The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-08-05 Town Council MinutesP m AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 5, 1980 7:30 P.M. lavinof Vail Y box 100 a Vail, Colorado 81657 a 303.47.6-5613' ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (1) ORDINANCE N0, 30, SERIES OF 1980, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE REGARDING THE LIONSHEAD PARKING STRUCTURE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE. (2) ORDINANCE N0. 31, SERIES OF 1980, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.04 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE MAKING CHAPTER.5.04 SOLELY A REVENUE RAISING ORDINANCE,' 403) ORDINANCE NO. 32, SERIES OF 1980, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR ELECTRICAL PERMITS AND THE COMPUTATION OF ELECTRICAL EVALUATION. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (4) MOUNTAIN/TOWN CAPACITY REPORT, (5) REQUEST BY GREYHOUND FOR PUC LICENSE, . (6) DISCUSSION OF SECTION 504 TRANSITION PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION GRANT, (7) HONORARY RESOLUTION HONORING COUNCILMEMBER PAULA PALMATEER. TOWN MANAGER REPORTS TOWN ATTORNEY REPORTS RICHARD CAPLAN, TOWN MANAGER 10 Minutes VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 5, 1980 7:30 P.M. 0 The Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 5, 1980, in the Vail Town Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The following Councilmembers and Mayor Rodney E. Slifer were present: Absent: Paula Palmateer John Donovan Dr. Steinberg Ron Todd Scott Hopman Bill Wilto Also present were: Richard Caplan, Town Manager and Lawrence C. Rider,,Town Attorney The first matter for Councils attention mas Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1980, kordinance regarding the Lionshead parking structure general obligation d issue was read by Mayor Slifer on first reading. Introduction to the Ordinance by Richard Caplan, Town manager with additional input by Steve McConehey of Demuth, Kemp and.Backus. There was some discussion. Councilmember Donovan moved to approve Ordinance No. 30 on first reading; Councilmember Steinberg seconded the motion. All present voted in favor and the motion passed. Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 5.04 of the Vail Municipal Code making Chapter 5.04 solely a revenue raising ordinance was read by Mayor Slifer on second reading. Introduction by Richard Caplan, Town Manager. There was no discussion. Councilmember Donovan made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1980, on second reading; Councilmember Steinberg seconded the motion. All present voted in favor and the motion passed. Ordinance No.32, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 15.16 of the Municipal Code changing the fee schedule for electrical permits and the computation of electrical evaluation was read on first reading by Mayor Slifer Introduction by Richard Caplan, Town Manager. There was no discussion. Councilmember Palmateer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 32 on first reading; Councilmember Donovan seconded the motion. All present voted in favor and the motion passed. OTIZEN PARTICIPATION Cindy Saxon asked the Council for $500.00 donation to help the girls softball team to go to Salt Lake City. The 14 girls a merger of Bart n' Yettis and Fancy Plants (2 top teams in the league) won the State Tournament in Denver. Councilmember Donovan made a motion to grant the $500.00 request; Councilmember Todd seconded the motion. All present voted 4 for and 1 against (palmateer). The motion passed. Nolan Rosell of Gage Davis and Associates gave a very indepth presentation to the Council and Citizens on the findings of the Mountain/Town Capacity Study that was done this past winter. Nolan will be coming back to Council with the results of the Air Quality, Water and Saniation and employee housing studies at a later date. Mr. Bill Cohen, Regional Director of Greyhound came before the Council with a request for their approval of Greyhound seeking a Interstate license through Colorado. Mr. Bob Smallwood, District Manager of Trailways gave reasons that Trailways is opposed to this request. It was decided by the Council to wait until the August 19, 1980, Regular Meeting to make a decision. The 0uncil will be awaiting input from VRA. Jon Eberle, Director of Transportation, gave a presentation to the Council and citizens in regards to the 504 Transition Plan for the Transportation Grant. The purpose of this was to get input from the citizens and the Council, in regard to nondiscrimination of the handicapped in regard to riding the Town bus system. There was no need of a decision from the Council. 1 V 4� FACT SHEET. RE: GREYHOUND LINES' APPLICATION BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO OPERATE PASSENGER MOTOR BUS SERVICE GENERALLY BETWEEN DENVER, COLORADO AND CEDAR CITY, UTAH GREYHOUND LINES, INC. ("Greyhound") has filed an Application with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in Washington, DC, seeking authority to provide passenger motor bus service to the general public in this area and requested authority from the ICC to transport passengers and their baggage and express and newspapers in the same vehicle with passengers between Denver, CO and Cedar City, UT over U. S. Highway 6 and Interstate Highway 70 serving all intermediate points. Finally, Greyhound is seeking to conduct one-way and round-trip group charter operations and special operations from the communities along the route. A map of Greyhound's proposed route is attached to this Fact Sheet as Exhibit A. When Greyhound obtains the authority which it now seeks from the ICC, Greyhound will be able to offer to the members of the traveling public along the route a full range of quality motor bus services similar to those which Greyhound now offers in other parts of the country, and, in addition, you, as members of the public, will have a choice between at least two carriers to meet your transportation 9 needs. HEARINGS Greyhound has requested the ICC to hold initial hearings on Greyhound's application on the dates indicated: September 23 - 26 September 29 - October 3 Denver, Colorado October 6 - 7 Grand Junction, Colorado October 9 - 10 Las Vegas, Nevada October 13 - 14 Los Angeles, CA 0 It is anticipated that during the first week of hearings in Denver, CO on September 23 - 26, Greyhound will present witnesses from the Company who will explain Greyhound's service proposal. Thereafter, individuals supporting Greyhound's application will be afforded an opportunity to present their views. We would antici- pate that travel agents, group members, shippers, representatives from political. bodies, and individual users desirous of utilizing Greyhound's services will appear and participate in the hearings in support of Greyhound's application. 0 -2- PURPOSE. OF THE APPLICATION • Greyhound, from time to time, evaluates areas in this country which it does not now serve but which, in Greyhound's opinion, need Greyhound's high -quality service. Notwithstanding Greyhound's extensive geographic coverage, the major direct highway linking Denver, CO and Las Vegas, NV via Cedar City, UT has not been afforded the opportunity to experience that high -quality service which Greyhound offers. The Trailways' companies have had a monopoly position in the area and are the only bus system providing service, without any competition from other regular - route bus companies. You may know of Greyhound's reputation from other parts of the country and may have enjoyed that high -quality bus service. Greyhound would like to bring tha same high -quality, personalized service to the members of the public along the proposed route. It is significant that at the present time Greyhound handles passenger traffic between Denver, CO and Las Vegas, NV which moves through Salt Lake City, UT. Passengers preferring Greyhound's service could enjoy a substantially shorter and faster trip, over a more direct route, if this application were granted. For ex- ample, utilizing Greyhound's existing service in traveling from Denver to Cedar City, the distance is approximately 793 miles, as compared to the proposed route via Salina, UT which is approximately 597 miles. We think that operation over the shorter pro- posed route would result in time savings to the members of the public. In addition, we have found that many passengers moving to points along the route are transferred daily from Greyhound to Trailways at such points as Las Vegas, NV and Denver, CO. This transfer between Greyhound and Trailways' stations inconveniences the passengers, especially where the passengers have to travel some -3- distances between the terminals. Upon the granting of this authority to Greyhound, a more convenient service will be offered to the passengers, eliminating the need for passengers to transfer between Greyhound and Trailways' terminals which may be located several blocks away. In short, Greyhound will be handling many passengers through your municipalities, providing them additional and improved service. Further- more, Greyhound will be offering package express services to your communities for service to other points and places in the United States. As a result, single -line service would become available whereas at the present time only connecting service is available. As a result of the granting of this application, Greyhound feels that the following benefits will accrue to the public and the individuals along the proposed route: S1. There will be an increased frequency of motor bus service; 2. Better quality of motor bus service will be available; 3. The public will have a choice between competing motor bus companies; 4. Circuitous routing through Salt Lake City, UT will be avoided for overhead traffic; 5. Change of terminals will be eliminated in many instances; 6. Added employees and commission agents along the proposed route will stimulate the economies of the municipalities; and 7. Single -line Greyhound service will be available to points exclusively served by Greyhound. There is attached hereto as Exhibit B a schedule of Greyhound's proposed 0 service over the routes involved. -4- D PUBLIC RESPONSE TO GREYHOUND'S PROPOSAL Greyhound has contacted various groups and individuals along the route in order to determine their response to Greyhound's application. We have found that response to be most favorable, including the town fathers, cities, the Chambers of Commerce, leaders of groups and organizations, church leaders and individual users. In a few instances we have found that Trailways has provided satisfactory service, but, nevertheless, even in those instances these same individuals would like to have another competing bus company in order to have a choice for motor bus transportation services. As a result, the public has been invited and will be invited to participate at hearings before the ICC to present their views as to why Greyhound's application should be granted to provide the prpposed service. We hope that each and every one of you will get an opportunity to present your views in that regard. Your support is most important. Greyhound is no stranger to Colorado and Utah. Greyhound Lines, Inc. has been providing service in these states for many years, and in each of the states it has many employees and has substantial investments. We feel that we can partici- pate on a local level and bring Greyhound's personalized service to the members of the traveling public. -5- HEARING PROCEDURE • The hearing on Greyhound's ,application is conducted before a representa- tive of the ICCfrom Washington, DC who is called an Administrative Law Judge. The hearings will be held in suitable locations In the cities which we have previously indicated. Witnesses supporting Greyhound's service will be asked questions by Grey- hound's attorney as to why they like Greyhound and why they prefer Greyhound's services. Thereafter, protestants can ask questions of the witnesses. Generally, these hearings are in an informal setting and are very interesting to members of the public. Before you have an opportunity to testify, you will be briefed as to the proceedings and most witnesses will have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the procedures by observing one or moire other witnesses. PARTIES OPPOSING GREYHOUND The major opposition to Greyhound's application stems from Trailways' bus system. The interest of the Trailways' Companies relates, in general, to the entire regular -route between Denver, CO and Cedar City, UT. Trailways is also authorized to provide charter service from points on the routes and the territory served by the routes. Some or all of the Trailways' companies and their representatives may participate in this proceeding and may ask questions about their respective interests. The public is invited to participate and to tell the ICC about the need for Greyhound's proposed service. -6- 4 0 0 PROPOSAL FOR GREYHOUND LINES SERVICE BETWEEN DENVER—LAS VEGAS AS PART OF A CHICAGO—LOS ANGELES SERVICE R E A D D 0 CV N R E A D U P 3 1337 1311---SCHEAULE NUMBERS ao 1330 1.310 L SDL WDL SDL CDL 600P 725P 430P 705P X X 715P 1250A• W 335A 405A 710A 830A 305P 3lOP � 830P 845P 925P 1050? 15" 1225 A 1250A 215A 235A 430T: 4 35A 705A 7457L 1000A 1100A 1120A 1240P 200P f p 1010A 355A —1135A 520A 1100A r 400A �- 145P :, 700A 1130P . 630P 105P �^-635A 730A 1245P 355P 410P 645P 815P 230A 240A ii 650A 215P r'750A 230P 805A 310P 845A 435P 1010A 40" 20" 635P 1150A 700P 1215P 825P 140P 845P 225P 1040P 420P 1045P 425P 115A 655P 155A 735P 410A 950P 510A 1050P 525A 1110P 6457�, 1230A 800A 100A 155P 710A COLORADO SPRINGS DENVER CHEYENNE DENVER KANSAS CITY DENVER LV .CHICAGO CEDAR RAPIDS DAVENPORT AR DES MOINES LV DES MOINES AR OMAHA LV OMAHA AR NORTH PLATTE LV NORTH PLATTE AR DENVER LV DENVER LAKEWOOD IDAHO SPRINGS VAIL REST STOP GLENWOOD SPRING;$ RIFLE AR GP.AND JUNCTION LV GRAND JUNCTION AR GREEN RIVER LV GREEN RIlMR AR RICHFIELD LV RICHFIELD CEDAR CITY AR ST. GEORGE LV ST. GEORGE(MT) AR LAS VEGAS(PT) LV LAS VEGAS AR LOS ANGELES 05SA 730A 1025A �745A 1140P 730A AR LV ' AID LV AR LV AR LV AR ; 425A 610A 530A 405A 15" 230A 205A LV 1240A AR 1220A LV 1025P AR 1.020P LV 750P AR 710P 555P LV 455P AR 335P LV 1201P AR 1110A 7V 530A X X 1312 CDL 910P .745P 420P : 1100P 140P '>830P 430A ->1230P 1205P 825A 415A 405A 130A 1025P 1210A 355P 630P 347P 625P 900A 1201P --1100A 1045A 1005A 840A 40" 640A 615A 450A 430A 235A 230A 1201A 1140P 925P 825P 805P 430P 355P 1000A CDL THRU BUS CHICAGO—DENVER—LO$ ANGELES SDL — THRIJ BUS ST. LOUIS—DENVER—LOS ANGELES WDL — THRU BUS WASHING'_T'OR—DENVER—LOS ANGELES 1205P �.800P 845P 315P 1215P 1159A 915A 755A 215A 210A 800P _ 630P 615P 535P 410P 15" 235P 210P 1245P 1210P 1015A 1010A 740A 700A 445A 345A 330A 1201A 1055P 500P EXHIBIT B Minutes Page 2 August 6, 1980 *dney E. Slifer, Mayor read an Honorary Resolution honoring Councilmember Paula Palmateer who is resigning her Council seat to take over the presidency of Vail Resort Association. Councilmember Donovan moved to approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 1980; Councilmember Steinberg seconded the motion. Paula Palmateer gave her farewell speech to the Council and citizens. TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Due to lack of applicants for the Planning and Environmental Commission vacancy the Council extended her -term for an additional two weeks. Councilmember Donovan moved to extend her term for two weeks; Councilmember Steinberg seconded the motion. All present voted in favor and the motion passed. Richard Caplan brought to the attention of the Council that Westwood of Vail is requesting a Zone Change from the County. Peter Patten gave the Council a brief run down on this project. It was the consensus of the Council to send a letter opposing the request. There will be a public hearing in Eagle pertaining to this project on August 6, 1980 at 8:00 P.M. TOWN ATTORNEY Wing Councilmember Donovan moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Todd seconded the motion. All present voted and the meeting adjourned at 10,30 F.M. Mayor Attest: Town Clerk 40 U box 100 depsrtrieiit of commuriity development nail, colondo 81657 (303) 476-5613 August 6, 1980 Eagle County Planning Commissioners Eagle County Court House Box 179 ..Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: File No. SU-146-80-S, Zone Change Request for Westwood at Vail Dear Planning Commissioners: The Town of Vail Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Plau-ping Staff continue to strongly oppose the Westwood Subdivision request for zone change from Resource to Residential Subur}�an.Medi.um. As we have stated in previous correspondence to the County concerning former proposals for Westwood, we are not pleased with land trades of this type and feel no obligation whatsoever to grant development rights for this piece of property. we feel. that the Resource Zone District is the appropriate desig- nation for the parcel in question for this and the following reasons: 1. We feel the: property lies outs;.de of the limits of the developable area of the Gore Valley. The present extent of development on the North side of 1-70 constitutes the appropriate boundary for development. 2. The proposal, as stated in correspondence from the County Planning Staff_ to the applicant on January 4, 1980, is not consistent with the County Master Plan. 3. The proposed access is not reasonable. The applicant proposes to somehow cross an existing drainage channel and then climb a 50% existing slope at: a 6% finished road grade., This road then folows the contours of the western bank through very dense, mature coniferous trees only to cross the drainage charnnol twice further to the north to accomodate a switch- back. Moreover, cuts of 30' to 40' are proposed in the construction of the road system. These are excessive, environmentally damaging cuts proposed to be constructed on potentially unstable ..$lop>es. M " Eagle County Planning Commissioners - August, 6, 1980 page'two 4. Environmentally, the proposal is not sound: The removal of: a large number of visually significant trees, 40' road cuts, potentially unstable slopes and insufficient information on wildlife impacts and detailed soil reports warrant the denial of this application. In conclusion, we feel very strongly in recommending to the Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners that this proposal be denied and that the property remain as a Resource District. Sincerely, DICK RYAN Community Development Director DR:br I AGENDA Vail Town Council 1.. Regular Meeting August 19, 1980 �y►� 7:30 P.M. Town of pail box 100 office of the town manager vall, Colorado 81657 (303) 476.5613 ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (1) Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1980, second reading, an ordinance regarding the Lionshead Parking Structure General Obligation Bond Issue. (2) Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1980, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 15.16 of the Municipal Code changing the fee schedule for electrical permits and the computation of electrical evaluation. (3) Presentation of Petitions for the Annexation of West Vail - Resolution #20, Series of 1980, a resolution of intent to annex to the Town of Vail an area commonly known as West Vail and Intermountain areas. (4) Resolution No. 21, Series of 1980, a resolution exercising the option and obligation of the Town Council to redeem certain of its Town of Vail. Street Improvement District No. 1 Local Improvement Bonds, Series of October 1, 1976. (4) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION i (5) Consideration of Greyhound ICC application (6) Appeal of Paul Curfman variance request (7) Appeal on Sam Cook Residence (8) Discussion of Historic Preservation in the Gore Valley (9) Consideration of weather modification program for 1980-81 (10) Discussion of Lionshead Transportation Center Building (11) Appointment of new Town Council Member (12) Appointment of new PEC Member TOWN MANAGER REPORTS TOWN ATTORNEY REPORTS Richard Caplan, Town Manager