
h Lake i 6i,6 priority wildlife � i l population f l i
ao area x � �r "r ty tat, and contains a large �"�v t "o " a,cryrarc plant species,
the brown lady slipper.
T7` l ,i� habitat *i� variety f animal i black (overall ) l�( D
The area also provides a r a wide cty" ao rua species: ac car ` ",cra rao�c'� c ` ",cra
and severe winter raogc), lynx ( habitat), ru""xc (overall and severe winter range) , mountain
]ino (overall range), zuvlc deer (overall and severe winter raogc), wild turkey (overall raogc), Colorado
River cutthroat trout, boreal toad (aquatic habitat).
|lccrcad"o: The proposed Elliot Ridge Wilderness Area ivao important destination for hunters iothe
autumn, and it acts as a natural buffer between the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area and the heavily-logged
l"Grcpnlc pine for- cxmt" the north "f the proposed Area. The proposed Wilderness Area receives little
summer use, and provides excellent opportunities to crpericocc solitude year-round.
Potential threats
Logging: Numerous recent timber sales along the roads that access this area have dramatically altered the
natural qualities of the forests there. The maze of obliterated roads will take many years to recover.
Motor recreation: The area ix vulnerable t" irresponsible and dcxructivc off-road vehicle use.
Division of Wi}d}ifehabitat }�t� � � significance
�x�a ��, species � � �x� cance
This area supports a strain Colorado River Cutthroat trout. Eliot Ridge also contains elk winter range
and production areas.
Continuing discussions
�
zx� �nz�m ons
Hidden Gems Campaign continues to meet with snowmobile groups about adjustments of the area.
33 N0iteBinerWi6lorg 4/202010
Hidden Gems
March 2olo ur 1
n ��neee�i2ofw��
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
Other info
The proposed Elliot Ridge Wilderness Area is one of i2 Roadless Areas that are contiguous with the
Eagles Nest Wilderness Area, which together forms a roadless complex of over 168, 000 acres (262 square
miles) .
M
m
M o
M
V
0] p ��� N a � G � •.
LL �z
S s 2m 2m w d �
Cn
w s cvt
LU
z
a�
w — t f o r .__
Cn
LU
U o'
LU
O
L t r •
LU ❑ -0 0 0 is ''.,,` s �. � � rt� - f �. - �„ -� - --
a +
A , n
❑ a c ' r f +
m �
w 7 ■
a s c J
J 2 0
7 _
LU
Cn
7 1
CL LU
C 100 1:T r rr I
r k�
rf
aZ +, � I Fry �. ♦.. ._
Uv-
r ^
4/20/2010 WhiteRiverWild.org 34
6 -1 -7
Hidden Gems
ur 2neee� 2u�"uue
March 2010
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... _
Freeman Creek
1,2 acres (2.0 square miles)
ti
Setting
This small area extends the Eagles Nest Wilderness �` r
Area down to the Piney River, the primary drain -••
age from the high Gore Range into the Colorado
River. The areas are forested mostly with lodge-
pole pine, although Engelmann spruce, subalpine
fir, and aspen maybe found as well. Freeman
Creek features some large wet meadows. Freeman
Creek itself is around g,000 ft. in elevation.
Freeman Creek's lush wetlands support many species including this moose
What's special about it
Ecology: This landscape provides summer range for elk and mule deer, and moose are known to frequent
in the wet meadows around Freeman Creek. The proposed Freeman Creek Addition also contains a well -
preserved lower- montane willow carr (a unique wet shrub community). The area is an underrepresented
ecosystem in existing protected areas.
Recreation: There is an opportunity to experience self - reliance and adventure in this remarkable area
which retains an outstanding natural character.
Potential threats
Logging: This area is under USFS management for wood fiber production, as demonstrated by the clear -
cut areas on the southern boundaries of the unit. Further harvesting in the area would have to occur very
close to the wilderness boundary. Pine bark beetles are killing most mature lodgepole in the region and
there is likely to be pressure to salvage the beetle killed trees. Salvage logging here would have significant
negative ecological impacts while providing dubious wildfire risk reduction for communities.
Division of Wildlife habitat qualities, species of significance
Freeman Creek has areas of rolling valleys, to very steep slopes and high ridges containing spruce fir, as-
pen, lodgepole pine, and grassland meadows. The area supports abundant wildlife: elk, deer, black bear,
mountain lion, moose, Colorado River Cutthroat trout, blue grouse, pine martin, snowshoe hare and
lynx. Moose colonized this area on their own and use it as overall habitat. Winter use of the area is limited
to pine martin, blue grouse, snowshoe hare, moose, Colorado River Cutthroat trout and lynx because
of high elevation. In the summer, the area provides both high quality habitat for elk and deer; summer
range, production areas and migration corridors. The area does contain potential lynx habitat. The area
is significant for its lack of roads which provides excellent solitude and abundant wildlife. The USFS
management prescriptions for the area are 1.2 recommended wilderness and 1.31 backcountry recreation
non - motorized.
Outreach results
The boundaries for this proposal have been adjusted to accommodate convenient use of adjacent private
35 WhiteRiverWild.org 4/20/2010
6 -1 -8
Hidden Gems 1
March 2 010 c�h�'dv�Lnede�za,�
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
land and to provide for an important local bicycle trail. See attachments for details.
Other info
The proposed Elliot Ridge Wilderness Area is one of 12 Roadless Areas that are contiguous with the
Eagles Nest Wilderness Area, which together forms a roadless complex of over 168, 000 acres (262 square
miles) .
Other info
The proposed Elliot Ridge Wilderness Area is one of 12 Roadless Areas that are contiguous with the
Eagles Nest Wilderness Area, which together forms a roadless complex of over 168, 000 acres (262 square
miles) .
(See map on following page)
4/20/2010 WhiteRioerWild.org 36
6 -1 -9
-/
��"�� ��
���V�U����� Gems
Mu,c6Qo/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
NEST
s
FS 1�91D.f
I n
PROPOSED FREEMAN CREEK ADDDI TION TO TH WPNF Draft Travel Management Plan
Existing Wilderness - Highway
Proposed Freeman Creek Wilderness Area - Other Public Road
- Motorized Trail
Other Proposed Wilderness Areas Mountain Bike Trail
Other National Forest Land - FootMorse Trail
White PlverNF BoundarV 0 0.5 1 Miles - Private Road
Scale 120.000 USFSto Decommission
'Road and trail cat� gones are based on the mo I likely rrianagenle nt prescriptions soon to be implemented bythe Forest 3 eNce an may not reflect current conditions on the growd.
4/202010 h@hzBlnc,NilJ v(g 38
6-1-10
Hidden Gems
ur 2neee� 2u�"uue
March 2010
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... _
Lower Piney
25,79 acres 40.3 square miles)
Setting
The proposed Lower Piney Addition occupies a
large portion of the Piney River drainage. This
river begins at Piney Lake, north of Vail, and -
flows into the Colorado River at State Bridge. The
north portion of the area is on Piney Ridge, which
separates Piney River from Sheephorn Creek.
Many wooded tributary drainages dissect the
landscape, which ranges in elevation from '7,8o0
feet on the Piney River to 11,107 feet at Chimney Diverse ecosystem of Lower Ping
Rock. Spruce /fir forests dominate the hills, with
lodgepole pine and aspen in the drainages.
What's special about it
Ecology: Lower Piney supports large herds of elk and mule deer, and provides an important corridor
between the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area and lower - elevation BLM and state -owned rangelands in the
Kremmling area, and a corridor to the northern Gore Range.
Recreation: Use by hunters is quite heavy here in the autumn. Piney River supports an impressive diver -
sity of native plants, and provides wonderful fishing opportunities. It is also eligible for Wild and Scenic
River status due to its many remarkable values.
Potential threats
Motor recreation: Off -road motorized use occurs, damaging forest resources.
Logging: Lodgepole pine mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle has resulted in wide- spread calls
for salvage logging. Any roads required for any timber treatments would cause soils damage, introduce
noxious weeds, cause siltation of streams, usher in greatly expanded human uses and generally destroy
roadless area values.
Division of Wildlife habitat qualities, species of significance
Lower Piney has areas of rolling valleys to very steep canyons; vegetation consists of spruce fir, aspen
lodgepole pine, mountain shrubs, sagebrush, riparian and grassland meadows. The area supports abun-
dant wildlife: elk, deer, black bear, mountain lion, moose, wild turkey, Colorado River Cutthroat trout,
blue grouse, pine martin, snowshoe hare and lynx. The area contains extensive critical winter habitat for
elk and deer, winter range, severe winter range, winter concentration areas, and migration corridors. In
the summer, the area provides high quality habitat for elk and deer, summer range production areas and
migration corridors. Moose colonized the area on their own and use the area as overall range. Colorado
River Cutthroat trout are found in Piney River, Lava Creek and Elkhorn Park. The area is significant
for its lack of roads and limited (2) system hiking trails. Illegal use by motorcycles and ATV's is moving
elk and deer onto private lands early in the hunting season. Due to the limited vehicle access and system
trails, the area provides excellent solitude and abundant wildlife.
45 WhiteRiverWild.org 4/20/2010
6 -1 -11
d
��"�� ��
���V�U����� Gems
Mu,c6Qo/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Outreach results
The boundaries of this proposal have been extensively modified to allowed continued use of a popular
xo"~vo,"6iliogarca. See attachments for details.
Continuing discussions
z�� m�xx�m oxxm
Additional o� refinements i �t ltfr i �i i with d d
a boundary zu � rcxv "zu ongoing discussions recreation ao
with water supply providers.
Other info
The proposed Lower Piney Al6jd"u is the largest "fru r"adlcxx areas that are contiguous with the Ea-
gles Nest Wilderness Area, which together forms a roadless complex of over 16 8, 0 0 0 acres (2 6 2 square
miles).
(See map on6//vwingp"=)
4/202010 h@iteRine,Wi0.v(g 46
6-1-12
-/
��"�� ��
���V�U����� Gems
Mu,c6Qo/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
dP
LOTTER PIN
IV-
FSTlEKI
PROPOSED LOWER PI N EY ADDI TI ON TO TH E WRIN F Draft Travel Management Plan
EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS AREA Preferred Alternative G
Existing Wilderness N - Highway
I — Other Public Road
Proposed Hidden Gems Wilderness — Motorized Trail
Other National Forest Land Mountain Bike Trail
Other BILM Land Foot/Horse Trail
White River N F Boundary USFSto Decommission
�Road and trail categories are based onthe rrDst likely rrianagerrie rt presuptions soon to be irriplerrentA bythe Forest SeNce and maynot refled current conditions on the ground._
4/20/2010 h@hz6knc,NilJvrg 48
6lB
Hidden Gems
ur 2neee� 2u�"uue
March 2010
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... _
Spraddle Creek
'a
9,44 acres (14.8 square miles)
Setting
The proposed Spraddle Creek Wilderness Addition oc-
cupies half of Bald Mountain. It includes both creeks that -
drain the western slopes of Bald Mountain: Middle Creek
and Spraddle Creek flow into the Gore Creek within the
Vail town limits. The elevation ranges from 8,300 feet
near Vail to 12,136 feet on Bald Mountain. Bald Moun-
tain is part of the Gore Range and is a significant land -
form that is highly visible from Vail Ski Area. The terrain
here mostly consists of large moderately -steep hillsides -
heavily- forested with Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir.
Lodgepole pines and aspens are also present in the lower
elevations.
What's special about it
Transition zone: This area has critical importance as a
buffer between urban development in Vail and the Eagles
Nest Wilderness Area. The landscape west of the proposal The lush understogofSpraddle Creek's as pen forest
area has seen significant ecosystem modification from road
construction and logging, making the intact nature of Spraddle Creek evermore important.
Ecology: Wildlife uses this area as a mid- elevation movement corridor between high peaks of the Gore
Range and the Gore Creek valley. Mule deer and elk are abundant here in the summer and the area is
used for elk calving. The ridge along the Area's eastern boundary is prime habitat for Canada lynx, a
state - endangered and nationally- threatened species, as well as home to bighorn sheep and mountain
goats.
Recreation: The proximity of this area to Vail makes it extremely valuable for recreational uses. It is a
popular hunting and horseback riding destination. The Middle Creek and Son of Middle Creek Trails are
very popular among mountain bikers, as they are easily accessible from town. The Eiseman Hut sits on a
high ridge along the north edge of the proposal area, and provides access to excellent backcountry skiing
terrain protected by the proposal. Spraddle Creek provides relatively easy access for quiet -use recreation -
ists, opportunities that are increasingly rare and important as the hustle and bustle in the Vail Valley
erodes many nearby quiet opportunities.
Potential threats
Motorized recreation: There has been some illegal motorized encroachment into this proposed Wilder-
ness Addition from Spraddle Creek Road and Red Sandstone Road.
Logging: The area to the north of the unit was heavily logged during the 194Os. While the forest has
regenerated well, the maze of closed and abandoned roads in the area may provide a launching point for
illegal motorized use into the unit. As bark beetle- caused tree mortality increases in the area, there will
57 WhiteRiverWild.org 4/20/2010
6 -1 -14
-/
��"�� ��
���V�U����� Gems
Mu,c6Qo/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
be calls for more logging in an attempt to do something about this natural phenomenon. Amy treatments
intended to address beetle spread and tree mortality may cause more ecological 6^rnuthaoXoo6aodt6c
landscape should bc protected from the roads that would accompany potential beetle treatments.
Division of Wi}dYifehabitat }�t� � � significance
�x�a ��, species � �x� cance
SpraddUc {]rcck has areas of rolling ,aDcyv to very steep slopes and high ridges containing spruce fir,
aspen, l"dgcp"lc pine and grassland meadows. 7]`c area supports abundant wildlife; elk, deer, black bear,
zu"vooaio lion, 6ir6"ro sheep, rocky mountain goat, blue grouse, pine martin, snowshoe hare and lynx.
Rocky mountain goats use the area as overall habitat. Winter use of the area is limited to pine martin,
blue grouse, snowshoe hare and lynx because of the high elevation. In the summer the area provides high
� habitat 6/ both l� �� production � migration i� Th
quality tat r "t c an ccr� xozunucrrao�c, �ro ct "narcax au zu �rat "o c"rr orx� c area
6"cx contain potential lynx habitat. The area is significant for its ]ark of roads which provides crccDcot
solitude and abundant wildlife.
Continuing discussions
z��
Clarifying accommodations might be necessary to ensure efficient operation of municipal water delivery
facilities. (]"znerxad"ox about details "f this continue.
(See map on6Dowiqgp=e)
4/202010 h@iteRine,Wi0.v(g 58
-/
��"�� ��
���V�U����� Gems
Mu,c6Qo/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
ir
I J1
Eisem a* Hut
1p, Fl
PS
PROPOSED SPRADDLE CREEK ADDITION TOTH E EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS WRNF Draft Travel Management Plan
- Highway
Proposed Spraddle Creek Wilderness Area Other Public Roads
- Motorized Trails
[Z) other Proposed Wilderness Areas Mountain Bike Trail
Other National Forest Land 0 0.5 1 2 Mil� - Foot/Horse Trail
White River N F Boundary - Private Road
4/20/2010 N@hz8lnc,NilJ vrg 60
6-1-16
Hidden Gems
2u�"uue
March 2olo
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... _
Corral Creek
3,070 acres (4.8 square miles)
Setting
This area occupies a narrow strip of land between
I - and the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area. The
terrain consists of steep west and south facing
hillsides above Black Gore Creek north of Vail
Pass, and Tenmile Creek to the south. Many ava-
lanche paths cross the unit. The bulk of the area
is densely forested with spruce and fir, as well as i
some aspen in the Gore Creek campground area. A view of the west side of Corall Creek drainage
Corral Creek is the major creek in the unit, and
flows from Uneva Peak. The elevation ranges from 8,600 feet near Gore Creek, to iii,goo on the SW
slopes of Uneva Peak.
What's special about it
Wildlife migration: The primary importance for protecting this area is to extend Wilderness protection
down to the edge of 1 -70 so to ensure the effectiveness of the wildlife movement corridor through the
area. As a sub - alpine roadless strip, it plays an important role in connecting the Eagles Nest Wilderness
to the Ptarmigan Hill roadless area to the south. This is part of an extremely vital north -south migration
corridor for wildlife, particularly the endangered lynx, as well as bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and elk.
A "wildlife bridge" is expected to be built just west of the Vail Pass summit that would link the Ptarmigan
Hill and Corral Creek roadless areas.
Recreation: The area is also important access to five hiking and horseback trails that enter the Eagles Nest
Wilderness Area from I -70. Polk Creek and Corral Creek are important fisheries for the imperiled Colo-
rado River cutthroat trout. This roadless area acts a scenic corridor for the Tenmile -Vail Pass National
Recreation Trail that passes along its northwest boundary.
Potential threats
Given the ease of access from the Vail Pass Recreation Area, it is conceivable that rogue ORVs (includ-
ing snowmobiles) could begin encroaching on the area if crowding on the south side of the interstate gets
intolerable.
Division of Wildlife habitat qualities, species of significance
This area supports a strain Colorado River Cutthroat trout. Corral Creek is on a movement corridor for
elk.
Outreach results
In anticipation of future regional transit opportunities, this area is proposed for interim protection of its
wilderness values —using a special designation at this time, pending final decisions about the location of
that transit route. Once the route is selected, remaining lands will become Wilderness. See attachments
for details.
73 WhiteRiverWild.org 4/20/2010
6 -1 -17
9
��.�� Gems
Mu,c6Qo/o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
U71 PER VES,�
PROPOSED COPRALCPEEK SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA WRNF Draft Travel Management Plan
ADDITION TO THE EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS AREA Preferred Alternabve G
Existing Wilderness Highway
Proposed Corral CreekSpecial ManagementArea Other Public Road
Proposed H idden Gem s Wilderness Area Motorized Trail
Mountain Bike Trail
Other National Forest Land 0 0.5 1 2 hfil� FootHorse Trail
White River IN F Boundary Private Road
kdap by Center for Nafive Ecos�strris M001 0 Scale 190.000 USFS to Decommission
�Road and trail categoHes are based onthe rrio st likely rrianagerrie nt prescriptions soon to he irriplerrBnt�d bythe Forest SeNce and rrlaynot refled current conditions on the ground.
4/20/2010 WhhzBlnc,Wild.vrg 74
Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal - Second Congressional District
Wild
I ra I] (I W'n 6 W " ,_ I'M_1
Pisgah Mountain S--d C..v- id D.Id�t
CF8zy Horse Cr
Vmllia b I T
Y�
BYIE
Elliot Ridge P.1,1w Rands
FDFK Mai ,Ri, and C.d.
Lower Piney
Bull Gulch Castle Peak U
P
l.
Acorn
Creek
� r ean Cr
Fr eeman
1 ( pt.-E9517l
Spraddl VvildlifelEand
E..Vj" Creek'
Awn Porcupine
Gulch
West 6
Lake
Creek
tiunlmit <Y.
Adam R IT
(,.,4 MI
Mods
Red Table 10 •
asalt Mountain Tennvle
Ridge
Basal
Lake Named t
0
Mormon 24�
4,20 201 � Creek
'Ell Qfn
Lands Removed from the Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal - Second Congressional District
Rout( madW,dm,esa
�- `d3 p° ,� `� Q II'ddm Cmu Wmeme,s emvos.d
�-, Grand R mo ed m,r.Pe
ED
dC
5 —
1iio C"
t ii .rev -j k
/ �ea
U
Clear Creek
r ®e,e
Eagle
yy
q
i
Vark
I
l a
Hidden Gems Supplemental Summary for Town of Vail - April 20, 2010
The Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal group has continued extensive outreach to stakeholders since we
last met with the Town of Vail in August, 2009. Our proposal was sent to Rep. Jared Polis on March 31
of this year. Hidden Gems is dedicated to being responsive to questions, concerns and input and will
continue to recommend changes and fine- tuning of the proposal to Rep. Polls as we receive input.
Overview:
The Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal encompasses 243,850 acres in 23 areas of Eagle and Summit
Counties. 16 proposal areas, 201,220 acres, are in Eagle County on the White River National Forest and
BLM lands. Most of these are additions to the Holy Cross or Eagle's Nest Wilderness Areas; some are
new stand -alone wilderness areas. About half of the acreage is already being managed as wilderness
because it is USES Recommended Wilderness (Red Table) or BLM Wilderness Study Areas (Castle Peak
and Bull Gulch). The Hidden Gems represent an endangered segment of our ecosystems, mid - elevation
areas, that deserve the highest protection to ensure water quality, plant and animal biodiversity,
unfragmented habitat, healthy forests and air quality in our mountain valleys which are experiencing ever -
increasing pressures from human habitation. Wilderness would protect these last remaining pristine areas
from mining, oil and gas exploration, logging, road building and motorized and mechanized activity,
including biking. Wilderness allows for all other types of recreation — hunting, fishing, hiking, camping,
boating, climbing, etc.
The Wilderness Act expressly allows all types of firefighting as well as helicopter rescue, weed and pest
control, and grazing. This proposal will include language acceptable to our Congressionals and to the
military to ensure the continued high altitude helicopter training currently operating in Gypsum.
Stakeholder Outreach:
Overall, Hidden Gems has made 52 adjustments resulting in about 85,000 acres removed from and 1400
acres added to the proposal in Eagle County in response to stakeholder outreach and careful scrutiny.
In an effort to respond to the mechanized (biking) and motorized recreation community, about 80,000
acres were removed from the proposal in Eagle County, even though these areas are part of the roadless
inventory and /or have substantial wilderness qualities; that is they are essentially roadless, the imprint of
man is barely or not recognizable, and they provide unique quiet recreation opportunities.
These include in part:
Basalt Mountain — 12,900
Chicago Ridge — 9,141 acres
Buffehr Mountain — 11,600 acres
Lower Piney — 2,471 acres
Ptarmigan Hill — 25,188
Salt Creek — 10,664
Please review the full list of adjustments in Eagle County and the map of accommodations,
attached.
Outreach has included federal, state and local government, community groups, ECO Trails, Water
Districts, homeowner's associations, adjacent landowners, ranchers, outfitters, climbers, mountain bikers,
motorized recreationists,l0"' Mountain Hut System, Colorado Department of Wildlife, recreation clubs,
public events, individuals and more.
Please see the Eagle County outreach log attached.
A telephone survey, conducted this year by RBI Strategies and Research, shows that the Hidden Gems is
widely supported by voters across wide range of socio - political lines. 66% of voters in Eagle and Summit
Counties strongly favor protecting public lands with wilderness. Please see the Poll Results attached.
1
4/20/2010
6 -2 -1
The Hidden Gems proposal has been endorsed by the Eagle River Watershed Council, Eagle Valley Land
Trust, Trout Unlimited, as well as backcountry, fishing and hunting guide services. Further, after
extensive meetings with ECO Trails, this citizen advisory body has recommended support of 88% of the
proposal area to the Board of County Commissioners.
With the extensive field work and outreach the Hidden Gems has accomplished, the draft proposal (on
the web at www.whiteriverwild.org) is a strong citizens' proposal, backed by scientific, field, and
stakeholder research. Hidden Gems will continue to work with the various communities, offer input and
recommendations to Congressman Polis's office. Hidden Gems will continue to educate and outreach to
the community while at the same time supporting the Congressman's outreach at his direction.
Congressman Polis has indicated that he will hold public input meetings this summer.
Public Access to Maps and Proposal:
Hidden Gems has arranged with the Vail and Eagle Libraries and with CMC in Edwards to have the
proposal and accompanying maps available for in -house review. Feedback forms will also be available at
those locations. Hidden Gems staff will oversee distribution of snaps and collection of feedback forms.
April 20, 2010 Vail Town Council Meeting:
Hidden Gems appreciates the opportunity to address the Vail Town Council. We will be prepared to
answer all questions about the proposal and process as well as discuss the areas that may be of specific
interest because of their proximity to Vail: Spraddle Creek, Corral Creek, Freeman Creek, Lower Piney,
Homestake and No Name.
If you have any questions in advance of the 4/20/10 meeting regarding these materials, please contact me
directly:
Susie Kincade
Eagle County Coordinator
Hidden Gem Wilderness Campaign
970 - 328 -5472
susiek@whiteriverwild.org
2
4/20/2010
6 -2 -2
Poll: Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal has broad support
Voters in Eagle and Summit Counties favor proposal by nearly 2 -1
A poll of likely voters in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District found broad
support for the Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal.
The poll found that Hidden Gems has the support 65 percent of voters polled
across the 2nd Congressional District. Among those living in Eagle and Summit
counties, where the wilderness is proposed, 58 percent of voters expressed
support for the Hidden Gems proposal.
The Hidden Gems Campaign submitted a proposal to Congress on March 31 that
seeks federal wilderness designation on 243,850 acres of public lands in Summit
and Eagle counties.
"This survey shows that support for the Hidden Gems proposal is as wide as it is
deep," said Kevin Ingham of RBI Strategies and Research, the firm that
conducted the poll. "Not only do voters favor it by a margin of better than 2 -to -1
but support for the proposal is high across demographics including political
affiliation, age and geography."
The results of the poll were released today at a dial -in news conference that
included Ingham and Pete Kolbenschlag from the Hidden Gems Campaign.
Findings of the poll include:
■ 72 percent of voters throughout the district and 66 percent in Eagle
and Summit Counties favor protecting additional public lands as
wilderness areas in Colorado;
o Fully half of voters (46 percent in Eagle and Summit counties)
said they "strongly favor" protecting additional public lands as
wilderness areas in Colorado
■ 65 percent of voters throughout the district and 58 percent in Summit
and Eagle counties support the Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal.
o A wide plurality of voters in Eagle and Summit counties — 34
percent — said they "strongly favor" Hidden Gems.
"This poll confirms that a large number of residents in Eagle and Summit
counties and throughout Colorado support the protection of our most treasured
landscapes with wilderness designation," Kolbenschlag, director of the Hidden
Gems Campaign, said.
The telephone survey, conducted by RBI Strategies and Research, interviewed
650 voters in Colorado's Second Congressional District who are likely to
participate in the 2010 General Election. Five hundred interviews were conducted
among a statistically valid random sample of likely voters in the district at- large.
4/20/2010
6 -3 -I
An additional 150 oversample interviews were conducted among a statistically
valid random sample of likely voters in Summit and Eagle counties to increase
the statistical validity of the data within that sub - sample.
The margin of error for the district at -large and the oversample are ±4.4% and
±6.6% respectively at the 95% confidence level. Survey interviews were
conducted from March 2 - 4, 2010 by professional telemarketers.
The Summit and Eagle county proposal and a variety of supporting materials can
be found at www .whiteriverwiId.org /p- 158.html
General information about this significant proposal can be found at
www.whiteriverwiId.org
-30-
4/20/2010
6 -3 -2
TOWN (ffr VA M
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Request to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to
construct a golf course tee box on the Town of Vail owned Ford Park, generally located on the
eastern boundary of the Vail Nature Center site at 841 Vail Valley Drive /Unplatted, and setting
forth details in regard thereto.
PRESENTER(S): Bill Gibson, Planner and Mike Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the applicant's request.
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Vail Recreation District (VRD), is requesting permission to
proceed through the development review process with a proposal to construct a golf course
tee box on the Town of Vail owned Ford Park, generally located on the eastern boundary of
the Vail Nature Center site at 841 Vail Valley Drive. The applicant can not proceed with
development applications without first obtaining the Town Council's property owner
authorization for the proposed improvements on the subject Town owned parcel.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Vail Town Council, as the property
owner, approves the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process
with a proposal to construct a golf course tee box on the Town of Vail owned property, located
on the eastern portion of the Vail Nature Center site at 841 Vail Valley Drive, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
ATTACHMENTS:
Town Council memo
Applicant request
4/20/2010
Brownstein I Hyatt
Farber I Schreck
E
Carolynne C. White
Attorney at Law
303.223.1197 tel
303.223.0997 fax
April 20, 2010 cwhite @bhfs.com
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of Arabelle at Vail Square, LLC ( " AVS ") this letter is to express support for and urge the Town `
Council ( "C ouncil ") to uphold both the administrative decision of the Community Development
Department for the Town of Vail (the " CDD ") set forth in the February 22, 2010 memorandum ( " Valet
Parking Memorandum ") and the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission for the Town
of Vail (the " on February 22, 2010 to uphold CDD's interpretation of Section 14 -5 -2 -K of the Town
of Vail Code ( " Code ") in the Valet Parking Memorandum in deciding the March 15, 2010 appeal
( " Appeal ") filed by Mr. Donald Zelkind ( " Appellant ').
The Valet Parking Memorandum concludes, after substantial review and analysis by the CDD, that
Section 14 -5 -2 -K of the Code does not require that 50% of the required parking spaces in a parking
structure must operate as self- parking. The decisions of the CDD and the PEC are consistent with the
plain meaning of Section 14 -5 -2 -K of the Code, the administrative and legislative history for regulation of
valet parking by the Town of Vail and the longstanding public policy discouraging unnecessary regulation
by public entities over private matters.
The Valet Parking Memorandum correctly interprets Section 14 -5 -2 -K of the Code. The intent of Section
14 -5 -2 -K is not to regulate the number of vehicles which are required to be self - parked or valet parked
within a parking structure. Rather, the intent of Section 14 -5 -2 -K of the Code is to regulate the design
and construction of parking spaces to insure that parking structures adhere to Code requirements
requiring a minimum number of parking spaces for specified land uses. The Code's only reference to
valet parking is in the instance when a builder or developer of a parking structure wishes to construct
parking spaces which are smaller, or arranged in a different configuration than the standard otherwise
required by the Code; in this case, the Code allows up to 50% of the parking spaces to be so modified,
where valet parking is provided.
The Code does not require that parking structures allow users to self park. Nor does the Code require
assignment or designation of specific parking spaces in parking structures to individual users.
Appropriately, neither the Code nor the CDD discourages optimal use of private parking lots by the
owners of those private parking lots.
Properly, the Town of Vail does not regulate the operation or management of private parking lots. The
Town of Vail's code ensures that development sites include sufficient parking spaces to serve their
designated land use, and ensures that the design and construction of parking spaces serves the general
health, safety and welfare of the general population.
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 1 Denver, CO 80202 -4432 303.223.1100 tel
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP I bhfs.com 303.223.1111 fax
k
Had either the CDD or the PEC interpreted Section 14 -5 -2 -K as the Appellant suggests it should be
interpreted, the property rights — not to mention day -to -day business operations — of many property
owners in the Town of Vail would be immediately impaired and injured. The CDD recognized this impact
in the Valet Parking Memorandum, stating that "Should appellant prevail in this appeal and the [PEC]
determines that at least 50% of a development's private parking shall operate as self - parking, Staff will
begin enforcement proceedings against all residential, commercial, and multiple use properties providing
valet services to more than fifty percent (50 %) of their required parking spaces." Property owners rely on
development and land use regulations — and their consistent interpretation and enforcement by local
government — for predictability and preservation of property values. The Town of Vail, the PEC and the
CDD have consistently interpreted regulation of valet parking to clarify limitations on tandem parking, to
enforce maintenance of unobstructed parking lot drive aisles and to establish design standards for the
construction of valet parking spaces, but past interpretations of the Code have not imposed any
requirement for self - parking in parking structures.
As the Town is aware, based on the Complaint attached to Appeal, a class action lawsuit related to this
issue, among others, is currently pending in federal court. With this appeal, Appellant is improperly
attempting to use the regulatory powers of the Town of Vail to settle a private dispute between certain
owners of residential condominiums at the Arrabelle at Vail Square and AVS.
The CDD's interpretation of Section 14- 5 -2 -K, stating that the intent of the provision is to regulate the
design and construction of valet parking spaces to meet minimum parking space requirements and not to
regulate the operation and management of private parking facilities by requiring that 50% of the required
parking spaces operate as self - parking, is consistent with a plain reading of the Code, the legislative and
administrative history of the Code and sound public policy.
For these reasons, we urge that the Town Council to uphold the prior interpretation of Section 14 -5 -2 -K
by both the CDD and the PEC.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Si rely,
Carolynn C. hite
TOWN (ffr VA M
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town
of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet
Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces
provided on site must operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
PRESENTER(S): Don Zelkind, Appellant and Bill Gibson, Planner
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council shall uphold, uphold with
modifications, or overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's determination
pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code.
BACKGROUND: The Administrator determined that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail
Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site
must operate as self - parking meets the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements
of the Vail Town Code.
The Appellant, Donald Zelkind, appealed this determination to the Planning and Environmental
Commission.
On February 22, 2010 the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld the Administrator's
determination by a vote of 7 -0 -0.
The Appellant has appealed the Planning and Environmental Commission's determination.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Town Council upholds the Planning and
Environmental Commission's February 22, 2010 determination per the review criteria and
findings identified in the Staff memorandum.
ATTACHMENTS:
Town Council memo
PEC memo
Appellant's PEC presentation
PEC results
Appellant's letter
Appellant's PEC appeal
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
4/20/2010
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
Appellant's attachment
4/20/2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 20, 2010
SUBJECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's determination that Section 14 -5-
2-x, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the
required parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking, and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
Appellants: Donald Zelkind
Planner: Bill Gibson
I. SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL
The appellant, Donald Zelkind, filed an appeal of the Planning and Environmental
Commission determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does
not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must
operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
The appellant is a residential owner in the Arrabelle building. According to the appellant,
the Arrabelle property manager, Vail Resorts, requires the Arrabelle residential home
owners to exclusively use the building's no -fee valet parking service instead of self -
parking their vehicles in the Arrabelle parking structure. The appellant is opposed to the
property manager's requirement that he use the valet parking service. The appellant
contends that such a requirement is not permitted by Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Vail Town Code,
which states:
K. Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent
(50 %) of the required parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing
an eight foot by eighteen foot (8'x 18) parking space for each car (parallel
spaces must be 9 feet x 20 feet). Cars may be parked up to four (4) cars deep in
a valet lot stacked in a manner in which any vehicles that may have to be
temporarily moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle can be
temporarily parked in a location that does not block public drive /pedestrian aisles
or a designated parking space.
Staff has informed the appellant that most of his concerns about the parking situation at
the Arrabelle are legal matters between himself, his homeowner's association, and the
property manager; and the Town of Vail has no jurisdiction over such civil matters.
Staff does believe the appellant's appeal raises questions of interpretation about the
Town's parking regulations that have not been explicitly addressed in the past. While
the appellant is primarily concerned about the parking situation at the Arrabelle property,
Staff believes the questions raised by this appeal are not limited in scope to only one
specific property. Instead, Staff believes the questions raised by this appeal affect the
parking of every property within the Town of Vail.
1
4/20/2010
8 -1 -I
Staff believes the underlying question associated with this appeal is whether the Town
Code requires that vehicles entering a development must be self - parked parked if that
vehicle is not being parked in a space explicitly designed and designated as a valet
parking space for the purposes of meeting the Town's parking requirements?
Staff believes the Vail Town Code regulates parking to ensure that an adequate number
of vehicle parking spaces are provided to meet the needs of the associated land use.
This is accomplished through the requirement of a minimum number of parking spaces
and parking space design standards. The Town Code does not regulate the operation
or management of private parking spaces or parking lots.
The following items have been attached for reference: Staff memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission (Attachment A), Appellant's presentation to the
Planning and Environmental Commission (Attachment B), Planning and Environmental
Commission hearing results (Attachment C), and the Appellant's statement (Attachment
D).
II. BACKGROUND
The appellant, Donald Zelkind, filed an appeal of the administrative determination that
Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of
the required parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. On February 22, 2010, the Planning and Environmental
Commission voted 5 -0 -1 (Cartin recused) to uphold the administrative determination.
III. REQUIRED ACTION
The Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Planning and
Environmental Commission's determination pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail
Town Code.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Town Council upholds the
Planning and Environmental Commission's determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet
Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking
spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
The Community Development Department recommends the Town Council makes the
following findings of fact:
"Based upon a review of the Staffs February 22, 2010, memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission and the evidence and testimony presented, the Town
Coucil finds:
• The Town of Vail does not regulate, interpret, enforce, or resolve disputes
concerning private covenants, party wall agreements, home owner
association rules, or other similar civil agreements. Any issues exclusively
related to these civil matters are not germane to this appeal.
2
4/20/2010
8 -1 -2
• The Vail Town Code regulates parking to ensure that an adequate number of
vehicle parking spaces are provided to meet the needs of the associated land
use. This is accomplished through the requirement of a minimum number of
parking spaces and parking space design standards. The Town Code does
not regulate the operation or management of private parking spaces or
parking lots.
• The Town Code assumes the number of spaces provided for a land use
addresses the collective parking needs of each user group of that land uses
(owners, employees, customers, guests, etc.). The Town Code does not
assign or designate which specific parking space in a private parking lot is
allocated to which user group or individual user. In the case of a multiple -use
building, the Town Code does not assign or designate which specific parking
spaces in a private parking lot are allocated to the individual land uses of the
building. The operation of the private parking lot is the responsibility of the
property owner or manager.
• Chapter 12 -10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, prescribes
the parking requirements of the Town's Zoning Regulations. Chapter 12 -10,
Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, does not address the valet
parking or self - parking of vehicles.
• Chapter 14 -5, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All
Use, Vail Town Code, prescribes the design standards of the Town's
Development Standards.
• Section 14 -2 -1, Definitions of Words and Terms, the term "Valet Parking" is
defined as `A service provided with or without a fee where vehicle is dropped
at a designated location and an employee drives said vehicle to a parking
space.'
• Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code states that `Valet parking
shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the required
parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing an eight foot by
eighteen foot (8'x 18) parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9
feet x 20 feet). Cars may be parked up to four (4) cars deep in a valet lot
stacked in a manner in which any vehicles that may have to be temporarily
moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle can be temporarily parked
in a location that does not block public drive /pedestrian aisles or a designated
parking space.'
The Community Development Department recommends the Town Council makes the
following conclusions:
'Based upon a review of the Staff's February 22, 2010, memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the evidence and testimony
presented, and the Commission's finding of facts, the Planning and
Environmental Commission concludes:
The Vail Town Code does not require that vehicles accessing a development
must be self - parked if that vehicle is not being parked in a space explicitly
designed and designated as a valet parking space for the purposes of meeting
3
4/20/2010
8 -1 -3
the Town's parking requirements.
Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission's determination that
Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least
50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking
meets the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of the Vail
Town Code."
The Community Development Department recommends the Town Council makes the
following motion:
"Based upon a review of the Staff's February 22, 2010, memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the evidence and testimony
presented, and the finding of facts, the Town Council upholds the Planning and
Environmental Commission determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking,
Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking
spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking, based upon the conclusion
that the Commission's determination meets the standards and conditions
imposed by the requirements of the Vail Town Code."
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. February 22, 2010 Staff memorandum to the PEC
B. February 22, 2010 Appellant's Presentation to the PEC
C. February 22, 2010 PEC results
D. Appellant's Statement
4
4/20/2010
8 -1 -4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 22, 2010,
SUBJECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of
Vail Administrator's determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail
Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces
provided on site must operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Appellant: Donald Zelkind
Planner: Bill Gibson
1. SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL
The appellant, Donald Zelkind, has filed an appeal of the administrative determination
that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50%
of the required parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking, and setting
forth details in regard thereto.
The appellant is a residential owner in the Arrabelle building. According to the appellant,
the Arrabelle property manager, Vail Resorts, requires the Arrabelle residential home
owners to exclusively use the building's no -fee valet parking service instead of self -
parking their vehicles in the Arrabelle parking structure. The appellant is opposed to the
property manager's requirement that he use the valet parking service. The appellant
contends that such a requirement is not permitted by Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Vail Town Code,
which states:
K. Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent
(509 of the required parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing
an eight foot by eighteen foot (8'x 18) parking space for each car (parallel
spaces must be 9 feet x 20 feet). Cars may be parked up to four (4) cars deep in
a valet lot stacked in a manner in which any vehicles that may have to be
temporarily moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle can be
temporarily parked in a location that does not block public drivelpedestrian aisles
or a designated parking space.
Staff has informed the appellant that most of his concerns about the parking situation at
the Arrabelle are legal matters between himself, his homeowner's association, and the
property manager; and the Town of Vail has no jurisdiction over such civil matters.
Staff does believe the appellant's appeal raises questions of interpretation about the
Town's parking regulations that have not been explicitly addressed in the past. While
the appellant is primarily concerned about the parking situation at the Arrabelle property,
Staff believes the questions raised by this appeal are not limited in scope to only one
1
4/20/2010
8 -2 -1
specific property. Instead, Staff believes the questions raised by this appeal affect the
parking of every property within the Town of Vail.
Staff believes the underlying question associated of this appeal is whether the Town
Code requires that vehicles entering a development must be self-parked parked if that
vehicle is not being parked in a space explicitly designed and designated as a valet
parking space for the purposes of meeting the Town's parking requirements?
Staff believes the Vail Town Code regulates parking to ensure that an adequate number
of vehicle parking spaces are provided to meet the needs of the associated land use.
This is accomplished through the requirement of a minimum number of parking spaces
and parking space design standards. The Town Code does not regulate the operation
or management of private parking spaces or parking lots.
The appellant's statement has been attached for reference (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
From the Town's adoption of its first zoning code in 1973 until 1999, the term "valet
parking" was only used in Section 18.52.080 of the Vail Town Code. Valet parking was
only identified in the Zoning Regulations as a means of waiving the design standards for
parking lot drive aisles:
"Aisles: Aisles ' adequate width for convenient and easy access to each parking
space shall be provided, affording unobstructed vehicular passage between each
parking space and one or more accessway s. This requirement may be waived
only during such times as valet parking is operated in lieu of self-parking.
Note that the Town Code did not require property owners or managers to valet park
vehicles entering the development site, nor did it require those individuals entering the
development site to self-park their vehicles. The code simply states that at "such times
as valet parking is operated" the Town's requirements for clear parking lot aisles could
be waived.
Based upon these provisions of the previous edition of the Vail Town Code, throughout
the years, developers were allowed to meet the parking requirements for additions to
existing buildings by agreeing to valet park. the additional vehicles in their existing
parking lots rather than physically expanding the parking lot.
In the early 1990's the Town of Vail hired a consultant to assess the Town's Zoning
Regulations and make recommendation to improve those regulations. In October 1991,
a Development Code Revision Report was completed. On pages 150-151 of this report,
the consultant addressed the above listed parking lot drive aisle design standards as
follows:
Issue: The requirement for "clear unobstructed access" to each off -street parking
space may be waived at the times valet parking is operated in lieu of self parking.
This provision allows for the very efficient use of parking facilities. However, the
issue is whether there should be a maximum percentage of required parking
spaces than can be valet spaces.
2
4/20/2010
8-2-2
Alternatives: Allowing valet parking spaces to satisfy parking requirements
means the Town must accept a certain amount of risk — that the owner /operator
does in fact provide valet service to ensure all required parking is provided.
Establishing a maximum percentage of valet spaces serves to minimize the
Town's risk. A maximum limit will also ensure that a certain number of spaces
are directly accessible to the user. Limiting valet spaces to 25% of the total
parking requirement is a reasonable percentage that will provide the Town with
some assurance and also allow some flexibility to the operator. .
Note that this report did not recommend requiring property owners or managers to valet
park vehicles entering the development site, nor did it recommend requiring those
individuals entering the development site to self -park their vehicles.
This report addressed valet parking in the context of vehicles being allowed to block
parking lot drive aisles. By placing a limit on the number of vehicles allowed to be valet
parked in the parking lot drive aisles, the Town would be assured some portion of the
required parking spaces would remain accessible to other users (whether their vehicles
were parked by a valet or by the vehicle owner) and continue to meet the prescribed
parking requirement.
In 1999, the Town of Vail adopted the Development Standards Handbook (Title 14, Vail
Town Code) through Ordinance 25, Series of 1999. The Development Standards
Handbook was the result of a process named the Development Review Improvement
Process (DRIP) which was intended to clarify the Town's development standards and to
consolidate the development review process. According to a 1999 Staff memorandum
to the Planning and Environmental Commission:
"In most cases, the Development Standards are clarification of existing
regulations and standards used by the various Town of Vail departments in
development review. However, in some cases, the Development Standards are
actually less restrictive than current regulations and standards. The following are
standards that have been relaxed and /or changed by the Development
Standards Handbook:
4. Parking — the Development Standards include a provision for valet parking."
Other than this one - sentence statement, there is no additional discussion in the staff
memorandums, Planning and Environmental Commission hearings minutes, or Town
Council hearings minutes concerning the 1999 adopted provisions for valet parking:
"Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed 50% of the
required parking on -site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing a 8' x 18'
parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9' x 20'). Cars may be
parked tandem in a valet lot."
This code amendment established design standards for the construction of valet parking
spaces.
In 2005, the Town of Vail adopted "corrections and clarifications to the Town Code
through Ordinance 29, Series of 2005. This ordinance adopted the first Vail Town Code
definition of valet parking as:
3
4/20/2010
8 -2 -3
"A service provided with or without fee where vehicle is dropped at a designated
location and an employee drives said vehicle to a parking space."
This ordinance did not adopt any regulatory or policy changes related to valet parking.
In 2007, the Town of Vail adopted another housekeeping ordinance to further clarify the
Town Code. Ordinance 28, Series of 2007, amended the valet parking requirements of
the Vail Town Code as follows:
"K. Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent
(50%) of the required parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing an eight
foot by eighteen foot (8' x 18 ) parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9' x
20). Cars may be parked tandem up to 4 cars deep in a valet lot stacked in a manner in
which any vehicles that may have to be temporarily moved by a valet to gain access to
another vehicle can be temporarily parked in a location that does not block public
drive /pedestrian aisles or a designated parking space.
These provisions are the currently adopted code requirements addressing valet parking.
According to the 2007 Staff memorandums to the Planning and Environmental
Commission, the purpose of these amendments were to:
"In 14-5-2, Other Requirements, language was added to the valet parking
subsection in order to clarify limitations on tandem parking.
This ordinance did not adopt any other regulatory or policy changes related to valet
parking.
ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION,
Throughout the history of the Vail Town Code, the Town's parking requirements have
addressed how many parking spaces must be provided on a development site for a
given land use and how those spaces must be designed and constructed. The Town
Code does not regulate the operation or management of private parking lots. The Town
Code assumes the number of parking spaces required by the code for a land use
address the collective parking needs of each user group of that land uses (owners,
employees, customers, guests, etc.).
The Town Code does not assign or designate specific parking spaces in a private
parking lot to any user group or individual user. In the case of a multiple-use building,
the Town Code does not assign or designate specific parking spaces in a private parking
lot to any individual land use of the building. The operation and management of private
parking lots is the responsibility of the property owner or manager.
Staff believes the current Town Code valet parking regulations were drafted in the
context of vehicles previously being allowed to block parking lot drive aisles. By placing
a limit on the number of vehicles allowed to be valet parked in the parking lot drive
aisles, the Town would be assured some portion of the required parking would remain
accessible to other users, whether their vehicles were parked by a valet or by the vehicle
owner themselves.
4
4/20/2010
8-2-4
Staff believes the provisions of Section 14-5-2-K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code,
regulate the design and construction of valet parking spaces for the purposes of
calculating the number of parking spaces provided to meet the minimum number of
parking spaces requited for a land use. Staff does not believe the provisions of 14-5-2 -
K, Valet Parking, explicitly regulate the operation of individual parking spaces in a private
parking lot.
Staff does not believe Section 1 4-5-2-K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, limits a property
owner or manager to only providing valet services to those users whose vehicle will be
parking in an 8' x 14' tandem parking space. Staff does not believe this section prevents
a property owner or manager from providing valet parking services to other users of the
building.
Staff does not believe the intent of the Town's parking regulations are to discourage the
optimized use of private parking lots or to discourage property owners or managers from
providing, enhanced customer services through the operation of valet parking.
Therefore, Staff has determined that Section 14-5-2-K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code,
does not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must
operate as self-parking.
Staff *does not believe the appellant has demonstrated how Staff's determination does
not meet the intent of the Town's parking regulations (i.e. parking requirements and
design standards).
Should the appellant prevail in this appeal and the Planning and Environmental
Commission determines that at least 50% of a development's private parking shall
operate as self-parking, Staff will begin code enforcement proceeding against all
residential, commercial, and multiple use properties providing valet services to more
than fifty percent (50%) of their required parking users.
Should the appellant prevail in this appeal and the Planning and Environmental
Commission determines that at least 50% of a development's private parking shall
operate as self-parking; this interpretation will not preclude the Arrabelle's property
management from continuing to limit Mr. Zelkind's access to only the valet service half of
the Arrabelle's parking garage.
IV. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-313-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail
Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to hear and
decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail
administrative official with respect to the provisions, standards, and procedures of the
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code.
V. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS
Pursuant to Sub-sections 12-3-313-2 and 12-3-313-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions;
Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic criteria for an appeal:
A) standing of the appellant; B) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and C) timeliness of
the notice of appeal.
4/20/201;
8-2-5
A) Standing of the Appellant
Staff has determined that the applicant has standing as an "aggrieved or
adversely affected person" to file an appeal of the subject administrative
determination.
B) Adequacy of the Notice of the Appeal
The application for this appeal has been determined to be complete by the
Community Development Department.
C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal
The applicant filed an appeal meeting the requirements of Sub-section 12 -3 -38-
3, Procedures, Vail Town Code.
VI. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 12-10, OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING (in part)
N/A (valet parking is not addressed by Chapter 12-10 of the Zoning Regulations)
CHAPTER 14-10, DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (in part)
Chapter 14-1: Administration
14 -1 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general
health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and
standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the town
of Vail for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the
community at large. The development standards will help protect property values,
ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development
of property within the town of Vail.
14-1-6: APPEALS:
Appeals from decisions made concerning the development standards shall be in
accordance with title 12, chapter 3 of this code.
Chapter 14-2, Definitions
14-2-1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
VALET PARKING: A service provided with or without a fee where vehicle is
dropped at a designated location and an employee drives said vehicle to a
parking space.
Chapter 14-5: Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All Uses (in part)
14-5-1: MINIMUM STANDARDS: (in part)
This section (table 5) specifies the parking lot standards for all uses excluding
residential uses under three (3) units and including, but not limited to,
commercial, retail, office, restaurant, institutional, hotel, accommodation, and
6
4/20/2010
8-2-6
multiple-family development. These standards are subject to all conditions and
exceptions described herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum
standards. When two (2) or more standards conflict the more restrictive standard
shall apply.
14-5-2: OTHER REQUIREMENTS: (in part)
K. Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be allowed, but shag not exceed fifty percent
(509 of the required parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing
an eight foot by eighteen foot (8'x 18) parking space for each car (parallel
spaces must be 9 feet x 20 feet). Cars may be parked up to four (4) cars deep in
a valet lot stacked in a manner in which any vehicles that may have to be
temporarily moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle can be
temporarily parked in a location that does not block public drive /pedestrian aisles
or a designated parking space.
VII. REQUIRED ACTION
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall uphold, overturn, or modify the
administrative determination that Section 14-5-2-K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does
not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must
operate as self-parking, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Sub-section 12-3-313-5, Findings, Vail Town Code, details the requirements for action by
the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission shall on all appeals make specific
findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These
findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions
imposed by the requirements of this Title have or have not been met."
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental
Commission upholds the administrative determination that Section 14-5-2-K, Valet
Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking
spaces provided on site must operate as self-parking, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental
Commission make the following findings of fact:
"Based upon a review of the Staff's February 22, 2010, memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission and the evidence and testimony presented, the
Planning and Environmental Commission finds:
• The Town of Vail does not regulate, interpret, enforce, or resolve disputes
concerning private covenants, party wall agreements, home owner
association rules, or other similar civil agreements. Any issues exclusively
related to these civil matters are not germane to this appeal.
7
4/20/2010
8 -2 -7
• The Vail Town Code regulates parking to ensure that an adequate number of
vehicle parking spaces are provided to meet the needs of the associated land
use. This is accomplished through the requirement of a minimum number of
parking spaces and parking space design standards. The Town Code does
not regulate the operation or management of private parking spaces or
parking lots.
0 The Town Code assumes the number of spaces provided for a land use
addresses the collective parking needs of each user group of that land uses
(owners, employees, customers, guests, etc.). The Town Code does not
assign or designate which specific parking space in a private parking lot is
allocated to which user group or individual user.. In the case of a multiple-use
building, the Town Code does not assign or designate which specific parking
spaces in a private parking lot are allocated to the individual land uses of the
building. The operation of the private parking lot is the responsibility of the
property owner or manager.
• Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, prescribes
the parking requirements of the Town's Zoning Regulations. Chapter 12-10,
Off Street Parking and Loading, .Vail Town Code, does not address the valet
parking or self-parking of vehicles.
• Chapter 14-5, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All
Use, Vail Town Code, prescribes the design standards of the Town's
Development Standards.
0 Section 14-2-1, Definitions of Words and Terms, the term "Valet Parking" is
defined as 'A service provided with or without a fee where vehicle is dropped
at a designated location and an employee drives said vehicle to a parking
space.'
• Section 14-5-2-K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code states that 'Valet parking
shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent (509 of the required
parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing an eight foot by
eighteen foot (8'x 18) parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9
feet x 20 feet). Cars may be parked up to four (4) cars deep in a valet lot
stacked in a manner in which any vehicles that may have to be temporarily
moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle can be temporarily parked
in a location that does not block public drive /pedestrian aisles or a designated
parking space.'
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission make . the following conclusions:
"Based upon a review of the Staffs February 22, 2010, memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the evidence and testimony
presented, and the Commission's finding of facts, the Planning and
Environmental Commission concludes:
8
4/20/2010
8 -2 -8
I
I
The Vail Town Code does not require that vehicles accessing a development
must be self - parked if that vehicle is not being parked in a space explicitly
designed and designated as a valet parking space for the purposes of meeting
the Town's parking requirements.
Therefore, the Administrator's determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet
Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required
parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking meets the
standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of the Vail Town Code.
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental
Commission make the following motion:
"Based upon a review of the Staff's February 22, 2010, memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the evidence and testimony
presented, and the Commission's finding of facts, the Planning and
Environmental Commission upholds the Town of Vail Administrator's
determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, .Vail Town Code, does not
require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must
operate as self - parking, based upon the conclusion that the Administrator's
determination meets the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements
of the Vail Town Code."
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Appellant's statement
9
4/20/2010
8 -2 -9
(02/18/2010) George Ruther Re Arrabelle parking structure Page 1
Attachment A
From: George Ruther
To: donald zelkind
Date: 1/6/2010 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Arrabelle parking structure
Thanks Don. I will get a response back to you shortly. I will put a place holder for this appeal item on
the 2//22 PEC agenda.
Again, we'll be in touch.
George Ruther, AICP
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
.Vail, Colorado 81658
(970) 479 -2145 (o)
(970) 479 -2452 (f)
(970) 376 -2675 (c)
>>> donald zelkind < donzel kind 1(dgmail.com 1/6/20101:41 PM >>>
George,
Happy New Year to you again. I am anxious to meet with the individual who
had a similar hip injury to plot my course over the next few months.
With regard to the parking issue at the Arrabelle, I am concerned about the
fact that VR has forced the homeowners to employ the valet parking service
exclusively. This is contrary to the representations made in our promotional
materials, our sales packet, and the clarifications on the parking status
published to homeowners and realtors issued from the VR legal department. I
gather from previous conversations with you that VR made representations to
the Town of Vail during the approval process that indicated that we would
have designated self parking spaces as well.
In addition, our interpretation the Town ordinance § 14 -5 -2 K requires
reading in context several other provisions as follows:
*§ 14 -5 -2 K ** Valet Parking:
*Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of
the **
*required parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing an
eight foot by eighteen foot **
*(8'x 18') parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9 feet x 20
feet). Cars may be **
*parked up to four (4) cars deep in a valet lot stacked in a manner in which
any vehicles that may **
4/20/2010
8-2-10
(02/1 8/2010) George Ruther - Re: Arra bell e parking structure P age 2
*have to be temporarily moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle
can be temporarily **
*parked in a location that does not block public drive /pedestrian aisles or
a designated parking **
*space.*
*
*
*14 -5 -1: MINIMUM STANDARDS: **
*This section (table 5) specifies the parking lot standards for all uses
excluding residential uses ** *
*under three (3) units and including, but not limited to, commercial,
retail, office, restaurant, **
*institutional, hotel, accommodation, and multiple - family development. These
standards are. subject **
*to all conditions and exceptions described herein. * *These standards shall
be considered the **
*minimum standards. When two (2) or more standards conflict the more
restrictive standard shall **
*apply.*
*
*
*14 -1 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: **
*It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the
general health, safety, **
*and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are
intended to ensure safe **
*and efficient development within the town of Vail for pedestrians, * *vehicular
traffic, ** emergency **
*response traffic, and the community at large. The development standards
will help protect property** *
*values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate
development of**
*property within the town of Vail. (Ord. 29(2005) § 78)*
*
*
* * *14 -2 -1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: **
*
4/20/2010
8-2-11
(02/18/2010) George Ruther Re Arrabelle parking structure _ Page
*VALET PARKING: A service ** provided with or without a fee where vehicle is
dropped at a ** *
*designated location and an employee drives said vehicle to a parking space.
**
To the extent the language of § 14 -5 -2 K Valet Parking lends itself to two
interpretations and two standards, § 14 -5 -1 requires the imposition of the
more restrictive standard. I believe controlling the valet service is more
restrictive that merely controlling valet physical parking configuration. §
14 -1 -1 states that the purpose and intent of the statute and specifically
recites vehicular traffic, not just parking structure configurations.
Lastly, and most importantly, if there is any dispute as to the definition
of the term 'valet parking' § 14 -2 -1 specifically defines 'valet parking' as
a service *not* a physical configuration within a parking structure. When
. the drafters of the ordinance provide a definition, I suggest that
definition should control the interpretation of the ordinance.
The PEC meeting on February 22nd would be a particularly desirable date
because my fellow Board Member, and Vice President, John Lichtenegger will
also be in Vail and able to participate at the hearing.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Don Zelkind
President, Arrabelle homeowner HOA
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:00 AM, George Ruther < gruther(a)vail oq v.com wrote:
> Good Morning Don -
> Happy New Year. Glad to hear that your doing better. Last time we spoke it
• appeared you had seen better days.
• The group we need to present this issue to is the Planning and
• Environmental Commission. The process in doing so is easy. Simply write me
• a letter outling your concerns and issues in the way the parking is being
• handled at Arrabelle and your interpretation of the applicable zoning
• regulations. Upon receipt of your letter I will respond back to you in
• writing outlining the staffs interpretation and our respectful
• disagreement. With each of our positions stated we will have created and
> established the basis for an appeal of a staff interpretation, as outlined
• in Chapter 12 -3 of the Vail Town Code.
• With this basis in place I am then able to schedule a hearing with the PEC.
• Due to public notice requirements we would likely be at the PEC meeting on
• February 22nd.
> Please do not hesitate to call or write with questions.
4/20/2010
8-2-12
( 02/18/2010) George Ruther . Re Arrabelle parking structure Page 4
> Thanks again.
>
> Powered by Intellisync
• From: donald zelkind < donzelkindlCabgmail.com >
• Date: 12/31/2009 1:27 PM
• To: George Ruther < GRuther(cbvailgov.com >
• CC: Lenore Sherman < sherm335(a)aol.com >;Phil McCabe < mccabe(Nnnonfifth.com >;John
• Lichtenegger < John(cbsemolawfirm.com >
• Subject: Arrabelle parking structure
> Hi George,
• Now that I can walk pretty well with one crutch, I would like to make a
• short presentation to you and whomever you think is a appropriate on our
• reading of the Town of Vail ordinance concerning valet. parking.
> Please let me know what time next year would be most convenient.
> Happy New Year to you and yours,
> Don Zelkind
4/20/2010
8 -2 -13
Current status Arrabelle parking structure
• Two levels G 1 and G2
•Approximately 300 spaces
• 94 - HOA, 100- Arrabelle Club, 106-
remainder hotel ,employees, and
retail
• HOA, Arrabelle Club, Hotel 100%
Valet
BACKGROUND
•The representations made to the public and
Arrabelle purchasers vs. Closing
Documents
• Promotional literature
• Representations to the Town of Vail
• Initial sales contract
• Clarification from VR legal department
• Town of Vail Ordinance
*We have filed a lawsuit
in Federal Court
*We would like the
support of the Town of
Vail
Promotional
AT VAaL SQUARE
HOTEL SERVICES & AMENITIES AVAILABLE TO
RESIDENCE OWNERS & THEIR GUESTS
The Arrabelle Hotel will O(fel' Services and • BUSINESS CENTER A FEE WILL APPLY TO THE .FOLLOWING
amenities t0 h0fel guests and residence. • AVANYU SPA AND FITNESS CENTER SERVICES;
owners. Some hotel Services and al'1 tniiles + ROOFTOP POOL AND HOT TUBS
• STORAGE LOCKER, APPROX. 4'X8' • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PROVIDED
wit] be available f1C,2 O( charge: some Services BY ROCKRESORTS
• ELECTRONIC KEY CARD BUILDING AND
and aritnitles Will be available for a fee. ROOM ACCESS • RENTAL MANAGEMENT AND
Services and amenities are subject to • ONE-TOUCH TELEPHONE ACCESS TO RESERVATION PROGRAM AVAILABLE
seasonal Hours and availability and rngv be HOTEL SERVICES PLUS DIRECT DIAL • DAILY MAID SERVICE AND ADDITIONAL
reasonably adjusted from time to time. IN AND OUT HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES AVAILABLE
• HOTEL MESSAGE SERVICE UPON REQUEST
• CABLE TV ACCESS • LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING
SERVICES AND AMENITIES INCLUDED IN . WIRELESS, HIGH -SPEED INTERNET • PACKAGE AND MAIL SERVICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION DUES: ACCESS • COORDINATION OF HOSPITALITY AND
• VALET PARKING • ACCESS TO 24 -HOUR MAINTENANCE
CATERED EVENTS WITHIN RESIDENCE
• BELL SERVICE OR HOTEL
• FLORIST AND PLANT CARE
• CONCIERGE SERVICES AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THE HOTEL: . DOG WALKING (FOR OWNERS ONLY)
• SKI /BOOT STORAGE & VALET SERVICES
ASSIGNED UNDERGROUND PARKING
+ FINE DINING RESTAURANT + REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF
(ONE SPACE FOR 2- AND 3-BEDROOM
• LOBBY BAR PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN
RESIDENCES AND PENTHOUSES., TWO •
APRES SKI DECK RESIDENCE, E.G., APPLIANCES
SPACES FOR 4 -, 5- AND 6- BEDROOM • 24-HOUR ROOM SERVICE
4/20/2010
8 -3 -4
*What did Vail Resorts
represent to the Town
of Vail in the
Approval Process?.
Initial contract language
• Valet Service. The Airspace Lot Owner
acknowledges and agrees that the Project Owner,
in connection with the operation of the Project
Improvements, may, but is not obligated to, offer
valet parking from time to time.
To the extent such valet service is provided
by the Project Owner, the Airspace Lot
Owner, its tenants and their respective
Permitees may, but are not required, to
use the valet service.
How many parkin spaces will I brave? residences and pcnihouscs with two and three
bedrooms will have use of one arl,n s ace, These with four or morc bedrooms will have use
of t voparkin arranged in fmd.em fashion,
Where willy parka sce�s)e I��the�j Fill he located on the upper paring level, near an
elevator convenient to your residence wing,
Men will my Quests park ? Guests will use valet puking,
K_,_7
14 -5 -2: OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
• K. Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be
allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent
(50 %) of the required parking on site. Valet
parking shall be calculated utilizing an eight
foot by eighteen foot (8'x 18') parking space
for each car (parallel spaces must be 9 feet
x 20 feet). Cars may be parked up to four (4)
cars deep in a valet lot stacked in a manner
in which any vehicles that may have to be
temporarily moved by a valet to gain access
to another vehicle can be temporarily parked
in a location that does not block public
drive /pedestrian aisles or a designated
parking space.
TWO VERSIONS OF THE TRUTH:
TWO INTERPRETATIONS -SAME
INFORMATION
An examp le from the
World o Nevada Politics
HARRY REID'S GREAT UNCLE
• Judy Wallman, a professional
genealogy researcher in
southern California was doing some
personal work on her own family tree.
She discovered that Senator Harry
Reid's great -great uncle, Remus Reid,
was hanged for horse stealing and
train robbery in Montana in 1889.
Both Judy and Harry Reid share this
common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows
in Montana territory:
- 40
r ..
On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is
this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana
Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer
six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged
in 1889.'
REID'S VERSION
• So Judy recently e- mailed Senator
Harry Reid for information about their
great -great uncle.
• Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff
sent back the following biographical
sketch for her genealogy research:
OUR SENATE LEADER
e
• "Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in
the Montana Territory. His business empire
grew to include acquisition of valuable
equestrian assets and intimate dealings with
the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he
devoted several years of his life to government
service, finally taking leave to resume his
dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a
key player in a vital investigation run by the
renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889,
Remus passed away during an important civic
function held in his honour when the platform
upon which he was standing collapsed. "
Statutory Interpretation
•Plain meaning of the language
•Read in context
•Take direction
•Use definitions provided in statut
•Align the interpretation with
purpose
Mr. Ruther's response to our inquiry
Dear Mr, Ze in ,
Thank you for your letter of February 12, 2009, expressing several areas of concern with
regards to the Arrabelle at Vail Square project in Lionshead. The purpose of my letter is
to provide you with a written response to your questions and concerns.
Parkin
The parking requirements for private development in the Town of Vail are established by
Chapter 10, Off Street Parking and Loading, and Chapter 14, Development Standards,
Vail Town Code, According to Section 14-5-2(K), Valet Parking, in part,
"Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceedfifiy percent (50yo) of the
required parking on site. "
The Vail Town Code does not require the assignment or designation of private parking
spaces. I will be contacting representatives from Vail Resorts Development Company to
better understand the current parking operations at the Arrabelle at Vail Square project
and commit to following up with you on this matter.
4/20/2010
8 -3 -16
14 -5 -2: OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
• K. Valet Parking: Valet parkin shall be allowed, but
shall not exceed fifty percent �50 %) of the required
parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated
utilizing an eight foot by eighteen foot (8'x 18')
parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be
9 feet x 20 feet). Cars may be parked up to four (4)
cars deep in a valet lot stacked in a manner in
which any vehicles that may have to be temporarily
moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle
can be temporarily parked in a location that does
not block public drive /pedestrian aisles or a
designated parking space.
Chapter 5 PARKING LOT AND PARKING STRUCTURE
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL USES
• 14 -5 -1: MINIMUM STANDARDS: This section
(table 5) specifies the parking lot standards for all
uses excluding residential uses under three (3) units
and including, but not limited to, commercial, retail,
office, restaurant, institutional, hotel,
accommodation, and multiple - family development.
These standards are subject to all conditions and
exceptions described herein. These standards shall
be considered the minimum standards. When two
(2) or more standards conflict the more
restrictive standard shall apply.
14 -2 -1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
*VALET PARKING: A service
provided with or without a fee
where vehicle is dropped at a
designated location and an
employee drives said vehicle to a
parking space.
14 -1 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
• It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and
standards to ensure the general health, safety, and
welfare of the community. These rules, regulations,
and standards are intended to ensure safe and
efficient development within the town of Vail for
pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response
traffic, and the community at large. The
development standards will help protect propert
values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the
community and ensure adequate development of
property within the town of Vail. (Ord. 29(2005) 7
78)
Summary
•Lawsuits are slow
•Our interpretation of Statue
promotes settlement, most
consistent with context, direction
definitions, and purpose of the
Town of Vail ordinance.
MEETING RESULTS (IN PART)
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 22, 2010
O1:OOpm
MN
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
Commission members present (item #2) commission members absent (item #2)
Rollie Kjesbo Luke Cartin - recused
Micheal Kurz David Viele
Sarah Paladino
Bill Pierce
Tyler Schneidman
2. An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail
Administrator's determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code,
does not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must
operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Appellant: Donald Zelkind
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Uphold Administrator's determination
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Cartin recused)
Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Commissioner Cartin recused himself due to a conflict of interest as Vail Resorts was
the owner /operator of the Arrabelle project and left the hearing.
Donald Zelkind, gave a power point presentation discussing how the parking has been
allocated and is being marketed at the Arrabelle.
Dominic Mauriello, speaking as a local planner /member of the public, stated that he was
not representing any client, but was involved with the creation of the language which
was adopted with regard to valet parking design and obligation. He highlighted several
projects which would be impacted if the interpretation made by staff was overturned. He
suggested that if a different interpretation was desired by the Commission he asked that
an application be filed to amend the Code and proper notification be given to affected
properties.
Caroline White, land use counsel for Vail Resorts, stated that the company agreed with
the interpretation made by staff and encouraged the Commission to uphold the Staff's
interpretation.
Donald Zelkind, stated that he felt the statute was quite clear and should be interpreted
as he is suggesting.
4/20/2010
8-4 -1
I along with all the owners within the residential homeowners association at the Arrabelle
at Vail Square are all adversely affected by the Planning Commission's Administrators
ruling on the interpretation of § 14 -5 -2 K. § 14 -5 -2 K states that "Valet parking shall be
allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the required parking on site."
Current status of parking at the Arrabelle
Total of spaces in the parking structure is approximately three hundred.
a) One hundred are attributed to the Arrabelle Club. The Town of Vail allowed Vail
Resorts to sell two Arrabelle Parking Club memberships for each of these spaces.
(As a separate issue we were denied access to political process when this was
presented to the Town because VR was our condo association manager and did
not notify any homeowner or board member of the hearing.) Furthermore Vail
Resorts offers daily parking for these one hundred spaces. For the one hundred
spaces designated for the Arrabelle Club, Vail Resorts is selling the same
space up to three times. These are 100% Valet Parking.
b) Ninety -one of the spaces are attributed to the residential owners. The promotional
literature, the initial sales contract, and even a clarification from the VR's legal
department all indicate that homeowners would have assigned, self designated
parking spaces on GI (see exhibits 1,2,3). Instead 100% of the owners are
required to employ Valet Parking. The entire GI parking area is currently
leased to the Marriot. These spaces were sold once to the homeowners and
are being leased now to the Marriot.
c) The remainder of the spaces within the parking structure (approximately 110)
services the hotel and retail spaces. All the hotel retail clients must use the Valet
service. A small handful of employees and retail tenants appear to have self -
parking. Approximately 90% of these spaces must use Valet Parking.
In summary, the parking structure is over 95% Valet parking, with no assigned self -
parking privileges for homeowners or handicapped persons.
The first time I broached this issue with the Town of Vail, I received a letter from
George Ruther, that encouraged me to believe that VR was in violation that the § 14-
5-2 K of the town code, and furthermore Mr. Ruther indicated to me orally that VR
had represented to the Town of Vail during the approval process that homeowners
would have assigned self designated spaces. See attached correspondence exhibit 4
my letter to the Town of Vail, and exhibit 5 Mr. Ruther's reply.
I was surprised when I learned that the Planning and Environment Commission (PEC)
administrator had interpreted the ordinance in such a way that exonerated VR's operation
of the Arrabelle Parking structure. Specifically, the PEC had determined that the
ordinance referred to Valet parking spaces and not the service of valet parking. The PEC
claims to be interested only in the number of blocked in spaces and not regulating or
ensuring the operation of valet parking services.
1
4/20/2010
8 -5 -1
I am here to Appeal the ruling of the PEC, and suggest the following arguments to adopt
our interpretation of the ordinance.
L The PEC interpretation and process are tainted and would result in an absurd
result;
IL The plain meaning of the statute is clear and unambiguous; and,
111. If there is any ambiguity, looking at the statue for direction in the interpretation
and definition of the words should control, not an unverified narrative of what a
consultant whose advice was not followed may have thought.
I. The PEC interpretation and process are tainted and would result in an absurd
result
A. Tainted process
I was asked to provide our basis for interpreting the statute, weeks in advance, while I
was given a copy of the basis for the administrators ruling roughly two hours before the
hearing. This is not exactly procedurally even handed.
The administrator's (this unidentified person) reasoning is based primarily on the
unverified, unrecorded narrative of what a previous consultant envisioned. The
unidentified consultant was not identified nor were his recommendations followed. He
recommended no more that 25% blocked in parking spaces would be acceptable.
Although looking to the legislative record is a method of determining the meaning of the
statute in the eyes of the legislature that adopted the language, reciting the unverified
narrative of a consultant whose recommendations were not followed has little value in
resolving any ambiguity.
Lastly, when Dominic Mauriello spoke against our interpretation of the ordinance he
identified himself only as a member of the community, and past participant in the PEC,
and did not identify himself an advocate for VR, nor did he disclose his wife's previous
position as in house counsel for VR. The only reason I am aware of this misidentification
is that I lingered for a moment after PEC's ruling and heard Mr. Mauriello identify
himself on the next agenda item as Dominic Mauriello appearing on the behalf of Vail
Resorts. The members of the PEC knew better, but did not correct the record. The lack of
procedural due process, adopting the supposed reasoning of an unidentified consultant
whose advise was not followed, and the misidentification of advocates for Vail resorts
masquerading as merely concerned members of the public, I believe taints the PEC's
process and findings.
B. Absurd result
In addition to permitting VR to force the condominium owners to valet park all their cars,
and exonerate VR's operation of the Arrabelle parking structure, the current ruling would
also permit 150 of the 300 parking spaces within the Arrabelle parking garage to be
2
4/20/2010
8 -5 -2
blocked in spaces. Hence, under the PEC's reading of the statute, despite having 50% of
the spaces blocked in spaces, failure to provide valet services would be permitted,
acceptable, and in compliance with the ordinance. Can you imagine the pandemonium of
150 cars blocked in, and the owners of those cars would have to identify which cars had
to moved and arrange for moving them themselves before the vehicle owner could exit
the parking structure? Does it really make sense to say that the ordinance does not
regulate valet parking services? This would be a very serious problem in any of the large
parking structures in the Town of Vail. This absurd result should be sufficient reason
alone not to accept the administrators interpretation of § 14 -5 -2 K ( "Valet parking shall
be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the required parking on site- see
exhibit 4 page 4)."
II. The plain meaning of the statute is clear and unambiguous
If the purpose of the ordinance was to regulate only parking spaces and not the operation
of valet parking - services, it is our position that the statute should have used the term
"blocked in spaces" and not the term Valet Parking. In that way "blocked in spaces"
would unambiguously refer to the type of spaces in a parking structure, while "valet
parking" retains the ordinary use of the term. See attached exhibit 6 the standard
dictionary definitions.
III. To resolve ambiguity, one must look first to the statute for direction in the
interpretation and definition of the words, and not, to an unverified narrative of
what an unidentified consultant whose advice was not followed may have thought.
If there really remains any ambiguity after consulting the Standard English dictionaries as
to the plain meaning of the term "valet parking ", the entire statute should be examined to
determine which of the two meanings should control. Reading the entire statute in
context, the statutes gives specific guidance on how to deal with ambiguities, provides a
definition of the term "valet parking ", and also recites the purposes of the statute. The
guidance of the statute, the definition provided in the statute, and matching the purpose of
statute against the two possible meanings, all lead to the conclusion that "valet parking"
applies to the "service" and not only to the configuration of "spaces" within a parking
structure. Only after exhausting the plain meaning and examining the use of the term
"valet parking" in context, should one look at the legislative record. Even then, the
presumed, unverified insight into a consultants reasoning whose recommendations were
not followed hardly rises to the level of a recorded legislative record. The purpose of
examining the legislative record is to give us insight into what the legislators not
consultants were thinking when the statute was adopted.
A. Statutory guidance -When two (2) or more standards conflict, the more
restrictive standard shall apply.
§ 14 -5 -1 states unambiguously:
4/20/2010
8 -5 -3
when two standards could apply then the more restrictive standard shall apply.
Please see attached exhibit 7, page 1, the code guidance on two standards. The
question before the council is how to interpret the language of § 14 -5 -2 K that states:
Valet Parking: Valetparking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent
(50 %) of the required parking on site. See Exhibit 7 page 4.
The more restrictive interpretation would require that no more that 50% of the
spaces in the parking structure could be "blocked in spaces" and that no more than
50% of the cars that are parked could be parked using a "valet service." The PEC
would encourage you to use the least restrictive standard when the statute itself
guides us to employ the more restrictive standard.
B. Statutory definition
If the guidance alone were not sufficient to resolve any perceived ambiguity, the drafters
of the statute provided a clear and unambiguous definition of "valet parking."
§ 14 -2 -1: Definitions of Words and Terms: states:
VALET PARKII G: A service provided with or without a fee where vehicle is dropped at
a designated location and an employee drives said vehicle to a parking space. See
Exhibit 8.
There is no way of escaping the conclusion that "valet parking" refers to the service itself
under the definition provided within the statute.
C. Fitting the statute to the purpose
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly the statute itself provides the scope and purpose of
the legislation. The section dealing with the intent and purpose should be examined in its
entirety.
§ 14 -1 -1: Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards
to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules,
regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within
the town of Vail for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the
community at large. The development standards will help protect property values, ensure
the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property
within the town of Vail. (Ord. 29(2005) § 78) Exhibit 9.
The purpose of the statute is not confined to the number of "blocked in spaces" but
specifically states that the scope of the legislation is to include "vehicular traffic" that is
the movement of cars not just where cars may be permitted to be parked. Since the Town
4
4/20/2010
8 -5 -4
of Vail has an easement through the circular driveway of the Arrabelle, the Town of Vail
has an interest in the "vehicular traffic." Specifically, 95 % valet parking service
produces a significant impediment to traffic in the circular driveway of the Arrabelle.
Allowing homeowners to park there own cars would reduce the congestion within the
circular driveway and facilitate safe and efficient vehicular traffic.
One could also argue that the general health safety and welfare would be promoted when
individual owners are responsible for parking their own vehicles.
With regard to avowed purpose to help protect property values, there is no question that
self - parking with the option of "valet service" enhances property values more than forced
100% valet parking service. If forcing homeowners to use 100% valet service did not
result in a diminution in the property values there would not be a class action lawsuit
pertaining to this issue at the Arrabelle. See attached complaint Exhibit 10.
In summary, we encourage the Town Council to interpret the statute that states:
Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent
(50 %) of the required parking on site. See Exhibit 7 page 4.
To mean that a facility that requires almost 95% of the vehicles to employ valet parking
services is in violation of the ordinance. To restrict the ordinance to merely categorizing
the configuration of spaces within the parking structure between "blocked in" and free
access spaces would produce the absurd result. If a large parking structure, for example
500 spaces, and 250 of those spaces were "blocked in" and there were no valet "service ",
this would be in compliance with the ordinance. It would be chaos to impose upon 50%
of vehicle owners the responsibility of tracking down and /or moving cars just to exit the
parking structure. This would not be effective town planning and regulation. The plain
meaning of the term valet parking as defined in several English dictionaries refers to the
service of valet parking, not the configuration of spaces within a parking structure. An
examination of the statute provides guidance to impose the more restrictive standard, and
that would be to regulate the service of valet parking. The statute itself defines valet
parking as a service Interpreting the statute to regulate the percent of allowed valet
service rather than merely regulating the number of blocked in spaces is most consistent
with the stated purposes of the statute to promote safety, vehicular traffic, and promote
property values.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: March 15, 2010
Donald Ray Zelkind MD, JD
HOA president, Arrabelle Condominium Association
5
4/20/2010
8 -5 -5
us
Appeals Form
� � Department of Community Development
:'v' , F 75 South Frontage Road., Vail, Colorado 81657
tel: 970.179.2139 fax: 970.479.2452
vveb: ww w.vailgov.com
General Information:
This form is required for filing an appeal of a Staff, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmental
Commission action /dec €s "ton. A complete form and associated requirements must be submitted to the
Community Development Department within twenty (20) calendar days of the disputed action /decision.
A ction / Decision being appealed = ate— reca_icn of Town of Va> I G 14-5-2 with eca=d to [he
Val,t P-kinq at the ?:--a -_lie
Dateof Action/ Decision: e2 ePbNa rli
Board or Staff person rendering action/ decision.
Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (yes) (no),..
If yes, are you an adjacent property owner? (yes) (no) s
Name of Appellant(s): no.sia Ray 7--d . n. J�, P s_dert of Axxabeile > _.a Hlm-- A— Ciatio
Mailing Address L, P c - 11rir 3G
Phone:
Physical Address in flail 575 Gio s ^ead Glace 'unit 343, Vail, Ce KES-
Legal Description of Appellant s) Prop n Vail. Lot: — Block:. Subdivision:
Appellant(s) Signature(s):
(Attach a list oT ri s if more space is required).
Submittal Requirements:
1. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an
"aggrieved or adversely affected person ".
2. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please
cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed.
3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of
property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners
'whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right -of -way, stream, or other
intervening barrier).
4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3 .).
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO:
TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657.
For Office Use Only:
Date Received: Activity No.:
Plattner: Project Nn.:
F: \cdev PER - IIrS\ Pl anning `Applications'tAppeais.doc 12 -5 -2685
AT VAIL SQUARE
HOTEL SERVICES & AMENITIES AVAILABLE TO
RESIDENCE OWNERS & THEIR GUESTS
The Arrabeile Hotel will Offer Services and . BUSINESS CENTER A FEE WILL APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING
amenities to hotel guests and residence • AVANYU SPA AND FITNESS CENTER SERVICES:
owners. Some hotel services and anleniiies • ROOFTOP POOL AND HOT TUBS
• STORAGE LOCKER, APPROX. 4'X S' ' PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PROVIDED
will be available free of charge; some services BY ROCKRESORTS
• ELECTRONIC KEY CARD BUILDING AND
and aYY7enitleS Will be available for a fee, ROOM ACCESS RENTAL MANAGEMENT AND
Services and amenities are Subject to • ONE-TOUCH TELEPHONE ACCESS TO RESERVATION PROGRAM AVAILABLE
Seasonal hours and availability and may be HOTEL SERVICES PLUS DIRECT DIAL • DAILY MAID SERVICE AND ADDITIONAL
reasonably adjusted from time to time.
N AND OUT HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES AVAILABLE
• HOTEL MESSAGE SERVICE UPON REQUEST
• CABLE TV ACCESS • LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING
SERVICES AND AMENITIES INCLUDED IN .. WIRELESS, HIGH -SPEED INTERNET • PACKAGE AND MAIL SERVICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION DUES: ACCESS • COORDINATION OF HOSPITALITY AND
• VALET PARKING
• ACCESS TO 24 -HOUR MAINTENANCE CATERED EVENTS WITHIN RESIDENCE
• BELL SERVICE OR HOTEL.
• FLORIST AND PLANT CARE
• CONCIERGE SERVICES AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THE HOTEL: . DOG WALKING (FOR OWNERS ONLY)
• SKI/BOOT STORAGE & VALET SERVICES
• ASSIGNED UNDERGROUND PARKING
• FINE DINING RESTAURANT ' REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF
(ONE SPACE FOR 2- AND 3- BEDROOM • LOBBY BAR PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN
RESIDENCES AND PENTHOUSES, TWO
• APRLS SKI DECK RESIDENCE, E.G., ,APPLIANCES
SPACES FOR 4 -, 5- AND 6- BEDROOM • 24 -HOUR ROOM SERVICE
RESIDENCES AND PENTHOUSES) • DIRECT HOTEL BILLING PRIVILEGES
24 -HOUR. FRONT DESK FOR HOTEL.. RESTAURANT, SPA, FOOD
24-HOUR SECURITY AND BEVERAGE SERVICES
• GREAT ROOM
N' TF{E PROFFRiY REPO RE9ffIFt ED 9�" �ETI'E yFC� M ANn RF11tJ'Jr,6EFA F '� .L p �- ,.�pEg ML21rTS .pljj3!�6LL lft�A +�is - PIiAR@RCY+ ��l �••• �~:..
SEE7ANU:5L'18J ECY f0: F10pIFICP,7'ICFF7u T - •: -'. 1 . ..sx.. r.x Ate`__ '_ -�+- ,�_,;, ^a"Cgi .:n _�.. � ..}?i'a_ - - �"�•. -e,. ���Ai lb N;�RE5EN.TED H�RF pRE
_Oft Et 4M]NATI�WjfH'TH E'G VEI pER;'7�S `T p [$`(�} } 8, 7 RTF' EM MHiT5 AR�fiI"3YE: P(3O�Yy [rFVII TpP.fiEM ARI S h:NC:
D04 vk, -H�SORTS DF.WEL9PMENT-
carnRA nv:�,w._ :; -,� ,° '�.;�;;... �_:,w.,, ����� S��"F.�`m`s..�'��'�.�':��'_ ..,,_nt __.,.., x. a�'�s,'�- ?Q:.T- ��.- �.ni�,�...�. _ __.mot;.,.
DRAFT
APRIL 8, 2005
> reasonably necessary to gain vehicular and pedestrian access between the Project
Improvements, the Allocated Parking and the public roads and rights- of-way
adjoining the Project Improvements; and
(2) An easement for the benefit of the Airspace Lot Owner, its tenants
and their respective Permittees as may be reasonably necessary for access to and
from the Airspace Lot generally and between, the Airspace Lot and the Allocated
Parking (a) through, on or in the common corridors, hallways, entrances and
lobbies located within the Project Improvements; (b) via the elevators and
escalators within the Project Improvements except any elevators specifically
designated as elevators for Project employees or operations and not generally
open for public use; and (c) via all stairs and stairwells throughout the Project
Improvements..
(ii) Parking Easement, A parking easement for the benefit of the Airspace
Lot Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees to use and occupy for vehicular
parking purposes a total of [941 parking spaces located in the Project Improvements, the
initial location of which is identified on the attached Exhibit C (the "Allocated Parking
The Project Owner may relocate the Allocated Parking from time to time so long as the
Allocated Parking continues to be located in the Project Improvements; provided,
however that the Project Owner may not relocate those f_1 parking spaces within the
Allocated Parking labeled as "Permanent Allocated Parking." The Allocated Parking may
."_ be used by the Airspace Lot Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees only at
those times when the Airspace Lot Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees are
in residence within the Airspace Lot. To the extent the Airspace Lot Owner, its tenants
and their respective Permittees are not in residence within the Airspace Lot, the Project
Owner may use or occupy the Allocated Parking. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Airspace Lot Owner may store one vehicle in each of the parking spaces located in the
Permanent Allocated Parking, regardless of whether in residence within the Airspace Lot
so long as the Airspace Lot Owner leaves keys for such vehicle(s) with the valet for the
Project Improvements.
(1) Use of the Parking Easement. No commercial vehicles, boats,
motor homes, trailers or other recreational vehicles may be parked in the
Allocated Parking. No abandoned, inoperable or unlicensed vehicle may be
parked in the Allocated Parking. Except in the event of an emergency, no vehicle
maintenance or repairs may be performed within any portion of the Allocated
Parking. None of the Allocated Parking may be used for storage of any personal
property or other items. Excessive noise, including but not limited to automobile
stereo systems, racing of engines and use of horns is prohibited within the
Allocated Parking. If a vehicle is equipped with an alarm system that continues to
sound in excess of thirty minutes, the Project Owner may have the vehicle towed
from the Allocated Parking at the vehicle owner's expense. The owner of any
vehicle leaking oil or other automotive fluid onto any portion of the Allocated
Parking is responsible for any expenditure to restore same to a clean condition.
Under no circumstances will the Project Owner be held responsible for any
625376.8 ARHANS 0411 41515 23 7 PM 5 1
4/20/2010
8 -8 -1
DRAFT
APRIL 8, 2005
damage to or theft of any vehicle parked within the Allocated Parking or any
items within any such vehicle.
(2) Valet Service, The Airspace Lot Owner acknowledges and agrees
that the Project Owner, in connection with the operation of the Project
Improvements, may, but is not obligated to, offer valet parking from time to time.
To the extent such valet service is provided by the Project Owner, the Airspace
Lot Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees may, but are not required,
to use the valet service. The Airspace Lot Owner acknowledges and agrees that if
the Project Owner offers valet parking the cost of providing valet service to the
Airspace Lot Owner will be included in the "Operating Costs" (as defined below
in Section 6(b)) regardless of whether the Airspace Lot Owner utilizes such valet
service.
(iii) Amenities Easement An easement for the benefit of the Airspace Lot
Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees over the Project Improvements as
reasonably necessary for access to and from and use of the Amenities. By taking title to
the Airspace Lot, the Airspace Lot Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Project
Owner may alter, abandon, or relocate any or all of the Amenities from time to time, in
its sole and absolute discretion, and that this easement will continue only for so long as
the Amenities exist. Except for those facilities expressly included in the definition of
"Amenities," no other Project Improvements or facilities are included and no facilities
added to the Project by the Project Owner in the fixture shall be included in the definition
of "Amenities" unless expressly provided for in written amendment to this Agreement.
The Airspace Lot Owner will abide by all Mules regarding use of the Amenities imposed
by the Project Owner from time to time, including paying any charge for services
provided in the Spa and Great Room, so long as such charges are the same as Hotel
guests are charged. If the Airspace Lot Owner fails to abide by such Rules, the Project
Owner may, in addition to and without waiving any other remedies available to it, restrict
the Airspace .Lot Owner's access to any or all of the Amenities, in accordance with its
normal procedures under such circumstances. In the event that the Airspace Lot Owner
is 60 or more days delinquent in the payment of any Expense Payment or Capital
Payment, the Project Owner, in addition to and without waiving any other remedies
available to it may restrict the Airspace Lot Owner's access to any or all Amenities.
(iv) Utility Easement An easement for the benefit of the Airspace Lot
Owner, its tenants and their respective Permttees over and across any Project Service
Elements as may be reasonably necessary for the continuance of utility services,
plumbing services, sanitary and storm sewer services, water supply, telecommunications
and other services to the Airspace Improvements.
(v) Structural Easements
(1) An easement for the benefit of the Airspace Lot Owner over and
across the Project Structure, including without limitation, the exterior enclosure
. system and roof of the Project Improvements, as may be reasonably necessary for
adequate enclosure against the elements and structural support of the Airspace
525376.8 AMANS W11145 2:37 PM 6
4/20/2010
8 -8 -2
Sep 02 08 11:15a DAVE COLE 4042552677 p.1
To: Bart Peaslee ..Fax.. 888- 839 -4113
From : David A. Cole
Sept 2 , 2008. 4 pages including cover
4/20/2010
8 -9 -1
Sep 02 08 11:15a DAVE COLE 4042552677 p.2
ARRABELLE AT FAIL SQUARE CLOSING PROCESS
AND GENERAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
APRIL 2005
SALES PROCESS
EARNEST MONEY
As you may recall, you were required to submit $100,000 along with your initial Reservation. In
accordance with the terms of that Reservation, you must submit certain Additional Funds when
you deliver an executed Purchase Agreement to Slifer Smith & Frampton,VARE. The amount
of Additional Funds equals 10 % of the Purchase Price less the previously deposited amount of
5100,000. The Additional Funds can be submitted via -Aire transfer OR as a check (made out to
ARRABELLE AT VAIL SQUARE, LLC) attached to your Purchase Agreement. Your Earnest
Money deposit will draw interest until Seller commences construction. Seller will deliver
written notice to Purchaser and the Title Company at the time of Construction Commencement.
An additional deposit will be due at that time, in accordance with the Purchase Agreement,
LOAN
Although you may acquire a new loan in connection with your payment of the Purchase Price,
there is no Purchase Agreement contingency for any new loan. Accordingly, we recommend that
you apply for your loan at least 60 days before closing.
CLOSING COSTS
Closing costs are those costs normally paid by a purchaser of real property. For present
purposes, the closing costs include, without limitation, recording fees, transfer assessment,
charges for delivery of closing documents if outside of Eagle County, one -half of closing fees,
not to exceed $500. These costs are further defined in Section 93 of the Purchase Agreement.
TAKING TITLE
The Land Title closer will consult with you prior to closing to confirm how you plan to take title.
You may elect to take title in joint tenancy or as tenants -in- common, if applicable. Please
consult your legal counsel and tax advisor as title may have legal and tax ramifications.
RESERVATION ASSIGNMENT
Arrabelle Reservations are NOT assignable. Purchaser may, nevertheless, be allowed to assign
Purchaser's reservation to a member of Purchaser's immediate family, a trust created for the
benefit of Purchaser or Purchaser's immediate family, or a corporation or other entity -which
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Purchaser (each a "Permitted
Assignment "), in accordance with the Purchase Agreement. Prior to Purchaser making any
Permitted Assi Purchaser must provide Seller with comprehensive documentation
evidencing to Seller's reasonable satisfaction that the proposed assignment is in fact a Permitted
Assignment. Seller reserves the right to refuse any assignment that is not adequately supported.
Such an assignment, if permitted, will take place in connection with Closing, and the form will
0-,'15/05
4/20/2010
8 -9 -2
Sep 02 08 11:15a DAVE COLE 4042552677 p.3
be available from Land Title no earlier than September 1, 2005. This is further defined in the
Purchase Agreement, Section 18.1.
SIGNATURE PARTIES
Both Purchaser and Seller must sign the Purchase Agreement and related documents.
GENERAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
TIMING
Wbat steps should I take if I cannot be reached between now and Mav 2" Notify our office
at Vail's New Dawn Preview Center at 866- NEW -VAIL of the dates you will be out of town and
provide instructions on how best to communicate with you during that time.
RESIDENCE PRODUCT
How can I see the floorplan of mv_ residence? The floor plans are available at
w
Can I change the floor plan? The Change Order process is included as an exhibit to the
Purchase Agreement and addresses the procedure for making any changes to the Unit.
Are all floor coverings included in the Purchase Price? Hardwood floors are included in the
living room, dining room, kitchen and entry. Stone tile is included in the bathrooms. Carpet is
included in the bedrooms.
Where can I select my finishes? You can view the finishes at Vail's New Dativn Preview
Center. The Seller will mail you a "Finish Book" to review after contract.
Who do I contact to make finish selections uj2grades and/or cban es to my residence?
When is the deadline? Between approximately July 2005 and September 2005, we will
schedule an appointment with each purchaser to facilitate the selection of our "Standard
Finishes." Please refer to the Change Order procedures as outlined in the Purchase Agreement
for all other changes. We will not be prepared to discuss the feasibility of or costs associated
with PurchaserDirected Changes until approximately July 2005.
Can I do a "walk - through" prior to closinE? Yes, there is a walk - through provision in the
Purchase Agreement, and you will conduct your walk- through (scheduled with a company
representative) prior to closing.
Do I have to purchase light fixtures? The only (fixed) light fixture you will need to
purchase is the dining room fixture. All other (fixed) fixtures are provided.
What appliances are included? The range /oven, refrigerator /freezer, microwave oven,
dishwasher, disposal, and a washer and dryer are included in the Purchase Price.
04, 2
4/20/2010
8 -9 -3
Sep 02 08 11:15a DAVE COLE 4042552677 p.4
How many parking spaces will I have? Residences and penthouses with two and three
bedrooms will have use of one parkins; space. Those with four or mare bedrooms will have use
of two parking spaces arranged in tandem fashion.
Where will my parking space(s) be? It/they will be located on the upper parking level, near an
elevator convenient to your residence wing.
Where will my guests park? Guests will use valet parking.
Who provides the television, telephone, and Internet service? Television, phone and Internet
services will be available through the Hotel.
AMENITIES
Will I have access to the spa? Yes, the purchase of your residence includes access to the Spa.
Will there be a Ski/Board/Boot Valet? Yes, it will be located in the southeast quadrant of the
property on the ground level just opposite the Gondola and Chair S.
Do I get special skiing privileges? No.
Will there be any restaurants in the Arrabelle? Yes, there will be one hotel restaurant serving
breakfast, lunch and dinner and a pubMeli for lighter fare.
Can I use the Hotel Concierge? Yes, all Hotel services will be available to residence owners.
Will the hotel grovide a Business Center? If so can I use it? Yes the Hotel will have a
business center adjacent to the meeting roomlballrooms. We will provide standard business
center equipment with keycard access.
What are my HOA dues/fees? Homeowner fees are approximately $1.00 per square foot of
residential space per month. (Example: 2,000 sq. ft. 3 bedroom _ $2 per month).
OTHER QUESTIONS
Please direct any other legal questions (BY EMAIL ONLY) to rweilyQvailresorts.com NO
PHONE CALLS PLEASE.
d:'ArrnbcllelClasing ProcessVtrrzbelle Q &A- FINAL.dac
04115/05 3
4/20/2010
8 -9 -4
February 12, 2009
There are three areas of concern that I believe warrant the Town Councils attention and
would appreciate the town's cooperation in providing the information requested below:
A. Parking
Many of the homeowners purchased their property after having won a lottery for some
fifty units. Before and after the lottery, written literature was circulated to prospective
homeowners to induce them to enter the lottery and sign a purchase contract.
Homeowners were told they would have designated parking space /s near to the elevator
closest to their unit, and self - parking.
What we all were given after closing was a right to use the valet with no designated
space.
VRDC was well aware of the friction created by this apparent bait and switch scheme.
In October of 2008, long after VRDC was well on notice of the "parking problem" with
the Arrabelle condominium owners, VRDC apparently applied to triple the number of
parking memberships for sale at the Arrabelle Club from 100 to 300.
NO HOMEOWNER WAS EVER NOTIFIED THAT VRDC WAS APPLYING FOR
THIS ENLARGEMENT IN THE PARKING LOAD ON OUR SHARED PARKING
GARAGE. Is there a notice requirement to adjacent landowners, or those with parking
rights that may be affected by this change in the number of parking memberships? In all
fairness, shouldn't the homeowners or the homeowners association be notified?
I would like to see the statute that controls the notice requirement and any paperwork
filed by VRDC to reflect compliance with the statute. We would also like to have an
opportunity to express our concerns about the impact that this has upon our parking
rights, and request some sort of enforcement mechanism to ensure that the additional two
parking memberships do not infringe upon our allotment of parking spaces within the
shared garage.
This is a matter for the Town Council to address. If VRDC skirted the notice
requirements imposed by the town in its application to sell additional parking
memberships and the Arrabelle Club. I believe that VRDC should not be rewarded
by the town of Vail for violating the notice requirements contained in the zoning
and /or land use process.
B. Building
There are three large issues related to the construction of the Arrabelle. VRDC frequently
responds to building issues by stating that the Town of Vail conducted an inspection so
there cannot be design defect issue, or warranty issue.
4/20/2010
8 -10 -1
Access panels to whirlpool motors
There are no access panels to the whirlpool motors for the tubs in the master bathrooms.
Rock resorts has been providing complementary bubble bath salt cubes that will gum up
the motors. During our annual homeowners meeting VRDC has the temerity to claim that
tearing through grout joints, and removing marble tiles was the same as having an access
panel to the whirlpool motor. When the engineer /maintenance staff tried to repair a
whirlpool motor obtaining access to the motor required two days of digging around.
Does the Town of Vail building code require access panels for whirlpool tub
motors? Did this scheme really pass inspection? Is tearing through grout joints, and
removing marble tiles fall within the Town of Vail's definition of an access panel?
Falling roof tiles
The Arrabelle has a large walking mall and public area that attracts considerably more
pedestrians than the 66 condominium owners. The concrete roofing tiles have been
falling off the roof at an alarming rate. Beginning during the summer and increasing in
frequency this winter, chards of roofing tiles can be found underneath the circular parking
drive, the square itself, and Arrabelle balconies. One person has already been hit on the
head and fortunately he was wearing a ski helmet. This a design flaw in the roof that is
just over a year old and represents a hazard to the general public.
As a general public hazard this warrants the attention of the Town Council. VRDC
should be required to remedy this public hazard at their expense and give a
timetable for the repair process, and a plan to avoid casualties until the defect is
fixed!!!
Waterproofing of the steam shower units
VRDC and the subcontractors have given us contradictory information as to whether
green board or cement rock was used in the construction of the showers. Green board
according to the manufacturer is not designed for steam showers. At first we were told by
both the plumbers and VRDC that only green board was used, VRDC claimed that that
was all the town of Vail required. Later on VRDC claims that cement rock was use and
not green board.
To ensure that we do not have showers leaking into the units below, we would like
the assistance of the building inspector for the Town of Vail to determine what was
used, and what should have been used to waterproof the steam showers.
C. VRDC's attempt to avoid the Colorado Common Interest Act
The Colorado Common Interest Act was enacted to control common interest
communities created after July 1, 1992. Under the Colorado Common Interest
Ownership Act (the "Act ") utility expenses can only be apportioned according to
4/20/2010
8 -10 -2
use. One second before filing the Condominium Declarations with Eagle County, VRDC
filed another document entitled Reciprocal Easement and Covenant Agreement.
Self - dealing contract to bind homeowners in perpetuity
This RECA was a contract between the Arrabelle at Vail Square LLC (as project owner)
and the Arrabelle at Vail Square (as air space owner). Keith Fernandez president of
VRDC signed the contract with himself as the managing member for the Arrabelle at Vail
Square LLC. This RECA recites that the airspace owner (that was subsequently
subdivided in 66 condominiums) must pay 59% of the utilities of the entire project
including the hotel and retail spaces without regard to actual utility use as required by the
Colorado Common Interest Act.
In addition if the hotel wants to make a capital improvement to the lobby of the hotel then
the homeowners again must pay for 59% of the improvement to the hotel lobby. The 59%
apportionment of all costs and expenses associated with the hotel and retail project to the
homeowners without regard to use, benefit, and control is not fair and reasonable and
contrary to the "Act."
VRDC in the RECA document states that Arrabelle project falls outside the protections
offered to condominium owners and within the small development exemption provided
for in the "Act." The small development exception refers to projects with fewer than
twenty units or the average common expense per unit is less than four hundred dollars per
year.
VRDC claims the separation between the project lot and the airspace lot is a two -lot
development and hence under the 20 unit minimum. The fact is the Arrabelle is a 66 -unit
condominium development and the average annual per unit expense is over twenty five
thousand dollars. The "ACT" defines units, but VRDC in the RECA refers to lots.
The "Act" prohibits declarants such as VRDC from creating schemes to defeat the "Act"
and prohibits attempts to sign contracts to exempt a project from the "Act." The RECA
document is a scheme to skirt the "Act." The RECA document is an attempt to skirt the"
Act' by Mr. Fernandez signing a contract with himself.
The "Act' also requires the declarant to pay all expenses in connection with real estate
within the common interest community subject to development rights. The hotel and
retail space are development rights retained by VRDC, and under the `Act', VRDC
should bear all the expenses. The RECA is an attempt to pawn off 59% of the cost the
common interest community subject to development right onto the residential
condominium homeowners.
The "Act' also imposes a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is hard to envision
that all these systematic attempts to skirt the "Act' and shifts costs to homeowners could
be characterized as good faith dealings.
4/20/2010
8 -10 -3
The reason that the Town Council should be concerned about the RECA vs. "Act" is that
most of the Arrabelle homeowners are out of state purchasers and all are tourists that
came to Vail to purchase recreational property. If VRDC is generating schemes to defeat
the rights afforded condominium owners within the State of Colorado, VRDC is cheating
the Vail tourists. The town of Vail should be concerned how tourists are treated by
VRDC in these real estate transactions. To a large degree the well being of the town of
Vail is dependant upon satisfied tourists who are treated fairly and in good faith.
4/20/2010
8 -10 -4
TOWN VAVAIN
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 -479 -2138
FAX 970 -479 -2452
www. vailgou com
February 16, 2009
Mr. Donald Zelkind, President
Arrabelle at Vail Square Homeowners Association
650 West Lionshead Circle
Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: Arrabelle at Vail Square
Dear Mr. Zelkind,
Thank you for your letter of February 12, 2009, expressing several areas of concern with
regards to the Arrabelle at Vail Square project in Lionshead. The purpose of my letter is
to provide you with a written response to your questions and concerns.
_Parking
The parking requirements for private development in the Town of Vail are established by
Chapter 10, Off Street Parking and Loading, and Chapter 14, Development Standards,
Vail Town. Code. According to Section 14- 5 -2(K), Valet Parking, in part,
" Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceedfifiy percent (50 %) of the
required parking on site. "
The Vail Town Code does not require the assignment or designation of private parking
spaces. I will be contacting representatives from Vail Resorts Development Company to
better understand the current parking operations at the Arrabelle at Vail Square project
and commit to following up with you on this matter.
Public Notice Requirement
Public notice requirements for all development applications requiring a public hearing
before the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission are prescribed in
Section 12 -3 -6 (C), Notice, Vail Town Code. According to Section 12 -3 -6,
'1. Not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date set for the hearing before the
planning and environmental commission, the administrator shall cause a copy of
the notice to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the town.
4/20%1 WECYCLED PAPER
8 -11 -1
2. In addition to the published notice, the administrator shall cause a copy of the
notice to be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid to the owner or owners of
record of the property which is subject of the hearing and the owner or owners of
record of the property adjacent to the subject property (if the adjacent property is
a condominium project, notice may be mailed to the managing agen(, registered
agent or any member of'the board of directors thereof), for any amendment,
change or application relating to:
a. Changes in zoning district boundaries;
b. Conditional uses:
c. Variances;
d Development plans for special development districts; and
e. Changes in the density control sections in any of 'the zone districts.
3, The within required notices shall state the tune and place of the hearing, name
of the applicant. a general description of the subject property indicating its
location (which may be shown by map), a brief summary of'the subject matter of
the hearing, and a statement that the application or information relating to the
proposed change or amendment is available in the administrator's office during
regular business hours for review or inspection by the public. "
A review of the application materials submitted to the Town on behalf of the applicant
indicates that public notice was sent to twenty -one (21) adjacent property owners
including one notice sent to,
Arrabelle at Vail Square Residential Condominium Association, Inc.
Post Office Box 959
Avon, Colorado 81620
Conditional Use Permit
On September 15, 2008, Vail Resorts Development Company ( "VRDC "), submitted a
development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for
an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit to allow for up to three
members (owners) per parking space at the Arrabelle at Vail Square parking club. A
complete copy of the application materials submitted is attached for reference.
On October 27, 2008, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental granted an approval
of the applicant's request with the following condition,
"That the maximum number of Private Skier Club members shall not exceed, 200
full members, 100 non parking social memberships and the maximum number of
private parking spaces dedicated to the full members use shall not exceed 100
spaces total. A full member shall be defined as a .ski club member entitled to full
parking, spa and member's club services. "
Since the approval, as granted, only further optimizes the use of the original 100 spaces
and does not grant permission to expand the number of spaces eligible for inclusion in the
2
4/20/2010
8 -11 -2
parking club, there is no net reduction in the total number of parking spaces available for
residential uses. According to the Town's records, approximately ninety -one (91) spaces
are required for the residential uses.
Access Panels
The Town of Vail Building Code requires access to the motors of whirlpool tub units.
According to the 2005 National Electrical Cade ( "NEC "), in part,
''Sufficient access and working space shall be proWded and maintained about all
electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such
equipment "
On behalf of the Town of Vail, I will review the list of required inspections and
corrections completed by the Town of Vail Community Development Department to
determine the status of compliance with the applicable building codes. In return, I would
also request that the residential owners association please provide the Community
Development Department with a list of which residential units it believes may not
comply with the applicable building codes.
Falling Roof Tiles
On behalf of the Town of Vail, I have been in direct contact with Mr. Keith Fernandez,
President, and Mr. Thomas Miller, Director of Development, both of Vail Resorts
Development Company, regarding the issues of the failing roof tile system and falling
snow and ice from the Arrabelle at Vail Square project. In response to these two issues,
the Town of Vail has granted revised design approvals and electrical permits enabling
VRDC to immediately address the issues. For example, the Town of Vail expedited the
review of a design review application which facilitated eventual modifications to the
snow guard system a top the roof. A second example includes the issuance of amended
electrical permits granting VRDC permission to add additional heat tape to critical areas
on the building. Rest assured the Town of Vail has impressed upon VRDC the
importance of fully addressing this issue in a most timely manner.
Waterproofing of the Steam Shower Units
The Town of Vail Building Codes regulates the construction of steam shower units.
According to the 2003 International Building Code, in part,
"When gypsum board is used as a base for the or wall panels for tubs, shower or
water closet compartment walls, water - resistant gypsum backing board shall be
used as a substrate, " and, "water- resistant gypsum backing board shall not be
used in the following location: Where there will be direct exposure to water or in
areas subject to continuous high humidity. " Section 2509.3 IBC.
Further, according to the manufacturer's specifications..
"Gypsum wallboard (including green board) is NOT recommended for use where
there will be direct exposure to water or continuous high humidity conditions
a
4/20/2010
8 -11 -3
such as found in saunas, steam rooms, gang shoii•er rooms or s- imming pool
enclosures. A cementatious the backer, such as PermaBaseCR), or the use of a
Portland cement based plaster system should be considered. "
In reference to your request of the Town, please be mindful that neither "green board"
nor "cement rock" are waterproofing materials, and as such should not be relied upon as a
means for providing a waterproo f membrane between residential units.
Again, on behalf of the Town, I will review the list of required inspections and
corrections completed by the Town of Vail Community Development Department to
determine the status of compliance with the applicable building codes.
Colorado Common Interest Act
The Town of Vail is always interested as to how its residents, guests, visitors and
property owners are treated in real estate transactions that occur within the town. I have
noted your concerns and commit to speaking with both the Town Attorney and
representatives from Vail Resorts Development Company to better understand what role,
if any, the Town can play in ensuring your concerns are addressed. Also please
understand it is not the Town's role to determine if any wrong doings may have occurred
in the creation of the Arrabelle at Vail Square Condominium Association documents.
While not directly involved in the creation of the documents, the Town remains interested
in ensuring that all property owners are fairly treated and in no way condones, unintended
or otherwise, the abuse of the any of the Colorado's state statutes.
Again, thank you for your letter expressing several areas of concern with regards to the
Arrabelle at Vail Square project in Lionshead. It was truly a pleasure meeting with you
and several other owners at the Arrabelle at Vail Square project. Should you have any
additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call or write.
Sincerely,
George Ruther, AICP
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Cc: Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Vail Town Council
4
4/20/2010
8 -11 -4
1. Merriam- Webster online dictionary Main Entry: valet parking
Function: noun : a service that provides parking of motor vehicles by an attendant.
2. Definition of valet parking noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
valet parking noun [U] the service offered by a restaurant, hotel, etc. of putting your car
in a parking space
3. Longman Dictionary Contemporary English
valet parking also valet service [uncountable] American English the service of having
someone else park your car for you at a restaurant, hotel etc
4/20/2010
8 -12 -1
4/20/2010
8 -12 -2
nggr
+n+
n + + ++
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
nbb
4/20/2010
8 -12 -3
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:07 PM
Chapter 5
PARKING LOT AND PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR ALL USES
14 -5 -1: MINIMUM STANDARDS:
This section (table 5) specifies the parking lot standards for all uses excluding residential uses
under three (3) units and including, but not limited to, commercial, retail, office, restaurant,
institutional, hotel, accommodation, and multiple - family development. These standards are subject
to all conditions and exceptions described herein. These standards shall be considered the
minimum standards. When two (2) or more standards conflict the more restrictive standard shall
apply.
TABLE 5
PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS
Minimum Minimum
Angle Of One -Way Two -Way Minimum Parking Stall
Parking Space Drive Aisle Drive Aisle Size And Clearance
J
0° (parall 1 12' 1 ' 9' x 24'
45° 1 14' 1 ' 1 9' x 19' surface
enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of required parking
in lots with more than 15 parking spaces and
clearly marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed parking
60° 1 16' 24' 119'x 19' surface
9' x 18' enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of required parking
in lots with more than 15 parking spaces and
clearly marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed parking
75° 1 19' 1 24' 119'x 19' su rface
11 9'x 18' enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of required parking
in lots with more than 15 parking spaces and
clearly marked as such)
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 1 of 4
4/20/2010
8 -13 -1
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:07 PM
7' height clearance for enclosed parking
90° 1 24' 1 ' 9' x 19' su rface
9 18' enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of required parking
in lots with more than 15 parking spaces and
clearly marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed parking
Crossover drive 17' 30' n/a
aisle
Drive aisle with 12' 22' n/a
no parking
Minimum 12' 20' n/a
opening for a
parking
structure
entrance
(Ord. 28(2007) § 15: Ord., 9 -21 -1999)
14 -5 -2: OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
A. Surfacing: All parking areas shall be an improved paved surface.
B. On Street Parking: On street parking is not permitted for private developments. All public on
street parking provided in the right of way shall meet the standards included in this chapter
(table 5).
C. Location: Parking spaces, aisles and turning areas shall be entirely within lot lines and shall not
encroach on any public right of way. No parked vehicle shall overhang any public right of way.
D. Grades: All driveway and parking lot grades shall meet the requirements for "multiple- family
developments of more than 11 units" per table 1, "Driveway /Feeder Road Standards ", section
14 -3 -1 of this title.
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 2 of 4
4/20/2010
8 -13 -2
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:07 PM
E. Fire Lane: A fire lane shall be required and must be located within one hundred fifty feet (150') of
all areas of the parking lot.
F. Drainage: Proper drainage and storm water management shall be provided in all parking areas.
G. Snow Storage: All required parking and access areas shall be designed to accommodate on site
snow storage (i.e., within boundaries of lot and not within the right of way). A minimum
functional area equaling thirty percent (30 %) of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to
the paved area and designed to accommodate snow storage. Turf areas and other areas
without trees may be utilized for this purpose. If driveways are heated, then the minimum snow
storage area may be reduced to ten percent (10 %) of the required parking and access areas.
H. Landscaping: Not less than ten percent (10 %) of the interior surface area of unenclosed off
street parking areas containing fifteen (15) or more parking spaces shall be devoted to
landscaping. In addition, landscape borders not less than ten feet (10') in depth shall be
provided at all edges of parking lots containing thirty (30) or more parking spaces. A landscape
berm, wall, or fence of not less than four feet (4') in height, of the same architectural style as
the building, in combination with landscaping may be substituted for the landscape border. In
developments with cross access or shared parking facilities, the landscape border between the
developments shall not be required.
I. Backing Into The Street /Right Of Way: All parking for commercial and multiple - family
developments shall be designed to allow a vehicle forward access to any street or right of way.
J. Trailhead Parking: Trailhead parking lots accommodating up to fifteen (15) parking spaces may
be improved with gravel, but shall adhere to all other requirements contained in this chapter.
K. Valet Parking: Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the
required parking on site. Valet parking shall be calculated utilizing an eight foot by eighteen foot
(8'x 18') parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9 feet x 20 feet). Cars may be
parked up to four (4) cars deep in a valet lot stacked in a manner in which any vehicles that may
have to be temporarily moved by a valet to gain access to another vehicle can be temporarily
parked in a location that does not block public drive /pedestrian aisles or a designated parking
space.
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 3 of 4
4/20/2010
8 -13 -3
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:07 PM
L. Tandem Parking: Tandem parking is not permitted for commercial uses unless approved as valet
parking.
M. Parking Structure Ramp Grades: Table 6 (below) outlines requirements for cross slope, ramp
grade, and centerline grade break in parking structures.
TABLE 6
PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP GRADES
Parking Structure Maximum Maximum Maximum
Ramp Type Parking Ramp Centerline
Space Cross Grades Grade Break
Slope
Passenger vehicle only and internal to 6% 14% 8%
structure
Passenger vehicle only and external (exposed 6% Unheated 8%
to weather) 9%
Heated
12%
Commercial /loading and delivery 6% Unheated 6%
9%
Heated
1 1 . 12 %
(Ord. 28(2007) § 16: Ord., 9 -21 -1999)
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 4 of 4
4/20/2010
8 -13 -4
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
14 -2 -1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
Definitions not provided herein shall be as defined in title 12 , "Zoning Regulations ", and title 13 ,
"Subdivision Regulations ", of this code.
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ACCESS GRADE: The slope of a road, street, driveway, or other means of access, as measured
from the back side of pan along the centerline of the means of access. Grade shall be measured in
increments of twenty (20) horizontal feet.
ACCESS GRADE CHANGE: The algebraic sum of the difference of two (2) separate grades.
ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION INTO SETBACK: Distance which an architectural projection
(i.e., roof eave) may encroach into setback.
BMPs: Best management practices, which are accepted industry standards.
BACKOUT/TURNAROUND AREA: An area appropriately designed for a vehicle to back out and
turn around in a driveway or feeder road so that the vehicle can enter the public street facing
forward.
BATTER: The slope of the face of a retaining wall measured in units horizontal to units vertical.
BOULDER RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls that use boulders as the means to structurally
retain the earth.
BUILDING CODE: The uniform building code, as published by the International Conference of
Building Officials, 5360 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601 -2298.
BUILDING HEIGHT: The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing
roof or eave to the existing (natural) or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located
directly below said point of the roof or eave. Within any building footprint, height shall be measured
vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said
point on a proposed or existing roof.
BUILDING SETBACKS: A line or location within a lot or site which establishes the permitted
location of uses, structures, or buildings on a lot.
CPESC: Certified professional in erosion and sediment control.
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS): State of Colorado regulation (5 CCR 1002-
61) and as amended which covers discharges from specific types of industries including
construction sites, and storm sewer systems for municipalities as part of the water quality control
division (division) under the Colorado department of public health and environment (CDPHE).
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 1 of 10
4/20/2010
8 -14 -1
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
COMBINATION RETAINING WALL: A series of multiple retaining walls acting as one wall
structurally.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: Includes clearing, grading and excavation activities. Construction
does not include routine maintenance performed by public agencies, or their agents to maintain
original line and grade, historical hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility.
CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: Area critical to existing vegetation to ensure its existence.
CROSSOVER (SWITCHBACK OR 90 DEGREE TURN): The area on a driveway where the turning
angle of the centerline of the driveway curvature is ninety degrees (90 °) or greater.
CROSSOVER AISLE: The drive aisle where a ninety degree (90 °) or greater turn is required by a
vehicle to change drive aisles.
CURB CUT: The location where a driveway, parking area, or feeder road connects to a public
street or feeder road.
DECK SETBACK (Ground Level): A line or location within a lot or site which establishes the
permitted location of an at grade (within 5 feet of grade) deck or patio on a lot.
DECK SETBACK (Not Ground Level): A line or location within a lot or site which establishes the
permitted location of an above grade (greater than 5 feet above grade) deck or balcony on a lot.
DEFENSIBLE SPACE: An area around structures where nonfire wise plant material capable of
causing a fire to spread have been modified, cleared, or reduced to act as a barrier between an
advancing fire and resources or lives at risk.
DEMO /REBUILD: The destruction, demolition, or removal of fifty percent (50 %) or more of the
gross residential floor area of an existing dwelling unit or structure. The determination of the fifty
percent (50 %) shall be calculated upon "gross residential floor area" as defined in title 12 , "Zoning
Regulations ", of this code.
DENSITY: The number of dwelling units allowed per lot or the number of dwelling units allowed per
acre.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB): The body responsible for reviewing development proposals in
the town of Vail. The DRB focuses on evaluating projects based on this code, master plans, and
the design standards as set forth in this code, including architectural design, site planning,
landscaping, site disturbance, etc., and as established pursuant to title 3. chapter 4 of this code.
DEVELOPMENT: All activities involving earth disturbance and requiring a building or grading
permit, including, but not limited to, commercial or industrial developments, single- or multi - family
housing, construction of structures, roads and driveways, and installation of utilities.
DISTURBED AREA: That area of the land's surface disturbed by any work or activity upon the
property by means including, but not limited to, grading; excavating; stockpiling soil, fill, or other
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 2 of 10
4/20/2010
8- 14 -2
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
materials; clearing; vegetation removal; removal or deposit of any rock, soil, or other materials; or
other activities which expose soil. Disturbed area does not include the tillage of land that is zoned
for agricultural use. It also does not include performance of emergency work necessary to prevent
or ameliorate an immediate threat to life, property, or the environment. Any person performing such
emergency work shall immediately notify the town engineer of the situation and the actions taken.
The town engineer may, however, require such person to obtain a storm water quality permit to
implement remedial measures to minimize erosion resulting from the emergency.
DRAINAGE: Surface water runoff or the removal of surface water or ground water from land by
drains, grading or other means, which include runoff controls to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during and after construction or development.
DRAINAGEWAY: Any natural or artificial stream, swale, creek, river, ditch, channel, canal or other
open intermittent watercourse.
DRIVEWAY: A paved all weather driving surface on private property which provides access to
three (3) or fewer dwelling units (including EHUs). Driveways generally provide access to individual
dwelling units.
DRIVEWAY PAN: A concrete drainage structure which conveys water; located where a driveway or
feeder road connects with the public street.
DWELLING, MULTIPLE - FAMILY: A building containing three (3) or more dwelling units, including
townhouses, row houses, apartments, and condominium units; designed for or used by three (3) or
more families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit.
DWELLING, SINGLE - FAMILY: A detached building designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively
by one family as an independent housekeeping unit.
DWELLING, TWO- FAMILY: A detached building containing two (2) dwelling units, designed for or
used as a dwelling exclusively by two (2) families, each living as an independent housekeeping
unit.
DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single - family, two - family or multiple - family
building with kitchen facilities; designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping
unit. A dwelling unit in a multiple - family building may include one attached accommodation unit no
larger than one -third ( of the total floor area of the dwelling.
EHU: An employee housing unit as defined in title 12 , "Zoning Regulations ", of this code. For the
purpose of driveway, parking, and access standards, an EHU shall be considered a dwelling unit.
ENTRY ANGLE: The angle created at the intersection of the centerline of the public roadway and
the centerline of the first thirty feet (30') of feeder road or driveway.
EROSION: The process by which the ground surface is worn away by action of wind, water,
gravity, or a combination thereof.
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 3 of 10
4/20/2010
8- 14 -3
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN: A plan to minimize erosion and on site
sedimentation resulting from construction activities. The plan should include detailed information
about the site; planned construction activities and best management practices (BMPs) to
implement that can minimize on site erosion and transport of sediment off site during construction.
EXPOSED FACE: The area of a wall exposed from the finished grade line to the top of the wall.
The cumulative exposed bench face of combination walls.
FEEDER ROAD: A paved all weather road or driveway on private property which accesses four (4)
or more dwelling units (including EHUs). Driveways to individual dwelling units generally connect to
the feeder road.
FENESTRATION: The design and placement of windows in a building.
FINAL STABILIZATION: When all soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed, and
uniform vegetative cover has been established with a density of at least seventy percent (70 %) of
predisturbance levels, or equivalent permanent, physical erosion reduction methods have been
employed. For purposes of this section, establishment of a vegetative cover capable of providing
erosion control equivalent to preexisting conditions at the site is considered final stabilization.
FIRE CODE: The uniform fire code, as published by the International Fire Code Institute, 5360
Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601 -2298.
FIRE WISE PLANT MATERIALS: As outlined in the latest version of Colorado state forest service
publication #6.305, "FireWise Plant Materials ".
FRONTAGE: The portion of a lot which fronts on a public or private street.
GUARDRAILS: A rail placed on the edge of a roadway, on bridges, driveways, etc., as a safeguard
against vehicular egress of said roadway.
HEATED DRIVES: Driveways which have subterranean heat producing mechanisms to aid in
melting snow and ice.
LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES: Any mechanical activity which alters the surface of the earth and
exposes the same to the elements of wind, water, or gravity. Land disturbing activities include
grading, filling, excavating, and soil storage. Agricultural activities are exempt from this definition.
LANDSCAPE AREA: The area of a site not covered by buildings, driveways, and covered
walkways. Core development (hardscape) such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features,
and like features shall also be considered landscape area as long as they do not exceed twenty
percent (20 %) of the landscape area.
LANDSCAPING: Planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and
ground cover, together with core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water
features, and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20 %) of the landscaped area.
For the purposes of this title, natural or significant rock outcroppings, trees or native vegetation
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 4 of 10
4/20/2010
8- 14 -4
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
shall be deemed landscaping in hillside residential, single - family residential, primary /secondary
residential, two - family residential, residential cluster, and low density multi - family zone districts.
LOT OR SITE: A parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure
under the provisions of title 12 , "Zoning Regulations ", of this code, and meeting the minimum
requirements of title 12 of this code. A lot or site may consist of a single lot of record, a portion of a
lot of record, a combination of lots of record or portions thereof, or a parcel of land described by
metes and bounds.
LOT SIZE: The required size of a buildable lot or site.
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4): A system of conveyances owned and
operated by the town of Vail used in the collection, treatment or disposition of storm, flood or
surface drainage waters, including manmade structures and natural watercourses and /or
floodplains for the conveyance of runoff, such as detention or retention areas, berms, swales,
improved watercourses, channels, bridges, gulches, streams, rivers, gullies, flumes, culverts,
gutters, pumping stations, pipes, ditches, siphons, catch basins, inlets, pumping plants and other
equipment and appurtenances and all extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions and
alternations thereof; and any and all rights or interests in such stormwater facilities, and which is
not used for collecting or conveying sewage.
OSHA: Occupational safety and health administration. A regulatory office of the U.S. department of
labor.
100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN: The area adjoining a river, stream, or watercourse covered by water in
the event of a flood, having a one percent (1 %) chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude
in any given year.
OPERATOR: The individual who has day to day supervision and control of activities occurring at
the construction site. This can be the owner, the developer, the general contractor or the agent of
one of these parties, in some circumstances. It is anticipated that at different phases of a
construction project, different types of parties will satisfy the definition of an "operator" and the
pertinent portions of any applicable state of Colorado permit will be transferred as the roles change.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK: The line between upland and bottomland which persists through
successive changes in water levels, below which the presence and action of the water is so
common or recurrent that the character of the land is marked distinctly from the upland and is
apparent in the soil itself, the configuration of the surface of the soil and the vegetation. On an
inland lake which has a level established by law, it means the high established level. Where water
returns to its natural levels as the result of the permanent removal or abandonment of a dam, it
means the natural ordinary high water mark.
PE STAMPED DESIGN: A design that is stamped, signed, and dated by a professional engineer.
PERMANENT SLOPE PROTECTION MEASURES: Used on slopes to permanently stabilize the
slope and prevent erosion.
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 5 of 10
4/20/2010
8- 14 -5
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
PERMANENT SOIL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES: Those control measures which are
installed or constructed to control soil erosion and which are maintained after completion of all
grading and earth disturbance activities.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC): The body responsible for reviewing
development proposals or any matters pertaining to the commission as provided by law, resolution,
or ordinance, and to act in an advisory capacity to the town council. The planning and
environmental commission focuses on evaluating projects based on the zoning ordinance, master
plans, subdivision regulations, environmental concerns, etc., and as established pursuant to title 3.
chapter 2 of this code.
POINT SOURCE: Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. Point source discharges of stormwater result from structures (e.g., roofs,
roads, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.) which increase imperviousness of the ground which acts to
collect runoff, with runoff being conveyed along the resulting drainage or grading pattern.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (PE): A current state of Colorado registered professional engineer,
practicing in their known expertise.
PROPERTY OWNER: The record owner of the property or properties, who is the responsible party
for the town of Vail stormwater quality permits.
PUBLIC WAY: Any public street, easement, right of way, highway, alley, way, place, road or bike
path, and any nonexclusive utility easement.
RECEIVING WATER: Any water of the state of Colorado into which stormwater related to
construction activities discharges.
RETAINING WALL: Any slope greater than one to one (1:1).
RIDGE: The uppermost, horizontal external angle formed by the intersection of two (2) sloping roof
planes.
RIPARIAN ZONE: The area located between the water's edge of aquatic ecosystems (rivers,
streams, lakes, ponds, springs and seeps) and upland areas, whose soils allow for or tolerate a
high water table, and provide sufficient moisture in excess of that otherwise available locally so as
to provide a more moist habitat than that of contiguous floodplains and uplands. Riparian areas are
composed of interacting assemblages of plants, animals and aquatic communities whose presence
is either directly or indirectly attributed to water influenced or water related factors. Riparian areas
produce a diversity of vegetative forms, sizes and species and a density of vegetation that makes
them among the most productive habitats for wildlife. Areas exempt from this definition are
manmade agricultural structures and devices such as irrigation ditches, sprinklers, and artificial
ponds, except when mitigation requires creation or replacement of wetlands and /or riparian areas.
ROOF ASSEMBLY: A system designed to provide weather protection and resistance to design
loads. The system consists of a roof covering and roof deck or a single component serving as both
the roof covering and roof deck. A roof assembly includes the roof deck, vapor retarder, substrate
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 6 of 10
4/20/2010
8 -14 -6
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
or thermal barrier, insulation, vapor retarder and roof covering.
ROOF COVERING: The covering applied to the roof deck for weather resistance, fire classification,
or appearance.
SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA: A parabolic or dish shaped antenna designed to receive radio
waves.
SETBACK: The distance from a lot or site line, creek or stream measured horizontally to a line or
location within the lot or site, which establishes the permitted location of uses, structures, or
buildings on the site.
SETBACK AREA: The area within a lot or site between a lot or site line and the corresponding
setback line within the lot or site.
SETBACK LINE: A line or location within a lot or site which establishes the permitted location of
uses, structures, or buildings on the site.
SETBACK LINE, FRONT: The setback line extending the full width of the site parallel to and
measured from the front lot or site line.
SETBACK LINE, REAR: The setback line extending the full width of the site parallel to and
measured from the rear lot or site line.
SETBACK LINE, SIDE: The setback line extending from the front setback line to the rear setback
line parallel to and measured from the side lot or site line.
SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: The line of sight to the right and left of a driver sitting in a car three
feet (3') above the driveway or access road preparing to enter the public road. The driver must be
able to see two hundred fifty feet (250') in either direction to an object three feet (3') above the
asphalt of the public road in the oncoming lane.
SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site,
expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall
mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, porte - cochere, arcade, and covered or
roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter walls or supporting columns above
grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a
balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or
walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for
the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any
portion of a roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or
covered patio that extends more than four feet (4') from the exterior face of the perimeter building
walls or supporting columns.
SLOPE: Shall be established by measuring the maximum number of feet in elevation gained or lost
over each ten feet (10') or fraction thereof measured horizontally in any direction between opposing
lot lines; the relationship of elevation or vertical measure as divided by the horizontal measurement
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 7 of 10
4/20/2010
8 -14 -7
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
shall be expressed as a percentile as a means of quantifying the term "slope ". In determination of
"slope" as defined herein, for use in establishing buildable area requirements and maximum floor
area ratio limitations on existing and proposed lots, a grid system based on ten foot (10') modules
shall be superimposed on a topographic map of the subject property and the lot slope
determination established by the defined method for each one hundred (100) square foot grid
portion of the tract, lot or portion thereof.
A. Existing, natural: The gradient or configuration of the undisturbed land surface prior to site
improvement of a lot, site, or parcel.
B. Graded, finished: The gradient or configuration of the land surface following improvement of
a lot, site, or parcel.
SPILL: An unintentional release of solid or liquid material which may cause pollution of the MS4 or
waters of the state.
SQUARE AREA: The area required to be accommodated completely within a lot's boundaries in
order for the lot to be buildable; expressed as a square.
STAGING AREA: A dedicated or designated space that is intended for use by the fire department,
sufficiently large enough to provide for adequate operation.
STORMWATER: Any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting entirely of water from any form
of natural precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP): A written plan to minimize pollutants in
stormwater discharged from construction sites as required under the Colorado discharge permit
system (CDPS) general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity.
This plan includes a site description and map, identifies best management practices for
implementation at the site and identifies maintenance and inspection requirements for these best
management practices.
STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN: A plan to control pollutants transported in stormwater
prior to pollutants entering waterbodies. Stormwater quality control plans in the context of these
regulations refer to postdevelopment stormwater flows, rather than stormwater flows under
construction conditions. Stormwater quality control plans should be based on best management
practices (BMPs) such as avoiding direct discharge into waterbodies, minimizing directly connected
impervious area, use of detention ponds, and other BMPs.
STREET, PRIVATE: Any street not dedicated to the public for purposes of vehicular or pedestrian
use.
STREET, PUBLIC:
A. The entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part
thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular or pedestrian travel;
B. The entire width of every way declared to be a public highway by any law of this state; and
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 8 of 10
4/20/2010
8 -14 -8
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
further classified and defined as follows:
1. Arterial Streets: Those which permit the relatively rapid and unimpeded movement of large
volumes of traffic from one part of the community to another.
2. Collector Streets: Those which collect traffic from minor streets and carry it to arterial
streets or to local traffic generators. Collector streets include the principal entrance streets
to a residential development, those linking such adjacent developments, and those streets
providing circulation within such developments.
3. Minor Streets: Those used primarily for direct access to properties abutting the right of
way. Minor streets carry traffic having an origin or destination within the development and
do not carry through traffic.
TEMPORARY GRADING: Grading performed to accommodate construction.
TEMPORARY SLOPE PROTECTION MEASURES: Used on slopes to reduce erosion and assist in
reestablishing vegetation.
TEMPORARY SOIL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES: Interim control measures which are
installed or constructed and maintained whenever grading or other earth disturbance is to occur for
the purpose of soil erosion control until permanent soil erosion control is effected.
THREE POINT TURN: The ability to completely turn a vehicle using a maximum of four (4)
movements which creates the three (3) points when the total turning movement is laid out.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY: A study conducted that produces a map of a lot or lots showing
elevation from some fixed reference point.
VALET PARKING: A service provided with or without a fee where vehicle is dropped at a
designated location and an employee drives said vehicle to a parking space.
VALLEY: The internal angle formed by the intersection of two (2) sloping roof planes.
WETLANDS: As determined by the army corps of engineers or qualified environmental consultant,
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs
and similar areas. For purposes of these regulations wetlands do not include areas that are
saturated solely by the application of agricultural irrigation water. Manmade lakes and ponds built
for the purpose of detaining runoff are not considered wetlands in the context of these regulations.
(Ord. 3(2008) § 2: Ord. 28(2007) § 11: Ord. 27(2007) § 2: Ord. 3(2007) § 2: Ord. 29(2005) § 79:
Ord., 9 -21 -1999)
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 9 of 10
4/20/2010
8- 14 -9
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:06 PM
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebook /index.php ?book_id =560 Page 10 of 10
4/20/2010
8 -14 -10
Sterling Codifiers, Inc. 11/18/09 3:11 PM
14 -1 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety,
and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe
and efficient development within the town of Vail for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency
response traffic, and the community at large. The development standards will help protect property
values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of
property within the town of Vail. (Ord. 29(2005) § 78)
http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebool< /index.php ?bool<_id -560 Page 1 of 1
4/20/2010
8 -15 -I
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
NELSON STONE, M.D., and
STONE FAMILY LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
VAIL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, and
ARRABELLE AT VAIL SQUARE, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
As part of the purchase of his condominium, Plaintiff Nelson Stone, M.D., sole
shareholder of Stone Family LLC (collectively "Plaintiff'), was promised assigned parking that
would be located near the entry point of his condominium in a development known as Arrabelle
At Vail Square ( "Arrabelle "). This promise was made in writing by Vail Resorts Development
Company ( "VRDC ") in sales literature and in the contract negotiated with VRDC. Instead of
honoring those representations and promises, however, VRDC secretly eliminated the assigned
parking rights and substituted instead, without notice or permission and in contravention of the
contract, a document providing for valet parking of much lesser value.
4/20/2010
8 -16 -1
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 22
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all initial
purchasers of condominium units in Arrabelle (as outlined in the class definition), the project
developed by VRDC. During its sales efforts, VRDC represented to all prospective purchasers
that certain "services and amenities" would be provided or conveyed to any purchaser of each
condominium unit contemplated within the development. Ex. 1 (Arrabelle At Vail Square Hotel
Services And Amenities Available To Residence Owners And Their Guests). Among the
included "services and amenities" described in writing was "assigned underground parking" that
would "be located ... near an elevator convenient to your residence wing." Ex. 2 (Arrabelle at
Vail Square Closing Process and General Questions and Answers). Despite expressly promising
during the sales process "assigned" parking "located . . .near" a purchaser's wing, VRDC,
intentionally and without notice, altered the final, recorded documents related to the purchasers'
Arrabelle units, and switched assigned parking to a "license" to use a "valet service" provided
exclusively by VRDC. The valet parking "license" actually conveyed to class members by
VRDC is materially different from and less valuable than the promised "assigned underground
parking" that VRDC had promised and contracted to provide, and for which class members paid.
Class members have therefore been damaged by VRDC's fraudulent, deceptive and misleading
bait - and - switch tactics and breach of its contractual obligations.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and
1441, since this is a civil action involving citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 2 of 22
8 -16 -2
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 22
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as Defendant VRDC
is a Colorado Corporation, and Defendant Arrabelle at Vail Square, LLC, is a Colorado Limited
Liability Company, and the matters complained of herein occurred in Colorado, including
without limitation the preparation of the marketing materials provided to Association members,
the Purchase Agreement forms, and the altered documents recorded prior to the actual sale of the
condominium units.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Nelson Stone is and was at all relevant times a resident of the State of
New York, is the person who received the representations from Defendants described in this
Complaint and made the decisions described herein, and is, through his ownership of Stone
Family LLC, the purchaser of an Arrabelle unit and a member of Arrabelle At Vail Square
Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Association "), which consists of approximately 66
members, all of whom are owners of condominium units within Arrabelle.
5. Plaintiff Stone Family LLC is a closely held New York Limited Liability
Company of which Nelson Stone is the sole shareholder.
6. VRDC is and was at all relevant times a Colorado corporation, with its principal
place of business located at 390 Interlocken Crescent in Broomfield, Colorado. VRDC is in the
business of developing resort properties, with one of its recent projects being the Arrabelle.
7. Arrabelle At Vail Square, LLC is and was at all relevant times a Colorado
Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of business located at 450 E. Lionshead
Circle, Vail, CO 81657. Arrabelle At Vail Square, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of VRDC
and controlled by VRDC.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 3 of 22
8 -16 -3
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 22
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. In approximately 2002, VRDC began planning a project known as " Vail's New
Dawn," for the purpose of redeveloping the resort properties in an area in the Town of Vail
formerly known as Lionshead.
9. As part of the Vail's New Dawn redevelopment effort, VRDC initiated a building
project it named " Arrabelle At Vail Square" located in the Town of Vail, Colorado, which was
contemplated from the outset to contain both luxury hotel and condominium elements.
10. During its sales efforts of the planned condominium units, VRDC represented to
prospective purchasers, including Plaintiff and class members, that certain "services and
amenities" would be provided, including, as described in writing, "assigned underground
parking." Ex. 1 ( "Arrabelle At Vail Square Hotel Services And Amenities Available To
Residence Owners And Their Guests ").
11. Permanent assigned parking is a valuable commodity in Vail. For example, a
parking space in the Vail Founders Parking Garage, located in Vail Village, retails for $380,000.
See http: //blog .vailpropertysearch.com /vail- parking- founders - garage -vail- mountain - club - valet/
(last visited August 31, 2009).
12. At the time VRDC represented that Plaintiff and class members would receive a
parking easement including permanent allocated parking, under the Town of Vail municipal
code, the Arrabelle project could not have its valet parking use exceed 50% of the required on-
site parking. Vail Town Code, section 14- 5 -2(K). Upon information and belief, VRDC
represented to the Town of Vail that the class members would be provided with assigned
parking.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 4 of 22
8 -16 -4
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 22
13. During the years 2004 -2008, Plaintiff and all of the class members were provided
with written solicitations and marketing materials about the Arrabelle project, which were
identical, or substantially identical, in all material respects. Based on the representations
contained in those materials, Plaintiff and class members agreed to purchase Arrabelle
condominium units by executing a "Reservation" agreement and providing a $100,000 non -
assignable (and partially non - refundable) "Reservation" payment. Ex. 3 (Reservation
Agreement).
14. Beginning on or about April 15, 2005, after making the Reservation payment, but
prior to the commencement of construction of the Arrabelle condominium units, Plaintiff and
class members were required to execute a "Purchase Agreement" and concurrently provide an
additional payment of "Earnest Money." Ex. 2 ( Arrabelle at Vail Square Closing Process and
General Questions and Answers).
15. In soliciting payment of the "Earnest Money" and execution of the "Purchase
Agreement," VRDC provided Plaintiff and all class members with the following description of
the parking arrangement included with the purchase of an Arrabelle condominium unit:
How many parking spaces will I have? Residences and Penthouses with two
and three bedrooms will have use of one parking space. Those with four or more
bedrooms will have use of two parking spaces arranged in a tandem fashion.
Where will my parking space(s) be? It/they will be located on the upper
parking level, near an elevator convenient to your residence wing.
Where will my guests park? Guests will use valet parking.
la.
16. Defendant VRDC made its representations to hundreds of other persons who
previewed Defendant VRDC's Arrabelle development.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 5 of 22
8 -16 -5
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 22
17. In the Purchase Agreement provided to all class members, VRDC described a
Reciprocal Easements and Covenants Agreement ( "RECA ") that the "Condominium Project"
would "be subject to and governed by." VRDC provided all class members with a draft of the
RECA.
18. The Purchase Agreement entered into by the parties promised that "the final
version of the RECA will be substantially similar" to the draft provided to all class members. It
also promised that VRDC "will furnish to Purchaser a copy of the final RECA prior to closing."
Ex. 4 (Purchase And Sale Agreement For Arrabelle At Vail Square Residential Condominiums, ¶
4.2). Although another provision purported to reserve the right to revise easements in the RECA,
such a provision did not and could not authorize VRDC to make material revisions which
deprived class members of their rights under the contract or deprived them of the benefit of the
bargain with regard to particular easements; rather, that provision was still subject to the promise
that the final document would be "substantially similar" to the draft RECA provided with the
Purchase Agreement.
19. The draft RECA provided to all class members with their Purchase Agreements
provided that VRDC as Project Owner granted to all class members the following easement:
(ii) Parking Easement. A parking easement for the benefit of the
Airspace Lot Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees to use and occupy
for vehicular parking purposes a total of [94] parking spaces located in the Project
Improvements, the initial location of which is identified on the attached Exhibit C
(the "Allocated Parking "). The Project Owner may relocate the Allocated Parking
from time to time so long as the Allocated Parking continues to be located in the
Project Improvements; provided, however, that the Project Owner may not
relocate those [ ] parking spaces within the Allocated Parking labeled as
"Permanent Allocated Parking." The Allocated Parking may be used by the
Airspace Lot Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees only at those
times when the Airspace Lot Owner, its tenants and their respective Permittees
are in residence within the Airspace Lot. To the extent the Airspace Lot Owner,
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 6 of 22
8 -16 -6
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 22
its tenants and their respective Permittees are not in residence within the Airspace
Lot, the Project Owner may use or occupy the Allocated Parking.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Airspace Lot Owner may store one vehicle in
each of the parking spaces located in the Permanent Allocated Parking, regardless
of whether in residence within the Airspace Lot so long as the Airspace Lot
Owner leaves keys for such vehicle(s) with the valet for the Project
Improvements.
Ex. 5 (Draft RECA dated April 8, 2005) at p. 5.
20. VRDC solicited and obtained signed Purchase Agreements and received
additional "Earnest Money" funds from 66 class members based on these representations and
assurances, including that the parking easement would be "substantially similar" to the easement
in the draft RECA.
21. However, during or in conjunction with the transfer of the property to its wholly
owned subsidiary, Arrabelle at Vail Square, LLC, VRDC secretly altered the parking rights by
unilaterally revising the RECA to eliminate the parking easement and assigned allocated parking.
(Ex. 6, RECA recorded December 31, 2007.)
22. Instead of the assigned parking promised to class members as "a parking
easement for the benefit of [class members]" and further described as "Permanent Allocated
Parking" for all class members as including "the right to store one vehicle in each Permanent
Allocated Parking spot regardless of whether [the Homeowner is] in residence," the revised
RECA allowed only for a "license" to use "valet parking" controlled exclusively by VRDC. Id.
at p. 6.
23. The altered RECA was recorded by VRDC in Eagle County on December 31,
2007, shortly before class members were permitted to begin closing on their Arrabelle units.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 7 of 22
8 -16 -7
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 22
24. Despite the assurance in the Purchase Agreement that VRDC "will furnish to
Purchaser a copy of the final RECA prior to Closing," VRDC did not provide class members
with a copy of the altered, recorded RECA prior to closing. Nor did VRDC advise or inform
class members that the parking rights were materially and dramatically altered.
25. The revised version of parking rights contained in the final RECA were not
substantially similar to the initial RECA, nor consistent with the representations made in the
sales literature and by the sales staff of Defendant VRDC.
26. Plaintiff and class members were not otherwise notified of the elimination of the
"Parking Easement" before or at closings on the Arrabellc units; instead there was only a non-
specific reference to the final RECA at closing, with no indication that the final RECA was not
"substantially similar" to the draft RECA provided to all class members with the Purchase
Agreement, as promised by VRDC in the signed Purchase Agreement.
27. Despite the express promise of "assigned underground parking ...convenient to
your residence wing" in the marketing and other materials provided to all class members before
their agreement to purchase the condominium units, VRDC instead, intentionally and without
notice to class members, altered the final, recorded documents related to all class members'
condominiums to eliminate the Parking Easement and assigned parking promised to the class
members, leaving them with only a "license" to use a "valet service" provided exclusively by
VRDC. Ex. 6 at p. 6.
28. VRDC also caused the additional cost of valet parking for all class members and
their guests to be charged to class members in the operating expenses covered by Arrabelle
condominium association dues, so that class members are now being forced to pay for valet
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 8 of 22
8 -16 -8
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 22
parking services needed only because VRDC breached its agreement to provide class members
with a "Parking Easement" providing them with "Permanent Allocated Parking."
29. VRDC misled all class members by promising "assigned parking" and failed to
adequately disclose or explain material information regarding the change from assigned to valet
parking. VRDC engaged in a course of conduct of soliciting substantial, partially non-
refundable funds for "Reservations" and "Earnest Money" based on these representations, and
then completed the sale of the Arrabelle units to class members without disclosing to class
members that VRDC had materially altered and diminished the parking rights promised by
VRDC in the course of soliciting the purchase of the units.
30. The valet parking "license" described in the recorded RECA is materially
different from and less valuable than the promised "assigned underground parking" and "Parking
Easement" included with the purchase of an Arrabelle condominium that VRDC had promised
and for which class members paid, and class members have therefore been damaged because the
homes they now own are less valuable than represented because they do not include the
promised parking rights; they paid more for these homes than they would have paid had the true
facts been disclosed by VRDC; they are now paying, though their condominium dues, for the
increased labor and associated expense of valet parking related to their own parking needs even
though they were promised assigned parking that did not require valet services; and they have
been and continue to be inconvenienced by not having the promised assigned parking that is
"convenient to [their] residence." Class members have sustained non - pecuniary damages for
mental distress due to VRDC's willful and wanton conduct described herein.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand 4/20/2010 Page 9 of 22
8 -16 -9
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 22
31. Class members have paid, as part of their Association assessments, monies over to
Arrabelle At Vail Square, LLC, which in part compensate Arrabelle At Vail Square, LLC for
valet parking services. Even under Defendant VRDC's secret RECA language, parking services
were paid for when the properties were purchased by class members. In addition, upon
information and belief, VRDC has received revenues from the use of the spaces allocable to the
class members.
32. Class members cannot be fully compensated at law because of the nature of the
promised Parking Easement. No other real property would be able to provide the same service
and utility, the assigned parking rights VRDC promised to provide were unique and irreplaceable
property rights that enhanced and supported class members' properties, and no alternative
property exists that could provide the same benefit to the class members. Thus, no adequate
remedy at law exists, and specific performance may be directed.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
33. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action, as it
satisfies the numerosity, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23. Plaintiff brings all claims herein individually and as representative of a class,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requirements of subparts 23(a),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) are met with respect to the class defined below:
All legal entities or persons who purchased directly from Vail Resorts
Development Company a condominium unit in Arrabelle at Vail Square or who
purchased such a condominium based on an assignment from the initial purchaser
that occurred prior to or on the date the initial purchaser was obligated to close
escrow with VRDC. Excluded from the class are Defendants, their respective
parent companies, employees, subsidiaries and affiliates, and the judge presiding
over this case and his or her court staff.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 10 of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-10
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 22
34. Numerosity. The class includes at least 66 purchasers, and the individual joinder
of each class member would be impracticable because class members reside in a number of
different states as well as outside of the United States.
35. Commonality. This matter presents common questions of law and fact arising out
of VRDC's uniform conduct and written representations made during the sale of the
condominium units and the purchase contracts used by Defendant VRDC and class members.
These common questions predominate over any individual questions applicable to members of
the proposed class. Questions of law and fact common to the proposed class include:
a. whether the uniform marketing materials and written documents prepared
and disseminated by VRDC to class members obligate Defendants to provide
assigned parking to the class instead of a "license" to use "valet parking";
b. whether Defendant VRDC's failure to honor its multiple written
representations that assigned parking spots would be provided to Arrabelle
purchasers violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act;
C. whether Defendant VRDC purposely and intentionally changed the terms
of the RECA and governing documents such that the promised assigned parking
easement was materially altered and diminished in value; and
d. whether Defendant VRDC's conduct of changing the terms of the RECA
and other governing documents and referencing the secretly revised documents at
closing, without notice or permission, constitutes fraud and /or violates the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page I I of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-11
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 22
36. Typicality. Plaintiff has the same interests in this matter as all other members of
the class, and his claims are typical of all members of the class. Plaintiff's claims are coincident
with and not antagonistic to those of other class members he seeks to represent. Plaintiff and all
class members have sustained damages arising out of VRDC's common course of conduct as
outlined herein. The damages of each class member were caused by VRDC's wrongful conduct
37. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and
has retained competent counsel experienced in class action litigation. Plaintiff will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class members. VRDC's actions are generally applicable
to the class as a whole, and Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the class
as a whole
38. Common Questions Predominate, and the Class Action Device Is Superior.
The common questions of law and fact enumerated above predominate over questions affecting
only individual members of the class, and a class action is the superior method for fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy. The likelihood that individual members of the class
will prosecute separate actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to conduct such
litigation. To Plaintiff's knowledge, no similar litigation is currently pending by other members
of the class. Plaintiff's counsel, highly experienced in class action litigation, foresees little
difficulty in the management of this case as a class action.
39. There are no unusual legal or factual issues which would cause management
problems not normally and routinely handled in class actions. Damages may be calculated from
expert evidence and presented through aggregate proof. Prosecution as a class action will
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 12 of 22
4/20/2010
8 -16 -12
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 22
eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation, while also providing redress of claims too small
to support the expense of individual claims.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Breach of Contract
40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
41. In response to written solicitations by VRDC, class members entered into
identical or substantially identical (identical in all material respects) written Purchase
Agreements, executed by VRDC and all class members. An example of the Purchase Agreement
is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by reference.
42. As part of the negotiation for the Purchase Agreement, Defendant VRDC
negotiated for and received a substantial and partially non - refundable "Reservation" deposit in
the amount of $100,000, as well as a later "Earnest Money" payment equal to ten percent of the
purchase price of the condominium unit.
43. In exchange for these pre- closing payments toward the purchase of the Arrabelle
Unit by class members and the execution by class members of the Purchase Agreement and
payment of the purchase price for each Arrabelle unit, Defendant VRDC agreed, among other
things, to ensure that the final RECA was, at the very least, substantially similar to the draft
RECA and to provide "assigned parking" to every class member in conformance with the RECA
required by the Purchase Agreement.
44. Plaintiff and the class fully performed each and every one of their obligations
under the Purchase Agreements.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 13 of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-13
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 22
45. VRDC intentionally, materially, and willfully and wantonly breached its Purchase
Agreement with class members by eliminating the parking easement providing assigned parking
in the RECA and instead substituting a "license" to use "valet parking," without notice or
disclosure to class members.
46. The "license" to use "valet parking" varied from the promised parking easement
in material respects, and thus was not "substantially similar" to the rights provided in the draft
RECA, as promised in the Purchase Agreement; and the undisclosed change was a breach of the
agreement.
47. Every contract contains an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, which
exists "to effectuate the intentions of the parties or to honor their reasonable expectations." City
of Golden v. Parker, 138 P.3d 285, 292 (Colo. 2006).
48. VRDC was required to treat class members fairly and in good faith in executing
and performing under its contracts, including the Purchase Agreement.
49. By expressly representing to class members that the purchase of an Arrabelle unit
would include "assigned underground parking" and "permanent allocated parking," and then
surreptitiously altering and reducing the promised assigned parking arrangement to a mere
"license" to use "valet parking" even while continuing to describe the parking arrangement as
assigned parking "convenient to your residence," VRDC purposely and unfairly breached its
contractual duty to deal fairly and in good faith with the class members and willfully and
wantonly breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by violating and dishonoring
the class members' reasonable expectations based on VRDC's representations and promises.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 14 of 22
4/20/2010
8 -16 -14
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 22
VRDC's actions served to deprive class members of the benefit of the bargain with regard to a
valuable portion of the Purchase Agreement.
50. In addition, by invoicing for and receiving monies from the Association that it
was not entitled to under the contracts between the class and Defendants for valet parking,
Arrabelle At Vail Square, LLC, the successor to VRDC's rights, breached the agreement with
the Class.
51. As a result of the breach of the Purchase Agreement and the breach of the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing by Defendants, Plaintiff and the class have incurred damages
in an amount to be proven at trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud
52. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
53. In the course of offering to sell and completing the sale of the Arrabelle
condominium units to class members, VRDC concealed or failed to disclose material existing
facts. Among other things, VRDC failed to effectively disclose or explain to class members,
despite its deliberate and material alteration and diminishment of the parking arrangement from
"assigned underground parking" to the "license" to use "valet parking," that it had altered the
RECA before recording it to eliminate the "assigned underground parking" that class members
had bargained and paid for.
54. Upon materially modifying the RECA to eliminate the "assigned underground
parking" promised to the class members and before closing, VRDC knew that disclosures
concerning the elimination of the "assigned underground parking" should be made to class
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 15 of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-15
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 22
members and that not disclosing those material facts would create in class members a false
impression.
55. VRDC concealed or failed to disclose these materials facts with the intent of
creating a false impression of the actual facts in the minds of class members.
56. VRDC concealed or failed to disclose these material facts with the intent that
class members would rely and act upon the concealment or failure to disclose by taking a course
of action that class members might not have taken knowing the actual facts.
57. Class members justifiably relied to their detriment on VRDC's concealment or
failure to disclose these material facts. From the date they signed their Purchase Agreements
through the date they closed on their Arrabelle units, the class members believed that they had
agreed to purchase "assigned underground parking" along with their condominium unit, and had
in fact agreed to pay more for their unit based on VRDC's concealment of or failure to disclose
the material facts that the parking rights had been eliminated. Had VRDC disclosed the material
facts to class members before they closed on the purchase of their Arrabelle units, class members
would either have repudiated the Purchase Agreement based on VRDC's breach, or have sought
an appropriate reduction in the purchase price concomitant with the greatly diminished and less
valuable "license" to use "valet parking."
58. VRDC intended that class members act upon the concealment of or failure to
disclose the material facts, and class members did act upon the concealment of the material facts.
59. As a result of VRDC's concealment of or failure to disclose these material facts,
class members have been damaged in an amount to be proved at trial.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deceptive Trade Practices- Violation of C.R.S. § 6 -1 -105
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 16 of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-16
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 22
60. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
61. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S. § 6 -1 -101 et seq. ( " CCPA "),
prohibits deceptive trade practices in the course of any person's business, vocation, or
occupation.
62. VRDC's actions complained of herein are deceptive trade practices that have the
capacity to and do deceive consumers in that:
a. VRDC knowingly made false representations as to the characteristics,
uses, or benefits of the services and amenities included in the Arrabelle condominium
association dues in violation of the CCPA, specifically C.R.S. § 6- 1- 105(l)(e), by
representing prior to the execution of the Purchase Agreement that class members would
be provided "assigned underground parking" that was "convenient to your residence ";
and
b. VRDC represented, in violation of the CCPA, specifically C.R.S. § 6 -1-
105(l)(g), that the parking rights conveyed with the purchase of an Arrabelle
condominium unit were of a particular standard, quality, or grade (i.e., "assigned
underground parking" that was "convenient to your residence "), when VRDC knew or
should have known that the parking rights conveyed were instead of a much lower quality
or value (i.e., a mere "license" to use "valet parking ").
63. VRDC advertised, in violation of the CCPA, specifically C.R.S. § 6- 1- 105(l)(i),
the Arrabelle condominium units as including "assigned underground parking" that was
"convenient to your residence," with the intent to sell them not as advertised.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 17 of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-17
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 22
64. VRDC failed to disclose, in violation of the CCPA, specifically C.R.S. § 6 -1-
105(1)(u), material information concerning the Arrabelle condominium units parking rights,
which information was known at the time it completed the final sale of the Arrabelle units, and
such failure to disclose the information (i.e., that the promised "assigned underground parking"
that was "convenient to your residence" had been converted into a mere "license" to use "valet
parking ") was intended to induce the class members to enter into the Arrabelle condominium
unit purchase transaction.
65. More generally, VRDC engaged in deceptive trade practices that have the
capacity to and do deceive consumers in violation of the CCPA. In particular, after promising in
the Purchase Agreement that the final RECA would be "substantially similar" to draft provided
to class members, it instead eliminated the "assigned underground parking" promised to class
members in the draft RECA, substituted a "license" of much lesser value in the final RECA, and
caused the final RECA to be recorded without informing class members that it had changed the
parking arrangement previously represented to them. VRDC implied that the parking
arrangement previously described to class members remained unchanged, because it remained
silent about the altered terms in spite of the promise in the Purchase Agreement that the terms
would be substantially similar. VRDC did not effectively explain this situation and continued to
mislead class members by omitting all information about the change until after the class
members had closed on their purchases of the Arrabelle condominium units.
66. VRDC's aforementioned conduct occurred in the course of VRDC's business and
is part of a generalized course of conduct repeated on hundreds of occasions, and thus has a
significant impact on the public as actual or potential consumers of VRDC's products, services
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 18 of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-18
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 22
or properties. VRDC is a highly sophisticated developer of condominium and other resort
property projects whereas class members are not developers and are not sophisticated in these
practices. In addition, VRDC is a large, multimillion- dollar corporation whereas class members
are individuals or entities merely seeking to purchase resort properties. The actions complained
of herein also have a significant potential to harm consumers in the future because concealing or
failing to disclose material facts incident to the sale of resort properties clearly causes harm to
consumers like the harm caused to class members here.
67. As a result of VRDC's actions, the Class has suffered injury in fact to a legally
protected interest and has been damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, plus any award
provided for by the CCPA.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraudulent Concealment
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
68. In the course of offering to sell and completing the sale of the Arrabelle
condominium units to class members, VRDC knowingly concealed or failed to disclose material
existing facts.
69. After class members had received initial representations from and entered into
Purchase Agreements with VRDC but before the closing on the Arrabelle units, VRDC
knowingly concealed or failed to disclose material existing facts by, among other things, failing
to effectively disclose or explain to class members, despite its deliberate and material alteration
and diminishment of the parking arrangement from "assigned underground parking" to the
"license" to use "valet parking" that it had used the altered and recorded RECA to eliminate the
"assigned underground parking" that class members had bargained and paid for.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 19 of 22
4/20/2010
8-16-19
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 22
70. VRDC was aware that these material existing facts regarding the alteration to the
parking agreement were being concealed or not disclosed, and that the class members were
ignorant of the existence of these facts.
71. Upon eliminating the "assigned underground parking" promised to the class
members and before closing, VRDC knew that disclosures concerning the elimination of the
"assigned underground parking" should be made to class members.
72. Class members were ignorant of VRDC's concealment or failure to disclose these
material facts. From the date they made their Reservations and then signed their Purchase
Agreements through the date they closed on their Arrabelle units, the class members believed
that they had agreed to purchase "assigned underground parking" along with their condominium
unit, and had in fact agreed to pay more for their unit based on VRDC's concealment of or
failure to disclose these material facts. Had VRDC disclosed the material facts to class members
before they closed on the purchase of their Arrabelle units, class members would either have
repudiated the Purchase Agreement based on VRDC's breach, or have sought an appropriate
reduction in the purchase price concomitant with the greatly diminished and less valuable
"license" to use "valet parking."
73. VRDC intended that class members act upon the concealment of or failure to
disclose the material facts, and class members did act upon the concealment of the material facts.
74. By virtue of VRDC's concealment of or failure to disclose these material facts,
VRDC afforded itself the means by which to take undue advantage of class members.
75. As a result of VRDC's concealment of or failure to disclose these material facts,
class members have been damaged in an amount to be proved at trial.
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 20 of 22
4/20/2010
8 -16 -20
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class pray for the following judgment:
A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
appointing Plaintiff Nelson Stone as class representative; and appointing
undersigned counsel as class counsel;
B. At Plaintiff's election, which shall be made before trial commences, either an
order requiring VRDC specifically to perform its agreement to convey and
provide certain parking rights, as outlined in contracts between Defendant VRDC
and class members, or an award to the class of all compensatory damages proven
at trial to be sustained by its members;
C. An order requiring disgorgement of monies collected from class members by
Arrabelle At Vail Square, LLC for valet parking services provided to class
members, and of all profits earned by Defendants from valet services involving
the parking spaces properly belonging to class members;
D. An award of noneconomic damages for frustration and inconvenience resulting
from VRDC's willful and wanton breach;
E. An award of statutory damages and remedies, including attorney's fees, provided
for by the Colorado Consumer Protection Act;
F. An award of compensatory damages for VRDC's breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing;
G. An award of interest, attorney's fees, and costs, as may be provided by law, equity
or contract; and
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 21 of 22
4/20/2010
8 -16 -21
Case 1:09 -cv- 02081 -JLK Document 1 Filed 08/31/2009 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 22
H. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable or proper.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
THE CAREY LAW FIRM
By: _s /Leif Garrison
Leif Garrison, #14394
2301 East Pikes Peak Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
(719) 635 -0377 — Telephone
(719) 635 -2920 — Telecopier
Email: lgarrisonkcareylaw. com
Attorney for Plaintiffs Nelson Stone, M.D., and
Stone Family LLC
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY A JURY
FOR HIS ACTIONS AT LAW
Plaintiff's Address:
Nelson Stone, M.D.
c/o Carey Law Firm
2301 E. Pikes Peak
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand Page 22 of 22
4/20/2010
8 -16 -22
'OWN IT VAM .
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010 - A resolution adopting the Town of Vail
annual fee -in -lieu amount for Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning.
PRESENTER(S): Nina Timm
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Approve with Modifications or Deny
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010.
BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Town of Vail adopted Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary
Zoning requirements for new development and redevelopment. One of the five methods of
mitigation is a fee -in -lieu of providing the required housing. Each year the Town of Vail is
required to adopt the fee -in -lieu for the year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Town Council approves, with modifications,
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010 Memo
Attachment A
Attachment B
4/20/2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 20, 2010
SUBJECT: Annual Update to the Employee Housing Fee -in -Lieu Amount
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 4, 2007, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinances Nos. 7 and 8,
Series of 2007, establishing commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning.
The ordinances provide five methods of mitigation to supply the requisite
employee housing. One of the methods of mitigation is paying a fee -in-
lieu of supplying the employee housing.
In accordance with Sections 12 -23 -5 and 12 -24 -6, the fee -in -lieu for each
employee to be housed and for each square foot of employee housing
required shall be established annually by resolution.
The proposed employee housing fee -in -lieu amount reflects the gap
between a two - person household earning 120% of the 2009 Area Median
Income and the 2009 median cost per unit plus an administrative fee of
$3,000 per employee or $3.65 per square foot. The two - person Area
Median Income increased $2,700 from 2008 to 2009 and the Town of Vail
median price per square foot decreased $394. Additionally, the assumed
interest rate dropped to 5.5 %, to be more reflective of current mortgage
interest rates.
The following is a comparison of the 2009 fee -in -lieu and the 2010 fee -in-
lieu:
Per Employee Per Square Foot
2009 $329,209 2009 $398.65
2010 $ 74,299 2010 $ 90.65
Change -($ 254,910) Change - ($308.65)
II. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO CALCULATION METHOD
Based on significant fluctuations in the employee housing fee -in -lieu
amount each year, Staff proposes that a modification be made to the fee -
in -lieu calculation. As modeled below, the fee -in -lieu amount would be
4%?oizoio
9 -1 -i
calculated each year and averaged with the previous two year's
calculations.
A three year average is more reflective of overall market conditions and
prevents a single project from dramatically impacting the fee -in -lieu
calculation, as well as a spike or dip in the economy.
Per Employee Fee Per Square Foot Fee
2008 $166,464 2008 $301.65
2009 $329,206 2009 $398.65
2010 $ 74,299 2010 $ 90.65
3 -Year Avg. $189,990 3 -Year Avg. $236.65
Modification as proposed by Staff
2009 $329,209 2009 $398.65
3 -Year Avg. $189,990 3 -Year Avg. $236.65
Change ($139,219) Change ($162.00)
Based upon this model, Staff is recommending Town Council modify the
annual employee housing fee -in -lieu calculation beginning in 2010 and for
all future calculations.
III. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Based upon the proposed modification, Staff has prepared and attached
two resolutions for Town Council's consideration.
Staff is requesting Town Council approve, approve with modifications or
deny Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve with modifications Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010.
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010
B. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2010 modified version
4/20/2010
9 -1 -2
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 7
Series of 2010
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2010 PAYMENT OF FEES -IN -LIEU FOR EACH
EMPLOYEE TO BE HOUSED, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER12 -23, COMMERCIAL
LINKAGE, AND FOR EACH SQUARE FOOT, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 12 -24,
INCLUSIONARY ZONING, VAIL TOWN CODE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN
REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council adopted of Ordinance Nos. 7
& 8, Series of 2007, establishing Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning
requirements in the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 12 -23 -5 and 12 -24 -6, Methods of Mitigation,
payment of fees -in -lieu is one of five (5) methods by which the mitigation of employee
housing required may be accomplished; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 12 -23 -5 and 12 -24 -6, the fees -in -lieu for
each employee to be housed and for each square foot of employee housing required
shall be established annually by resolution of the Vail Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has determined that the proposed fee -in -lieu
amounts accurately reflect the affordability gap between a two person household earning
120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and the 2009 Median Cost per Unit;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that this Resolution furthers the
development objectives of the Town and is in the best interest of the Town as it
promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that
conserves and enhances the availability of employee housing within the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO:
1. Establishment of Fees -in -Lieu
a. The fees -in -lieu for each employee to be housed or for
each square foot of employee housing provided in accordance
with Chapters 12 -23, Commercial Linkage, and 12 -24,
Inclusionary Zoning, shall be established annually by resolution of
the Town Council, provided that, in calculating that fee, the Town
Council shall include the net cost (total cost less the amount
covered by rental or sale income) of real property and all related
planning, design, site development, legal, construction and
construction management costs of the project, in current dollars,
which would be incurred by the Town to provide housing for the
employee to be housed or for each square foot of employee
housing provided in that year;
Resolution No. 7, Page 1 of 3
Series of 2010
4/20/2010
9 -2 -1
ATTACHMENT A
b. An administrative fee of $3,000 /per employee or $3.65 per
square foot shall be added to the amount set forth in paragraph a
hereof.
C. Fees -in -lieu shall be due and payable prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the development.
d. The Town shall only use monies collected from fees -in -lieu
to provide new employee housing.
The calculation formula for fee -in -lieu has been attached for reference
(Exhibit A).
2. 2010 Payment of Fees -in -Lieu Amounts
a. Fee -in -lieu per employee (commercial linkage) _ $74,299
b. Fee -in -lieu per square foot (inclusionary zoning) _ $90.65
3. Effective Date of the Resolution
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April,
2010.
Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor, Town of
Vail
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Resolution No. 7, Page 2 of 3
Series of 2010
4/20/2010
9 -2 -2
ATTACHMENT A
Exhibit A
2010
Fee -in -Lieu Calculation Formula
120% Area Median Income (2- person household)* $83,100
Affordable Monthly Housing Payment $2,078
Property Taxes /hisurance/HOA (20% of Housing Payment) $416
Mortgage Payment $1,662
Maximum Mortgage Amount* $292,626
Affordable Purchase Price $308,027
Average Square Feet of Units 825
2009 Median Price per Square Foot (all units) ** $503
Cost per Unit $414,975
Affordability Gap/Payment per Unit in Lieu $106,948
** *Assumes 5% down, 5.5% interest for 30 years.
Gap per Employee (1.5 emps /household on average) $71,299
Administrative Fee per Employee $3,000
Fee per Square Foot per Employee $87.00
Administrative Fee per Square Foot per Employee $3.65
Fee -in -Lieu per Employee $74,299
Fee -in -Lieu per Square Foot $90.65
(Note — these figures to be established annually by the Vail Town Council)
* As published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
** Calculated by RRC Associates from the 2009 Eagle County Assessor's Data Base
Resolution No. 7, Page 3 of 3
Series of 2010
4/20/2010
9 -2 -3
ATTACHMENT B — MODIFIED VERSION
RESOLUTION NO. 7
Series of 2010
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2010 PAYMENT OF FEES -IN -LIEU FOR EACH
EMPLOYEE TO BE HOUSED, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER12 -23, COMMERCIAL
LINKAGE, AND FOR EACH SQUARE FOOT, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 12 -24,
INCLUSIONARY ZONING, VAIL TOWN CODE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN
REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council adopted of Ordinance Nos. 7
& 8, Series of 2007, establishing Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning
requirements in the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 12 -23 -5 and 12 -24 -6, Methods of Mitigation,
payment of fees -in -lieu is one of five (5) methods by which the mitigation of employee
housing required may be accomplished; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 12 -23 -5 and 12 -24 -6, the fees -in -lieu for
each employee to be housed and for each square foot of employee housing required
shall be established annually by resolution of the Vail Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has determined that the proposed fee -in -lieu
amounts accurately reflect the affordability gap between a two person household earning
120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and the 2009 Median Cost per Unit;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has determined the proposed fee -in -lieu
amount should be calculated and then averaged with the two (2) previous years to more
accurately reflect market conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that this Resolution furthers the
development objectives of the Town and is in the best interest of the Town as it
promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that
conserves and enhances the availability of employee housing within the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO:
1. Establishment of Fees -in -Lieu
a. The fees -in -lieu for each employee to be housed or for
each square foot of employee housing provided in accordance
with Chapters 12 -23, Commercial Linkage, and 12 -24,
Inclusionary Zoning, shall be established annually by resolution of
the Town Council, provided that, in calculating that fee, the Town
Council shall include the net cost (total cost less the amount
covered by rental or sale income) of real property and all related
planning, design, site development, legal, construction and
construction management costs of the project, in current dollars,
which would be incurred by the Town to provide housing for the
Resolution No. 7, Page 1 of 3
Series of 2010
4/20/2010
9 -3 -I
ATTACHMENT B — MODIFIED VERSION
employee to be housed or for each square foot of employee
housing provided in that year;
b. An administrative fee of $3,000 /per employee or $3.65 per
square foot shall be added to the amount set forth in paragraph a
hereof.
C. Fees -in -lieu shall be calculated each year and that amount
shall be averaged with the previous two (2) years calculated fees -
in -lieu to establish the new annual fees -in -lieu.
d. Fees -in -lieu shall be due and payable prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the development.
e. The Town shall only use monies collected from fees -in -lieu
to provide new employee housing.
The calculation formula for fee -in -lieu has been attached for reference
(Exhibit A).
2. 2010 Payment of Fees -in -Lieu Amounts
a. Fee -in -lieu per employee (commercial linkage) _ $189,990
b. Fee -in -lieu per square foot (inclusionary zoning) _ $236.65
3. Effective Date of the Resolution
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April,
2010.
Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor, Town of
Vail
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Resolution No. 7, Page 2 of 3
Series of 2010
4/20/2010
9 -3 -2
ATTACHMENT B — MODIFIED VERSION
Exhibit A
2010
Fee -in -Lieu Calculation Formula
120% Area Median Income (2- person household)* $83,100
Affordable Monthly Housing Payment $2,078
Property Taxes /hisurance/HOA (20% of Housing Payment) $416
Mortgage Payment $1,662
Maximum Mortgage Amount* $292,626
Affordable Purchase Price $308,027
Average Square Feet of Units 825
2009 Median Price per Square Foot (all units) ** $503
Cost per Unit $414,975
Affordability Gap/Payment per Unit in Lieu $106,948
** *Assumes 5% down, 5.5% interest for 30 years.
Gap per Employee (1.5 emps /household on average) $71,299
2009 Gap per Employee $326,206
2008 Gap per Employee $166,464
Administrative Fee per Employee $3,000
Fee per Square Foot per Employee $87.00
2009 Fee per Square Foot per Employee $395.00
2009 Fee per Square Foot per Employee $298.00
Administrative Fee per Square Foot per Employee $3.65
Fee -in -Lieu per Employee $189,990 * **
Fee -in -Lieu per Square Foot $236.65
(Note — these figures to be established annually by the Vail Town Council)
* As published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
** Calculated by RRC Associates from the 2009 Eagle County Assessor's Data Base
* ** Rounded to the nearest dollar
Resolution No. 7, Page 3 of 3
Series of 2010
4/20/2010
9 -3 -3
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2010, An Ordinance Amending Section 6- 3C -6(B) of
the Vail Town Code Regarding the Possession, Use and Display of Cannabis; and Setting
Forth Details in Regard Thereto.
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire / Buck Allen
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2010, on first reading.
BACKGROUND: The public display or consumption of cannabis within the Town of Vail (the
"Town ") is of public concern and efficient police regulation of this crime would preserve the
general welfare of the citizens and guest of the Town.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No.
5, Series of 2010, on first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2010
420 2010
ORDINANCE NO. 5
SERIES OF 2010
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6- 3C -6(B) OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE
REGARDING THE POSSESSION, USE AND DISPLAY OF CANNABIS; AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of
Colorado (the "Town "), is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the
"Charter'l, and
WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council ")
have been duly elected and qualified; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that public display or consumption of
cannabis within the Town is of public concern and efficient police regulation of
such a crime would preserve the general welfare of the citizens and guests of the
Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT;
Section 1. Section 6- 3C -6(B) is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 6- 3C -6(B) UNLAWFUL ACTS DESIGNATED: It shall be unlawful for
any person to:
1. Possess not more than one (1) ounce of cannabis, without
documented legal authority to do so; or
2. Openly and publicly display, consume or use not more than one (1)
ounce of cannabis.
Any person convicted of having violated this Section B shall be punished
pursuant to Section 1 -4 -1 of this Code.
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby
declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in
this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed,
Ordinance No. 5, Series 2010
4/20/2010
10 -1 -1
any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by
virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall
not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expressly stated herein.
Section 4. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or
ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
Section 5. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town
of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND
ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 6 th day of
April, 2010, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the
20 day of April, 2010, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Dick Cleveland, Town Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 5, Series 2010
4/20/2010
10- 1 -2
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2010
ITEM /TOPIC: Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010, a Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental
Mutual Aid Agreement for the Provision of Law Enforcement Services and Setting Forth
Details in Regard Thereto.
PRESENTER(S): Dwight Henninger
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No. 8, Series of
2010.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail and the Eagle County Sheriffs Office entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement authorizing the Municipal Officers to perform law enforcement
functions and enforce the State law's within portions of Eagle County. The surrounding Eagle
County Municipalities, including the Town, wish to enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement allowing the Municipal Officers to aid and assist each other by the exchange of
Municipal Officers services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010
Law Enforcement IGA
42 2 I
RESOLUTION NO. 8
Series of 2010
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR
THE PROVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN
REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town "), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado
is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter "); and
WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council ") have been
duly elected and qualified; and
WHEREAS, in 2009 the Town and Eagle County Sheriffs Office entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement ( "IGA ") authorizing the Municipal Officers to perform law
enforcement functions and enforce the State law's within portions of unincorporated Eagle County
as necessary in the interest of public safety; and
WHEREAS, the Town and the surrounding municipalities in Eagle County (the "County
Municipalities ") wish to enter into a similar IGA authorizing the Municipal Officers ( "Officers ") to
aid and assist each other by exchange of services when an Officer observes a felony,
misdemeanor, crime, or other statutory offense being committed while that Officer is engaged in
official police duties; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. The Council hereby approves the IGA and authorizes the Town Manager
to enter into the IGA with the County Municipalities on behalf of the Town for the aid and
assistance of law enforcement services in substantially the same form as attached hereto as
Exhibit A and in a form approved by the Town Attorney.
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Vail held this 20 day of April, 2010.
Richard Cleveland
Town Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson,
Town Clerk
Resolution No. 8, Series 2010
4/20/2010
11 -I -1
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL AID, (hereinafter referred to as this "Agreement ") is made
and entered into this day of , 2010, by and between the Town of Avon, Town of
Basalt, Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, and Town of Vail upon their authorized execution of this
Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Parties" or singularly as "Party"), by and through their
respective Town and City Councils.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has authorized such intergovernmental mutual
aid agreements by the provisions of C.R.S. §29 -1 -203 and §29 -5 -101 through §29 -5 -109; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are empowered to provide law enforcement functions within its
incorporated boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Parties peace officers are defined by C.R.S. § 16 -3 -110 (1)(a) ( "Municipal
Officers ") and are authorized by their Municipalities and the terms of C.R.S. § 16 -3 -110 to act when
a felony or misdemeanor is committed in a Municipal Officer's presence regardless of whether that
Municipal Officer is within their jurisdictional boundaries or whether that Municipal Officer is on
duty; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to aid and assist each other by the exchange of Municipal
Officers services when a Municipal Officer observes a felony, misdemeanor, crime, or other statutory
offense being committed while that Municipal Officer is engaged in official police duties; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized by the Parties to this Agreement that the public health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of their respective jurisdictions would be best served by providing
back -up response and protection services, should the need arise; and
WHEREAS, each party will in good faith, make an attempt to assist the other based on their
needs and specific request.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and
promises contained herein, the adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as
follows:
1. The Parties, through their Police Departments, will be authorized to provide general law
enforcement services in other jurisdictions to the extent and the manner hereinafter set forth. For
purposes of this agreement, general law enforcement services shall consist of responding to,
investigating, and enforcing violations of the Colorado Criminal Code or other Colorado statute that
the Municipal Officers are authorized to enforce in a manner consistent with the level of performance
of peace officers throughout the State of Colorado.
2. The Parties, through their Police Department, will be authorized to act and otherwise provide
general law enforcement services in any situation in which a felony, misdemeanor, crime or other
statutory offense has been or is being committed in such Municipal Officer's presence when such
Municipal Officer is in other jurisdictional boundaries due to official police duties.
l
4/20/2010
11 -2 -1
3. As for Municipal Officers, management of the rendering of services, leadership and
supervision, the standards of performance, the discipline of officers and other matters incident to the
performance of law enforcement services and the review of personnel so employed, shall remain with
the Party.
4. All citations written by a Municipal Officer for violations of any Colorado State Statute or
law shall command the alleged violator to appear before the jurisdiction of where the violation was
committed. The Municipal Officer shall be available to appear before that jurisdiction's Municipal
Court as needed to prosecute each violation.
5. The Parties shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, equipment, and all supplies
necessary to maintain the service to be rendered herein.
6. Each Party shall give prompt and due consideration to all requests from the other Party
regarding delivery of general law enforcement services and shall work cooperatively to achieve the
service called for herein. Such request may be transmitted in person, by phone, radio, electronic
medium, or by a third party. Any reasonable transmittal shall be sufficient to invoke this Agreement.
7. The Parties enter into this Agreement as separate, independent governmental entities and
officials and shall maintain such status throughout. Employees assigned under this Agreement shall
be considered and shall remain employees of their respective law enforcement agencies at all times
and for all purposes under this Agreement
8. To the extent allowed by law, each Party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless each
other, their respective agents, officers, and employees of and from any and all loss, costs, damages,
injuries, liabilities, claims, liens, demands, actions and causes of actions brought by a third party,
whatsoever, arising out of or related to the respective Party's performance or nonperformance under
this Agreement. No Party shall be deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negligent acts of
any other Party. By agreeing to this provision, the Parties do not waive or intend to waive the
limitations on liability which are provided to the Parties under the Colorado Governmental Immunity
Act, C.R.S. § 24 -10 -101, et seq. The provisions of C.R.S. § 29 -5 -108 shall not apply to activities
conducted pursuant to this Agreement.
9. Each Party shall provide its own public liability and property damage insurance coverage as
it may deem necessary for any potential liability arising from the services to be provided under this
Agreement.
10. Unless sooner terminated as provided hereunder, this Agreement shall be effective from the
date of its execution though December 31, 2010. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, either
Party, with or without cause, may terminate this Agreement upon the giving of ten (10) days prior
written notice of such termination to the other respective Party. It is the intent of the Parties that this
Agreement shall be renewed for additional one (1) year periods following the end of the initial
period, and unless one of the Parties gives notice to the other at least ten (10) days prior to the end of
the initial period, or then current additional period, that such Party desires to terminate this
Agreement or to re- negotiate the terms, this Agreement shall be automatically extended for
additional periods of twelve (12) months. After the initial period, this Agreement shall run from
January 1 to December 31 of each respective year.
2
4/20/2010
11 -2 -2
11. The Parties agree that this Agreement is contingent upon all funds necessary for the
performance of this Agreement being budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available. It is
expressly understood that any financial obligations that may arise hereunder, whether direct or
contingent, shall only extend to payment of monies duly and lawfully appropriated by the governing
body of any Party hereto. Should any of the Parties fail to undertake the project because necessary
funds have not been budgeted or duly appropriated, this Agreement may be terminated by any Party
hereto.
12. This Agreement and the rights and obligations created hereby shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, and may not be
assigned by any Party without the prior written consent of the other Parties.
13. Nothing herein expressed or implied is intended or should be construed to confer or give to
any person or corporation or governmental entity other than the Parties within this Agreement, any
right, remedy or claim under or by reason hereof or by reason of any covenant or condition herein
contained.
14. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable for any reason by a court of
competent jurisdiction as to any Party hereto, such portion shall be deemed severable and its
invalidity or its unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions; such remaining provisions
shall be fully severable and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid
provisions had never been inserted into this Agreement.
15. This Agreement may be amended, modified, or changed in whole or in part only by written
agreement duly authorized and executed by the Parties hereto.
16. The law of the State of Colorado shall be applied in the interpretation, execution and
enforcement of this Agreement. Venue for any action arising out of any dispute pertaining to this
Agreement shall be exclusive in Eagle County, Colorado
17. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of the Parties, and supersedes
any prior agreements, discussions, negotiations, representations or understandings of Parties with
respect to the subject matter contained herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and
be effective as of the day and year first above written.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
3
4/20/2010
11 -2 -3