Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1989-09-05 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award to Peter Patten 2. Approval of Minutes of the August 1 and 15, 1989 Meetings 3. Public Hearing on Proposed Village Parking Structure Expansion and Renovation 4. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance vacating all right, title and interest of the Town of Vail in and to the roadway more particularly set forth and described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Resolution No. 57, Series of 1989, a resolution of the Town Council approving the amended Town of Vail Personnel Rules and Regulations for the employees and officers of the Town of Vail; authorizing the Town Manager, in accordance with the Charter of the Town of Vail, to implement and administer said Personnel Rules and Regulations, effective dates thereof, and amendments; and setting forth details relating thereto. 6. Resolution No. 58, Series of 1989, a resolution urging the Congress of the United States to revise the Cable Communication Policy Act of 1984, and expressing general concern about the need for greater local government regulatory authority. 7. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision denying a requested color change by the Camelot Townhouse Association (2801 Bassingdale Blvd.) 8. Appeal of the Design Review Board Approval of the Katz Residence on Lot 6, Vail Village 10th Filing (950 Fairway Drive) 9. Finishing Touch Sign Variance Request CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 ~ 1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award to Peter Patten 7:35 2. Approval of Minutes of the August 1 and 15, 1989 Meetings 7:40 3. Public Hearing on Proposed Village Parking Structure Stan Berryman Expansion and Renovation Action Requested of Council: Authorize staff to proceed with contract negotiations to prepare design development documents for "Scheme Two" parking expansion, transit deck, and parking structure renovation. Background Rationale: Michael Barber, of Michael Barber Architecture, will make a presentation of the proposed concept design for the Village Parking Structure expansion and renovation. The Vail Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee unanimously recommended and the Town Council agreed to proceed with "Scheme Two." Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to proceed with contract negotiations to prepare design development documents for "Scheme Two" parking expansion, transit deck, and parking structure renovation. 8:40 4. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1989, first reading, vacating Mike Monica a portion of Meadow Road (also known as Grouse Lane), a Greg Hall public roadway within the Town of Vail (5122 Grouse Lane); adjacent to Lot 7, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1989, on first reading. Background Rationale: The new owner of 5122 Grouse Lane has discovered that a portion of the existing primary/secondary building was constructed outside of the property lines and encroaches approximately 2 feet onto TOU property. The building was constructed in the late 60's prior to the formal organization of an Eagle County building department. Due to topographic constraints and the location of the existing cul-de-sac, the Town Engineer and the Community Development Dept. recommend approval of the requested vacation. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1989, on first reading. 8:55 5. Resolution No. 57, Series of 1989, updating the TOV Charlie Wick personnel rules and regulations Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 57, Series of 1989. Background Rationale: Several weeks ago, the Town Council reviewed with staff the Town's personnel rules and regulations. The Council was told at that time a resolution would be forthcoming. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 57, Series of 1989. ..-• 9:00 6. Resolution No. 58, Series of 1989, supporting' local Larry Eskwith regulation of cable television Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 58, Series of 1989. Background Rationale: The U.S. Congress has held hearings to discuss whether or not the cable TV industry should be subject to local government regulation. This resolution, suggested by the National League of Cities, supports legislation which would permit such local regulatory authority. Staff Recommendation: 1989. Approve Resolution No.~ 58, Series of 9:15 7. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision denyi Mike Mollica~ color change by the Camelot Townhouse Associ Bassingdale Blvd.) Action Requested of Council: Uphold/overturn the DRB. ~ a requested :ion ( 2801 the action of Background Rationale: On August 2, 1989, the Design Review Board, by a vote of 3-1-1, denied the Camelot Townhouse Association's request for a color change. The DRB made the following findings in their motion for denial: "That the proposed colors would not be compatible with the neighborhood and that the proposed colors would attract undue attention to the building." Staff Recommendation: None. 9:30 8. Appeal of the Design Review Board Approval of the Katz Kristan Pritz Residence on Lot 6, Vail Village 10th Filing (950 Fairway Drive) Action Requested of Council: The Council called up for review the DRB approval of the Katz residence. Background Rationale: The DRB approved this project 3 to 2. Jamie McCluskie made the motion, and Pat Herrington seconded the action. The project was approvei with four conditions: 1. Four spruce (1-6 ft., 2-8ft., 1-10 ft.) 'shall be added in front of the northeast corner of the residence. 2. It is recommended that landscape screening underneath the house be planted to screen the support columns. 3. The owner and neighbors should work together on their concerns. 4. The transplanted aspens should be placed carefully for maximum screening impact. Roy Sante and Chuck approve. Roy voted two structures. He for the project for against, as he felt believed the projec as proposed. Crist voted against the motion to against, as he believed the project was stated he would have a hard time voting this specific reason. Chuck voted the site planning was inappropriate. He t did not need to go up the site as far 9:50 9. Finishing Touch Sign Variance Request Rick Pylman Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the request. Background Rationale: The Finishing Touch Furniture Showroom is requesting a sign variance for their Inn at West Vail location. The request is not for the sign as it exists today. Staff Recommendation: Approve the variance request. -2- ,c~ ~ .. 10:05 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10:20 10. Adjournment -3- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 1, 1989 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 1, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Michael Cacioppo Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was a ten year employment anniversary award to Glenn Moore, a Fire Technician at the Fire Department. Ron Phillips gave background information on Glenn, and presented him with a Town of Vail belt buckle. Dick Duran, Fire Chief, said a few words regarding the hard work Glenn has done over the years and how much he appreciated him. The next item was a consent agenda for the following items: A. Approval of the minutes of the July 11 and 18, 1989 meetings. B. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance allowing employee units in Lionsridge Filing #4. C. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1989, second reading, concerning cable television communications. D. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1989, second reading, granting a five year cable television franchise to Heritage Cablevision. E. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1989, second reading, concerning the issuance of local improvement bonds for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District, and reflecting the interest rates presented and accepted, purchase price of the bonds, and purchaser name inserted in the ordinance. Mayor Rose read the full titles of all the ordinances. Larry Eskwith noted one change on page 6 of the franchise agreement. Eric Affeldt commented on one paragraph of the July 18 minutes. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve all items in the consent agenda, which was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The third subject was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision to approve a setback variance on Lot 6, Vail Village 10th Filing (950 Fairway Drive). Betsy Rosolack gave background information regarding the variance request, noting the PEC vote was 5-1-1, with Diana Donovan opposing, and Jim Viele abstaining. She then explained why staff recommended approval and upholding the PEC decision. Eugene McGuire, who filed the appeal, explained he would prefer to hold this item over for two weeks until he could talk to Mr. Katz and the neighbors. Tom Briner remarked he would not be available on August 15, and also, they wanted construction to proceed; Mr. Katz was planning to go to the Design Review Board tomorrow. Mr. McGuire reviewed the series of events leading up to this point. He stated he was asking that the variance be denied (overturn the PEC decision), or have Council send the item back to the PEC for review again, and gave reasons why he felt the variance was unnecessary. Vern Anderson, an adjacent property owner, reasoned the front of the new house should be in line with the front of the other houses; it was not consistent with the architecture appearance of other properties on the block. There was some discussion regarding variances for neighbors in relation to the Katz residence, and studies done in 1975 versus later specific information. Mary Lou Walters, an adjacent property owner, felt Mr. Katz should try to make the neighborhood consistent and not build in front of his neighbor. Helga Mesenbau, a potential buyer of Mary Lou Walters' residence, gave a bit of background information regarding a 1977 study. Dr. Mesenbau stated he had looked at the proposed drawings, noted the items of importance to him, and that he would be in agreement with the other neighbors. There was some discussion by Mr. Katz as to changes already made to appease the neighbors' concerns, and why he felt the PEC decision should be upheld. All parties agreed to postpone thi~,s item for a few minutes to see if the property owners could work out the problems 'by themselves and find common ground. The fourth order of business was an appeal of the Planning and Environimental Commission decision to approve an exterior alteration, height variance:, and density variance for the Enzian Lodge, at 705 West Lionshead Circle, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Kristan Pritz gave background information regariding the two variance requests made by the Enzian. She reviewed the criteria usedlin looking at the variances, and explained why staff recommended approval of both variances, with two conditions: i 1. An employee housing unit shall be provided within the building. The employee housing unit shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet. The owner shall be responsible for submitting an employee housing agreement to the Community Development Department before a building permit will be rele'lased for the portion of the remodel. The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted per Section 18.13.080 B. 10 a-d. This written agreement shall be submitted to the~~ Community Development Department and Town Attorney and approved by the staff before a building permit is issued for the project. ~ 2. The three new accommodation units will have gas fireplaces p'er Town of Vail ordinances governing fireplaces. Kristan noted the Planning Commission had removed the employee housing, requirement. Jay Peterson, representing Alma Equities Corporation, the applicant, explained why the employee unit was not acceptable, and briefly discussed parking. There was some discussion regarding Commercial Core II zoning, and Council's need to look at changing the zoning. Council directed staff to bring the zoning problem back to Council in the near future for changes. There was then some discussion regarding parking needed for the restaurant and hotel, and landscaping. Mike Ca'icioppo questioned the lowering of square footage of the meeting rooms, and was disturbed by the plans to take away some of the parking. Kristan reviewed the employee housing condition, and stated the PEC did not agree it was a fair request; that was why they pulled the condition. Merv Lapin made a motion to uphold the~PEC decision based on staff recommendation, with the following conditions: the use's will be residential only; employee housing would be provided in the building; ~a charge of $5,000 per parking space would be applied for each space taken away; plus the two conditions recommended by staff (shown above). After some discussion,~Merv included the size of the employee unit would be no less than the size ~of one hotel room. Eric Affeldt seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Tom Steinberg requested staff to review the zoning a'~nd bring the issue back to Council. I The fifth agenda item was an appeal of the Design Review Board decision granting final approval of the Rose residence (2880 Booth Creek Drive). Mayor Rose stated the reason this item was brought before Council was because of the 2-0-2 vote by the DRB; this was just for review. Mike Mollica reviewed the plans of~the residence and noted the removal of two trees, while saving three. Duane Piper, project architect, then reviewed the landscape plans. A motion to approve the Rose residence as presented was made by Merv Lapin and seconded by Mike Cac~~ioppo. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. At this time, Council returned to item three regarding the Katz residence setback variance. Mary Lou Walters commented they had been unable to come to ~a compromise. After much discussion by Mr. Katz and his neighbors, Tom Briner reviewed the plans for the home and what the requested changes would involve. Mr. Katz remarked the house did not request any variances other than the four foot setback all the other property owners in the neighborhood had. He stated he did not expect any problems, and did not understand the complaints of the appeal. He said he needed to go to the Design Review Board tomorrow so he could start construction September 15. After some discussion regarding the PEC guidelines, Merv Lapin made a motion to uphold the PEC decision based on the findings of the PEC that 1) this alas not a -2- grant of special privilege; 2) this was not detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; and 3) this variance was warranted because of the strict interpretation of the guidelines. John Slevin seconded. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal commented she would oppose the request due to the fact that now we have more information than in 1975, when the original variances were granted. Mike Cacioppo agreed, adding he did not feel there was a hardship involved. Mayor Rose felt he would rather err on the side of safety, and rockfall and avalanche hazard studies are unscientific. He would rather look at moving the building forward for safety rather than assume it would be alright; therefore, he would vote for it. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal and Mike Cacioppo opposing. There was no Citizen Participation. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 15, 1989 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 15, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Michael Cacioppo Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Affeldt TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Charles Wick, Assistant Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was Resolution Nos. 54, 55, and 56, Series of 1989, designating the following financial institutions as depositories for the funds of the Town as permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado: No. 54 - Westside Savings & Loan, 2010 Wellshire Blvd., Santa Monica, California 90403 No. 55 - Homestead Savings Association, P. 0. Box 390, Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 No. 56 - Lyndonville Savings Bank and Trust, P. 0. Box 125, Lyndonville, Vermont 05851 There was no discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolutions, and Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Under Citizen Participation, Al Weiss, representing the Fresh Air Committee, distributed information materials to the Council. He noted he was filling in for Reggie O'Brien, since she could not be present. He explained why the committee was appealing to the Council for an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants. Mayor Rose noted if the Council wanted to seriously address the issue, it would be put on a series of work session agendas for discussion. Mike Cacioppo agreed it should be put on a work session agenda to listen to the public and pay close attention to the information received. Pepi Langegger commented he was not sure a law was really needed, not that many smoke anymore. He felt businesses would be self-policing to compete; also, small groups, like the Mexicans, should not be disregarded. A woman in the audience remarked she would not mind if the bar area was made a smokers' area; they were not trying to ban smoking everywhere. Pepi replied he agreed with that, plus seating smokers in a separate room from the non-smokers. Mayor Rose took a consensus of Council for the item to be placed on future work sessions. Council all agreed. Eric Shickler, a resident of East Vail, expressed his concerns about non-smokers and his support of the committee. Tom Steinberg requested staff to check various places in Colorado asking about the success, compliance, and problems they have had, so we could write the best ordinance possible. He reported the Middle School had been tested, and a child would be safer there than a child in a restaurant where smoking was allowed. Jan Livergood read a letter from the Manager of the Chart House Restaurant in support of a non-smoking ordinance. John Slevin suggested the committee members and restauranteurs get together before the scheduled work sessions to discuss the issue. There was much more discussion by the public regarding the pros and cons of such an ordinance. David Paul expressed his concerns over cigarette smoke. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~I Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- ~ i __ OF;DgNANCE N0. 21 _ sERIEs of 19s9 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A~HERROADWAYIMOREAPARTICULARLYOSETHE TOWN OF VAIL, YN AND TO FORTH AND DESCRIBEDET~INGxFORTH DETAILSHIN REGARD THERETOE A PART EiEREOF s AND S WHEREAS, a portion of Meadow Road (also known as Grouse Lane), a public roadway within the Town of Vail ie not utilized by the general publicr and WHEREASp because of said reason, the Town believes that it would benefit the public safety and welfare tv vacate said roadway and take the necessary steps to allow title to ' the roadway to transfeg to the owner of the adjacent property for correction of encroachment of existing structure, which existence predates the Town of Vail taking said real property for roadway pruposes; and WHEREAS, 43-2-302 C.R.S. provides that in the event that a portion of a roadway is vacated, title to the vacated portion of the roadway shall vest in the owners of the abutting land, each abutting owner taking to the center of the roadway; and WHEREAS, the abutting landowner of the pertinent portion of Meadow Road is Linda C. Fried. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, as follows: ' Section 1. The portions of Meadow Road set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto are hereby vacated and shall be conveyed by quit claim deed to Linda C. Fried (owner) subject to the following conditions; _ A. The Owner shall be obligated to maintain the vacated roadway and to keep it in good repair. Nol additional structures shall be placed upon the real property, except for the purpose of replacement of~the .. ._.._ .: eYie~~~r~..~i~~uCtu~e. B. No property described herein shall be used or i considered in determining the grass residential floor area or density that.the Owner shall be entitled to under Town of vail laws and regulations. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or I phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to' be invalid, such decision shall, not affect the, validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,i sections, subsections,. sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid, Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for ttie health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants I thereof. Section 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of ary I provision of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which I has accrued, any duty imposed, any vio7.ation that occurred i prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecutin commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revise any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. .. ~ .~ ;.~,. , %NTRODt7CED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS day of , 19890 and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of o 1989, at 7030 p,m, in the Council Chambers of the Vail: t•I~j:nicipal Building, Vail, Cr~l©raa~a Ordered published in full this day of , 199, ttent R. Rose, Mayor ATTESTo Pamela Ao Erandmeyer, Town C erk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED 1989. this day of Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST; Pamela A. Erandmeyer, Town Clerk I/ f'. i ~~ ~.. ~ ! Legal DescriPta nVacationRoad Right of W y LEGAL nESCRIPTION Exhibit A: ~ of Gore Creek That part of Meadow Road, according to the map i 'vision recorded in Book 216 arkpand RecorderheisaidCe ! Subdi Colorado, Cle of the Eagle County, the Town of Vail and now Meadow Road havi=ou$eeLane)ade$cbibed as follows: ~' being known as G corner of Lot 7, Block 1- Beginning at the southwesterly along the northerly ~ said Gore Creek $uodisaid MeadownRoad, 42.83 feet along the i righ+e-af-way line f .. a radius cif 45.00 . feet arc of a curve.to the rigr,t- having. ~i 1 an le of 54 32'10"- and a chord that bears N$3 a centra 9 departing said right-of-way R thence, Dint of beginning. 28'50 E 41.23 feets .line, 883 28'50"w 41.23 feet to the P containing 139 square feet, more or less. I . .. e .... a .. ~.3~ PINE e0 `\ 3' PINE I.0 PINES ~s, I.S~ PINE BUILDING m OVERHANG IQ 2 STORY WOOD FRAMED RESIDENCE \_ _ _ _ OVERHANG, SHED \~~ \ -- 100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN 1 BELOW ~:~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ T.O.V. FLOOD INSURANC DECK \ / `D ~- \ 5~ ASPEN ' a 1 \\ d, . C ) 8 2 ~ 0' ~ O- \ m 1 g,3 \\ i a3, c~ ~ \ \ ~~. WATER VALVE c~ \ 3' PINE /2.5~ PINE ~ .~'\ 6 ~.5 ASPEN ~~~ i i i i ~ ; i • i ' ~~ W TYP.I 1 ~ ` 2.0 PINE 1 ~ ( „/ DECK 1 ~ I.S~ PINE ; ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ WOOD STAIRS ~ _ ~LS~ PINE 8 I / ~ - i ----- i _ _ i' i ~~~BUILDING - ~^- ~ WgLKWAY OVERHANG i ,% / ~///~/ ~ i i i ,a .-::-~LC3`~"•.. 41.23 Lfi RAD, FND PIN B CAP - - RAD , L.s. No 16ea< '--___~-_ PARCEL B ; B.M. EL.= 8597.7 - _ ~ ~ i 860 N81~08'3G"W ~_-_ ~ 5~ PINE ~O 53. 58 - _ ~ ` ~~ / --' ~ T PHONE BOX ~ I TV CARL FIRE I I BOX HYDRANT ~ ~ 1 i~ 1 / 'i 'i SEWER MANHOLE ~lo ~~ /i~ RIM ELEV.=~ 9.9 ~~ ~ ~. i ~ ~ WOOD STAIRS ,~ , ~~ i~ ~ LIGHT POLE / \ i i i i i i i, ' i \ i~ i~ ~GE OF PAVEMENT \ ```` v ' / C \\ / ' !~ i ~. / / /// 64~ FND. PIN 9 CAP ~~\ L.S. No. 16844 _ .6~ wIDE TIMBER RETAINING WALL p = 77°321481 R = 4 5.0 01 L = 60.91' CH=N85°0014611VU , 56.361 PHONE BOX PAf RESOLUTION N0. 57 Series of 1989 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVING THE AMENDED TOWN OF VAIL PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, TO IMPLEMENT AND ADMINISTER SAID PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS, EFFECTIVE DATES THEREOF, AND AMENDMENTS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has had a Personnel Policy in effect for a number of years that periodically has been amended and update; and WHEREAS, numerous changes have been made in the law relating to employees and employee benefits; and WHEREAS, the Charter of the Town of Vail in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 provide that the Town Manager shall be the chief administrative officer for personnel matters, and the Town Council has received a recommendation from the Town Manager that the amendments to the Town's personnel policy be approved by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that the Personnel Rules and Regulations are of benefit to the employees and officers of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, that: 1. The amended Personnel Rules and Regulations proposed in accordance with Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the Charter of the Town of Vail by the Town Manager are hereby approved as the official personnel policies and guidelines for employees and officers of the Town of Vail. 2. The Town Manager shall implement and administer these updated Personnel Rules and Regulations. 3. The Town Manager is authorized and directed to continue to adopt administrative guidelines for the purpose of implementing and administering the personnel policies and guidelines. Said administrative guidelines shall be reduced to writing and copies thereof kept in the Office of the Town Personnel Officer, available for inspection by all interested parties during regular business hours. 4. The Personnel Rules and Regulations may be amended from time to time as may be necessary for the benefit of the Town of Vail, and its officers and employees. Amendments to the personnel policies and guidelines may be made in writing by the i I Town Manager, a copy thereof kept in the Office of the Town Personnel~~Manager, provided that the Town Council shall be periodically informed of said amendments. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1989. ~~ Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: I Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk I I I -2- RESOLUTION N0. 58 Series of 1989 A RESOLUTION URGING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO REVISE THE CABLE COMMUNICATION POLICY ACT OF 1984, AND EXPRESSING GENERAL CONCERN ABOUT THE NEED FOR GREATER LOCAL GOUERNMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY. ~~-WHEREAS, the Cable Communications Act of 1984 restricts states' and local governments' abilities to regulate the cable television industry directly; and WHEREAS, since the passage of the Cable Communications Act of 1984, concentrations of ownership amounting to monopolies have increased among cable operators, even though the Act was intended to "promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulations that impose undue economic burden on cable systems;" and WHEREAS, municipalities throughout the nation, including the Town of Vail, have been subject to substantial rate increases, service reductions, and programming changes that do not reflect consumers' needs or the original intentions of their franchise agreements; and WHEREAS, more than half of the nation's households and a substantial number of the residents of this town subscribe to cable and cable television is increasingly becoming the main means of access to information and entertainment; and WHEREAS, cable subscribers in this town have been subjected to very substantial rate increases over the past four years; and WHEREAS, cable television is rapidly being priced beyond the reach of lower income people, including families with children and the elderly, who are particularly in need of information and other services that are available solely through cable television; and WHEREAS, the diversity of information services promised by the 1984 Cable Communications Act has failed to materialize; and WHEREAS, the promise of universal service, similarly has not been fulfilled; and WHEREAS, existing law provides this town and other franchising authorities little ability to control or question the imposition by cable franchisees of exorbitant rates upon citizens whose right-of-way have been placed at the company's disposal by virtue of the grant of franchises; and WHEREAS, legislation that is now pending in the Congress seeks comprehensive changes in the Cable Communications Act of 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OFIVAIL, i COLORADO: ~, 1. The Vail Town Council declares its support for the restoration of local regulatory authority over cable television systems. 2. The Congress of the United States should rewrite the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 with particular focus on reregulation of subscriber rates, -~ - allowance of telephone company provision of cable services under circumstances that respect local government authority, system owner transfers, the impact of vertical integration in the cable industry, and other aspects of the act that directly impact local regulation and consumers. ~ 3. The Town Council urges Congressional action for appropriate federal i legislation to restore local authority over cable systems to eliminate the barriers to competition and to rectify other aspects of the 1984 Act that work~to the i disfavor of cable consumers. ' INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk day of ! 1989. i Kent R. Rose, Mayor -2- a ,. ~ C August 7, 1989 T0: Mr. Ron Phillips, Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81658 FROM: Michael J. Chapman, President Camelot Townhouse Association 2801 Basingdale Blvd. Vail, CO. 81658 RE: Design and Review Qoard permit denial Dear Ron: This letter is to request an appeal of the Design and Review Board's decision on August 2'nd, 1989, to deny the issuance of a permit to the Camelot Townhouse Association for a retroactive "color change permit". We feel that the boards decision to deny this permit was in conflict with past decisions made by the board, and that boards decision is a violation of substantive law which prohibits laws that are arbitrary and capricious in nature. We are requesting an appeal to the town council of this matter. As I will be out of town until August 24Th, I am requesting that this appeal be scheduled after this date. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, copy file 4~ r' f DESIGN REVIEW e. The applicant or his authorized representative shall be present at the design review board meeting. 3. Staff approval. The zoning administrator may approve any of the following applications: a. Any application to an existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, materials and colors of the building, including, but not limited to windows, skylights, siding, and other similar modifications; b. An application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent with the architectural design, mate- - rials and colors of the building, and approval has been received by an authorized member of a condominium association, if applicable. c. An application to remove or modify the existing vegetation or landscaping upon a site. In the above-specified cases, the zoning admin- istrator may review and approve the application, approve the application with certain modifications, or may refer any application to the destgn review board for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the design review board. (Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) Il8.54.050 Design guidelines. " Actions of the design review board shall be guided by the objectives prescribed in Section 18.54.010, the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plans, by all of the applicable ordinances of the Town of Vail, and by the following design guidelines: A. General. - 1. Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the • proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning, • landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with the guidelines herein contained. 454c ~va~i s-i-ash ZONING T 2. Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique land forms and features. Whenever possible, these exist- ing features should be preserved and reinforced by new construction. The objective is to fit the buildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural land forms and features intact, treating the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than as isolated objects at odds with their surroundings. B. Site plannirig. 1. The location and configuration of structures and access ways shall be responsive to the existing topography of the site upon which they are to be located. Grading require- ments resulting from development shall be designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or fills shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend. with the existing natural undisturbed terrain within the property boundary. 2. Building siting and access thereto shall be responsive to existing features of terrain rock outcroppings, drainage patterns, and vegetation. 3. Removal of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation shall be limited to removal of those essential for develop- ment,of the site or those identified as diseased. 4. All areas disturbed during construction shall be re- vegetated. Ifnecessary, the DRB may designate allowable limits of construction activity and require physical bar- riers in order to preserve significant natural features and vegetation upon a site and adjacent sites during con- struction. S. All projects shall be designed so as to provide adequate snow storage areas for snow cleared from the parking areas and roadways within the project. C. Building materials and design. 1. Building materials shall be predominantly natural such as wood siding, wood shakes, and native stone. Brick is acceptable. Where stucco is utilized, gross textures and surface features that appear to imitate other materials shall be avoided. Concrete surfaces shall be treated with texture and color if used, however exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. Neither aluminum 454d wa;i s-i-ss~ DESIG\ REVrE\V steel, or plastic siding, nor simulated .stone or belts: stall be permitt;,d. Plywood siding shall not he rermitte? -'• The same or similar building materials and coiurs <r.arl he used on main structures and any accessory strur.~~res upon t::^.e site. ?• Exterior wall coiurs should be comratihie „rth tie site and surroundin. butidin_s. ~\'aturar euiore irartn tones found ,yithin the Vail areal should be utiu~~d. Pr~.':ary colors or other bri~~ht colors snourd he usea only ;;~ accents and then so:trtn~,ty sucn as upon trim ur ra;un~s. :\II exterior wail matertais must be cuntinura doccn to finished _zrade thereoy riiminaun~* unfinisnea founaat.on wails. ,ill rxoosed metal tlasitina, tom, flues, ::nd root too mechanical equipment shah ~e annuuizee. ~aintea or capable of cyeatnenna so as to be nun-re:iecn•.e. -~• The majority of root forms ccitilin ',•,:il are `able roofs with a pitch of at !east four f~~t in t«rtye rect. i-io~cryer, other root forms are atioc~~ed. CUnslurratlOn ut enyiron- mcntaiand climatic determinants such as sooty shedding, drainage, and solar exposure should be integral to the roof desi~~n. - 5. Root lines should be d~si;ned so as nut to u~nosit snow on parkin~~ areas, trash stora~~e areas, stairwa~•s, ~cc:cs and balconies, oren[rywavs. Secondan'roof:,;nocc sins, and snoc~ euards should be utilired toprot~ct these areas frc+m mnf sooty sheddin~~ if neressar~~. h. Roof surfacin_ materials shall he compatible «•ith the site and surroundin, huildin~,s. The nrcdc~minant roof matc- ri;tls utilii.ed arc wood shakes and ti;rir use is strum,+`, rnruurt~~rd. The use of metal n,ufs is acceptahle. hocyr~~er in nu instance ct•ill metal roof; which r,tlcct direct sunli~_ht ~,nto an adjacent praprrty he permitted. I! meta! ruins are used they sh;tll he surf acrd kith :t lucy-,Muss 1•inish ur capahlr of «r;tthcrin~ to ;t dull Finish. \trtal routs shall _~cnrrally h:n'c a standin'~ scram in order to . I`t~~''•'r<l~ .urttc relict to the roof stufacc and hc• of ;t heavy ~~au~r. :\.hhalt and lihrrci;us shin~~les .it;tll n,~t he pe•rmittr,l, ht,cc~rvrr, they sh;tll he ,~t sulficirnt ~~auLe, drstLn, :uui cttlur to he curn~:uthle ccith the>~ eui~l:linrs I~ullicicut ~~au~_r shall he ?Iltl nds . / •.~~,• r•r•44 ~ . r MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: September 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Sign Variance Request for the Finishing Touch Furniture Showroom located in the Inn at Vail (Applicant: The Finishing Touch) BACKGROUND ON REQUEST In early July, the Finishing Touch Furniture Showroom moved into a new lease space in the Inn at Vail, formerly the Raintree Inn, and erected a sign and awning without Town of Vail approval. A decision was made by the Town of Vail to allow the applicant to maintain the existing awning while he submitted for a sign variance. The original request to the Design Review Board was a request to receive approval for the existing awning as well as two other proposed signs. That variance request involved sections of the sign code regarding height, number of signs, and square footage allowed. After several meetings with the Design Review Board and the staff, the applicant amended his application to include only one sign located eighteen feet above grade, the existing awning would have all signage removed, and it would be physically amended so that there would be an individual awning over each of the windows of the upper level of the south elevation. This proposal was approved by the Design Review Board by a vote of 5-0. The staff recommendation for the proposal is for approval. RP/bsc 'ti TO: Design Review Board FROMa Community Development Department DATE: August 30, 1989 SUBJECTe Sign variance request for the Finishing Touch Furniture Showroom located in the Inn at Vail. Applicanto The Finishing Touch I. THE REQUEST The Finishing. Touch sign variance request has been reviewed by the Design Review Board at two previous meetings. Please refer to the memorandums dated July 5th, and July 19th, for specific information regarding the original proposal. With direction from the Design Review Board and the staff, the applicant has amended his application and is at present requesting variance to Section 16.22.070 C of the Town of Vail Sign Code. The applicant is requesting a sign of 20 square feet to be placed approximately 18 feet above grade in the south elevation of the Inn at Vail. This application does meet the size and number of sign criteria of the Town of Vail Sign Code. The required maximum height allowance for a sign of this type as stipulated in Section 16.22.070 C of the Sign Code is 15 feet above grade. The applicant is requesting a variance of approximately 3 feet in order to place the sign in the proposed location. All signs will be removed from the existing awning and that awning is proposed for modification and will be reviewed by the Design Review Board with respect to the Design Guidelines, but not to the Sign Code. The applicant has eliminated the other signs from the request and has greatly reduced the degree of variance that they were originally seeking. II. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that, A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on ad'acent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises Staff Response As we have stated in our previous memorandums regarding this subject, the staff recognizes that the application of the Sign Code to this particular business may c hardship to the business. We felt that the pre request for variance exceeded the degree of var we could support and had previously recommended this application. We feel the applicant has co way in amending his request and can now support variance as it is proposed. The sign will be 1 feet above the entry level deck that exists on Vail. This deck is approximately 3 feet above creating a technical nonconformance with the re We feel that by locating the sign within a 15 f limit of the entry level deck, that the applica meeting the intent of the Sign Code. B. That special circumstances were not created by applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff Response• C. The applicant is maintaining a 15 foot height 1 the deck of the Inn at Vail and the maximum of grade, a variance of 3 feet. The reason for th the height variance is to allow the first floor stores room for improvement and display of thei signage. The Finishing Touch, by virtue of a s location, does have some hardship in locating a south elevation of the building. That the granting of the variance will be in ae harmony with the purpose of this title and will materially detrimental to the persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the n or to the public welfare in general. -eate some pious _ance which denial of ie a long the ~cated 15 :he Inn at grade, thus ~ulations. got height it is mit from 8 feet from request of retail own cond floor sign on the eral not be r working ighborhood Staff Response• The staff feels that this request does meet theintent of the Sign Code and is in general harmony with that Sign Code. We do not feel that this variance request will be detrimental to any persons residing or working in the vicinity, or will be detrimental to adjacent property. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response: ~ We feel that the amendments to this proposal allow us to support this request and state that the application does not depart from the provisions of the Sign Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. e ~. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance. We feel that the height of the proposed sign of the North Frontage Road is in harmony with the intent of the Sign Code and does not call undue attention to itself. We feel that the existing hardship is adequate enough to support a variance of this degree in the Town of Vail Sign Code. P ~ TOPIC WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP ESTION 8/1 LIGHTS ON PEDESTRIAN PATH BEHIND MOUNTAIN HAUS (request: Rose) 8/1 BANNERS IN THE VILLAGE (request: Slevin) 8/1 MISCELLANEOUS BANNERS/SIGNS (request: Slevin/Rose) 8/1 STREET ENTERTAINMENT 8/1 VAIL GATEWAY PROJECT 8/1 TOWN COUNCIL/UMRD JOINT MTG 8/1 4TH OF JULY 8/8 EAST END OF SOCCER FIELD 8/8 TIVOLI LANDSCAPING 8/8 UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING FOR ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT STAN: Need to be redirected/painted/dimmed or something. PETER: Arrange location and placement of permanent banner poles at any location other than Pepi's. PETER: Ferret out/dismantle following banners/ signs - Brandess-Cadmus Real Estate on Bridge Street Holiday Inn/Chateau-Vail PAM: No more rock 'n roll. Perhaps no more jazz? LARRY: Obtain letter of agreement & credit RON: Schedule next meeting in September. RON: Schedule joint meeting to include the fallow- ing: UMRD, Council, Marketing Board, VRA, Chamber, TOV staff, Jim Soran (Lacrosse), lodging com- munity. Police to respond to situation in Aspen- can our problems be tied specifically to Lacrosse? PAT: Keep after volunteers to complete. PETER: What is the status? KRISTAN: Provide casts to individuals to convert to underground. Provide firm number for TOV's portion by budget time. Inventory all above- ground wiring. 9/1/89 OW-UP SOLUTIONS Public Works is working on a solution. Will be done by 9/8. 8/7 Have asked Ampersand for design for Lionshead east entry. Will explore with Ampersand alternative banner pole locations in Village. Brandess-Cadmus signs meet sign code. Signs are acceptable given variance; 3 signs removed. Review meeting planned for September 20. Letter of credit far $70,000 received 9/1/89. State permit for ground water may be necessary. Meeting set for Tuesday, 9/19, 8:00 a.m., in the Down- stairs Conference Room. Council recommends moving Lacrosse Tournament to another weekend in June. UMRD to discuss at their Board meeting 9/13, 3:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. UMRD will then give their recommendation to Council at the Evening Meeting 9/19. Topsoil received. Sod arrives next week. Letter sent to Bob Lazier 8/16. No response as of 9/1/89. Working on getting a contractor to estimate electrical costs for undergrounding utilities for properties in ABD. Holy Cross is going to give us plans showing all above ground utilities in the Town of Vail. Tentative meeting set for Sept. 11, 9:00 a.m., with Ted Huskey and New Electric. A Council meeting to discuss this will follow. S. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 9/1/89 TOPIC 8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) 8/8 POST OFFICE 8/15 UUCWD/TOU LAND CONTRACT 8/15 POINT OF SALES TAX COLLECTION (request: Lapin) 8/15 NO SMOKING ORDINANCE/RESTAURANTS 8/25 CASCADE VILLAGE LIGHT 8/25 UAIL VILLAGE INN TRIANGLE 8/29 VTRC HANDRAILS (request: Slevin) FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS LARRY: Provide more enforcement power to Holy Cross to require undergrounding. RON: Contact property owners re: street improve- ments. STAN: Check access w/CDOH as relates to remodel. RON: Schedule joint work session to iron out details/ascertain intent of VVCWD. CHARLIE/STEVE B.: Schedule discussion. RON/SUSAN: Schedule for WS. Compile stats on success/compliance/problems with towns currently under such an ordinance. STAN: Light missing at the intersection of West- i haven and South Frontage Road. PETER: Landscaping inappropriate. STAN: John and Ron feel they are in terrible shape. Need to know if handrails are going to be treated or in some way fixed before winter. Prepared memo for Town Council on utility wire underground- ing. Holy Cross is also preparing additional information. Contact made 8/17/89. Annexation map is being produced. This should be completed by Jan. 1st so Intermountain can be included in our census count. When space needs are determined, access redesign will be done. Have called Bill George to schedule meeting. Meeting scheduled for 9/12. Will be addressed in the budget process mid-September. Research underway. A synopsis of what other municipalities have done is being prepared. Susan has contacted Aspen & Telluride, and has their ordinances. She will be contact- ing businesses in these communities to find out pros and cons. The No Smoking Group is responsible for developing their request to Council. Susan plans to make her report to Council on either Sept. 19 or Sept, 26.. Peter spoke to Andy Norris. Andy said CDOH told him he could not put the light up. Public Works will contact Andy and CDOH, and put the light in. Mike will write a letter next week to Josef Staufer requesting pavers to be placed in the Triangle. Getting cost estimate next week. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP TOPIC 8/29 SIGN NEAR SKI MUSEUM (request Lapin and Cathy Douglas) 8/29 HIGHWAY RESEEDING OF FILL AREAS (request: Steinberg) 8/29 NEW STREET LIGHTS ALONG BIKE PATH IN FORD PARK (request: Slevin) 8/29 WILLOW CIRCLE LANDSCAPING (request: Steinberg) 8/29 LANDSCAPING BETWEEN MOUNTAIN HAUS AND STREAMWALK (request: Steinberg) CCTTl1AIC 9/1/89 Frn i n~-iip sni urT STAN: Some type of dead end indication sign needs Staff will discuss solutions at the 9/11 Interdepartmental to be placed on Vail Road as you are approaching meeting. the Ski Museum from the north indicating that a that a right turn is a dead end. STAN: Could wildflower seed be mixed with grass see Will contact CDOH landscaper in Grand Junction, and ask him and the reseeding program for all the fill areas to show us his revegetation plan. Will present Council's along the Interstate. request to him. STAN: Two of the lights are out. Also, need to plar some kind of lighting for the path that leaves the amphitheater on the east going past east of the tennis courts to the parking lot at Ford Park - there is no lighting along that path at all. Will repair the two lights that are out. Conduit for path on east side will be placed at time tennis courts are placed. New lights are budgeted in the 1990 RETT fund. STAN: Please contact Joan Whittenburg concerning her offer of assistance to help pay for landscape improvements in Willow Circle. STAN: John Mouw, General Manager of Mountain Haus, has offered to do landscaping between the Mtn. Haus and the streamwalk, but has received no encouragement or help from Public Works, supposedly. Stan will contact Joan. Mr. Mouw was assisted by the Community Development Dept., and received staff approval to do the landscaping. Stan has never been contacted by Mr. Mouw. ~ 1 v ~• ; REC'C S E P - 1 ~gg~ United States Forest 9iashington 12th & Independence S~1 I?epartment of Service Office P.O. Box 96090 Agriculture 6lashington, ~ 20090-6090 Reply Toe 1570~1(L) NFS X2126, 2135 Date: ,Tune 16, 1988 Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith Town Attorney, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Eskwith: This concerns your appeal (36 CFR 211.18) on behalf of the Town of Vail (Town) of Regional Forester Gary E. Cargill°s September 17, 1987, decisicn to proceed with the Western Land Exchange Proposal, White River National Forest. In this proposal, the United States would issue patent to the 40-acre Spraddle Creek parcel and the 2.5-acre Lodge parcel in exchange for acquisition of 385 acres in the Eagle Nest Wilderness. Other Appellants of the decision are Emmet A. Mossman and David G. Cooper. The proponent of the exchange, Western Land Exchange Company (WLEC), represented by Daniel Pike and Tom Glass, is an Intervenor, and agent for the Federal land recipient, Lodge Properties, Inc. (LPI). The Lodge South Condominium, represented by Charles B. White, Attorney for the law firm of Kirkland ~ Ellis, is also an Intervenor. Since there are multiple appeals involving common issues, we have elected to consolidate the appeals and issue one appeal decision (36 CFR 211.18(n)). The issues center around the qualifications of the exchange proponent, and the effects of the Federal land transfer on the Town, adjoining landowners, and historical users. Appellants assert the proponent does not meet the Secretary's Land Exchange qualification requirement (36 CFR 254.3(a)(1)(i)); that such conveyance is contrary to the Town's land use plan which specifies that "National Forest Land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned for private development"; that the conveyance will have an adverse effect on public use in and around the subject tracts, on neighboring property values, on the Town's vehicle traffic problems, and on private property views; and, finally, that the Environmental Assessment (EA) does not adequately consider the effects of such conveyance on the environment nor the cumulative effects of the Forest's landownership adjustment program on the Town of Vail. The appeal record is large and complex. Thus, we have included a detailed review document for Appellants and the Regional Forester to refer to while reviewing the decision that follows. 1. Our April 29, 1987, decision stands relative to the exchange proponent meeting the Secretary's eligibility requirements and, thus, we will not consider the matter further. _ - 2. We find for the Regional Forester in his determination to dispose of the subject National Forest System tracts. Disposition of these properties is consistent with existing laws, regulations and procedures. The lands are EXHIBIT 1 ' . 2 Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith encumbered by numerous on-site and off-site uses and impacts that preclude managing-. the areas for National Forest purposes. Potential and existing environmental impacts related to the Federal lands have been evaluated sufficiently to show that the impacts are localized, and that disposition of these lands is not a major Federal action that necessitates preparation of an EIS. The public has had ample time to review and comment on the conveyance of these lands throughout the exchange process. Their concerns, and those of the Appellants have been addressed to our satisfaction in the existing environmental documents and other appeal records. The exchange of Federal land .to the proponent constitutes merely a change of ownership. Actual and/or perceived impacts from private use and development of the subject lands 'can be handled appropriately by State and/or local government regulation. Accordingly, we affirm the Regional Foresain'consideroany discussionforhreview~dofatherdisposition proposed. We will not ag ~ decision in this or future appeals. 3. We find for the Appellants on the Federal land value question, and appreciate their efforts in bringing it to our attention. The Federal land appraisals have followed explicitly the mitigation measures prescribed baisals Regional Forester in his June 19$6 Decision Notice. Therefore, the app were made using the assumption that each authorized public and private use of the Federal lands would continue as an outstanding right to thirdlyparties. However, the appraisal direction should not have been to treat Special use permits as tantamount to outstanding rights in third parties. Only those rights actually being retained by the Government are reserved. In the case of the Lodge parcel, by treating Special-use permits as though tantamount to easements, etc., the value of the parcel is reduced substantialyy. This observatiMAI1SCRErandr supported by the Town's Appraisal Review b Blaine B. Chase, I , Bruce F. Wiley, MAI. Authorized uses including utilities, highways, etc., which ar'e in place and serving the public, usually do not create a valuation problem because the comparable sales used to appraise the Federal lands have similar uses and the values are reflected in the adjoining land value. These types of uses are not only in place to serve the general public but are also ueuaeTYmitsnareetm icall nature. On the other hand, the small, miscellaneous typ p ~ YP y short-term in nature, do not serve the general public, and ar,e not commonly represented in the market. The perplexity of valuing such uses is highlighted in situations such as this case where the_authorized uses can and do have a profound effect on property values. In an~exchange, the permit holder is not guaranteed nor is the proponent instructed that the use under permit will be enhanced by being placed into the private market, only that the two of them should reach an agreement and that the proponent does not have to offer more th~no onenttandhtheeholdereexecutesa authorized under the permit. When the p p document it is usutheyescrowiagentruntiltthe exchangeoisscompleted,or a title company acting a ~ Forest Officers are directed to avoid the disposal of National roronentyandmthe lands occupied under permits or easements unless the exchange p p permittee reach agreement on the disposition to the existing use. A permit holder cannot be required to participate in a land exchange: However, the permit holder must accept the fact that the National Forest land under permit ultimately may be included in a land exchange. If so, and the permit holder desires to be 1 0 ,. :.~ Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith a party ir~~~~the exchange, the Forest Service will take appropriate action to ensure tlAat the permit holder either has the full term of use provided in the permit o~ is compensated adequately in accordance with the termination provisions of the permit. Conversely, if an agreement cannot be obtained, the deciding officer must decide whether the public interest is better served by terminating the Special-use permit and completing the exchange, or abandoning the exchange, as proposed. Accordingly, the Regional Forester's decision to proceed with the Vail Land Exchange is hereby remanded with instructions that the Federal properties be reappraised. The results of the reappraisal and any adjustments in the exchange, as proposed, must be handled pursuant to Forest Service policies and procedures governing land exchanges. The Lodge property, consisting of 2.5094 acres, more or less, should be appraised as though in private ownership, not Government ownership. The estate to be appraised is fee simple, limited possibly by only one reservation, i.e. Reservation for a right-of-way for ditches and canals under the authority of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391). The estate to be appraised should not give legal status to the conditions of the June 19, 1986, and September 17, 1987, Decision Notices. The zoning should be addressed as if it were the same as existing and/or potential zoning of nearby similar or adjoining private properties. The Spraddle Creek parcel, consisting of 40.12 acres, more or less, should also be appraised as though in private ownership. The estate to be appraised is fee simple, limited by reservations for the highway right-of-way for Interstate 70, and, if appropriate, reservations for: (1) a right-of-way for ditches and canals under the authority of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391), and (2) Forest Service reservation of 7.7 cfs of Spraddle Creek first priority water rights. The estate to be appraised should not give legal status to the other reservations, easements, or conditions, stated in the June 1986 and September 1987 Decision Notices. The zoning should be addressed as if it were the same as existing and/or potential zoning of nearby similar or adjoining private properties. This remand decision closes the appeal and returns jurisdiction to the Regional Forester. The Regional Forester must take the action requested. This, in turn, will result in a new decision, but such decision will be confined to the narrow issue of having the proposed exchange meet the Secretary's value requirements and only that issue would be appealable under 36 CFR 211.18. This constitutes the final administrative determination Agriculture unless the Secretary, on his own volition, decision wittlin 10 days of receipt. Pursuant to 36 CFR Secretary will not consider a request for such review. Sincerely, /s/Larry Henson LARRY HENSON Reviewing Officer Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System Enclosure of the Department of elects to review the 211.18(f)(2) and (4), the • i f ~, '~EC'~ S E P - 1 1989 ~~ ' l ~' 1 APPRAISAL IN`~TRIICTIQ2IS T'C~R REVISIOATS OF BAIL E%Ci?A;'CE AFPRAISAi S 1. Revise each appraisal report to reflect an independent, self-supporting estimate of value. 2. Retain original valuation date. 3. Revise the Estates Appraised. Both the Lodge. parcel and the Spraddle Creek parcel should be appraised as if free and clear except for reservations made by the U.S. Therefore, the Estate Appraised for each parcel should be revised to exclude all encumberances from special-use permits, etc. ~~; I;1; ~.~: ~~ Lodge Parcel - 2.5094 acres: Fee simple title subject to reservations to the U.S. for: a. A perpetual easement for public access on the existing Mill Creek Road (FS Development Road No. 710). ' b. A perpetual easement for public vehicular and foot access on the existing road to ski area facilities at One Vail Place. Provided, however, that; upon agreement by the Forest Service, the Lodge Properties, Inc., shall have the right to relocate said access easements at the Lodge's sole expense. Spraddle Creek Parcel - 40.12 acres: Fee simple title subject to: a. The existing easement for Interstate 70 (13.52 acres) b. Reservation to the U.S. for a perpetual easement for public access on the existing Spraddle Creek Road (FDR No. 737). Lodge Properties, Inc., upon agreement by the Forest Service, shall have the right to relocate said access at the Lodge's sole expense. c. Reservation to the U.S. for 7.7 cfs first priority water rights in Spraddle Creek. 4. Reanalysis of Highest and Best Use. The removal of the various encumberances, together with the provision for relocating the road and access easements on both parcels, removes some of the physical conditions limiting the use of both parcels in previous appraisals. Hence, with these encumberances ..z removed, highest and best use and intensity of use must be reanalyzed on both parcels. :-~ EXHIBIT 3 ~~ ~:~~i 1 s i a 5. The appraisal reports must explore the possibility of higher or more-intense use resulting because the parcels are now less encumbered. For example, would the removal of the various encumberances on the Lodge parcel permit a free-standing hotel or some other form of commercial use higher than that for which previously appraised? Possibly,lsince the easements could be moved, the parcel could be developed as two homesites even if higher commercial use would not be possible. On the Lodge Parcel, this might entail examination by a development engineer to determine the feasibility and practicality of moving the easements or other economic and feasible mitigation measures. Also, would the provision that the location of the Spraddle Creek road can be moved change the potential use of this tract to allow more homesites than as previously appraised? ~ The new appraisals should show that the highest and best use is physically, economically, legally, and politically possible. Conversely, if it is deemed that higher uses are not feasible, the appraisals should strongly demonstrate that higher uses are either not physically possible, not economical, or not legally or politically feasible. Zoning: Both parcels must be appraised as if zoning and potential zoning is similar to that existing on adjacent or nearby similar private properties. That is, the appraisal should consider that such zoning is already a fact, rather than considering time and expense would be necessary to accomplish such zoning. Potential for upgrading the zoning on the subject parcels will be considered to the extent that potential for upzoning is currently reflected in the existing zoning on adjacent or nearby similar properties. If highest and best use is different than this zoning, then time, ezpense, and risk to get the necessary zoning variations, changes, etc., must be considered and supported. The parcels are to be appraised as if in private ownership. No consideration should be given to the Town of Vail's zoning ordinance pertaining to "open-space" zoning of National Forest land While this may be described in the "Factual" section of the report, all references to this ordinance and to the political attitude toward conversion of'Isuch zoning of National Forest land should be deleted from "Analyses and Conlclusions" section of the revised appraisal reports. /s/ Donald E. Howell DONALD E. HOWELL, ARA July 8, 1988 I Concur : ~- •- /s/ W.C. Wakefield W.C. WAKEFIELD, ARA,ASA,SR/WA. JULY 20,1988 ;~ a ., . ~.-~.` ...: ~ ~ .REC'~l SEP - 1 198 United States sorest zluitc ilfi.ver P,Oo Bow 943 Depart:aent of Service :iai:ional Glanwoo3 Sprints, Agriculture norest Colorado S1u02 303 945-252_ Itcply to: 5430 Date: :iugu:,t 30, 1939 Iir. LaFnence A. ~sxrritiz Towu Attorney, Tocrn of Vail 75 South ;?roaia~e Road Vail, Colorado ~:,1~57 ;?ear bir. islcc~ith: The two Deci:,io:i TJotices signed oy tide i:e~ional Forester date4 Septe~uer 17, 19E7, (copy o:iclosed) made decisions teat concerned the Town of vail'3 iJational Forest Townsite applicatio:z dated 17ece~er 13, 19c3 and it's Sta::e~znt of Intent dated July G, 1984: to East Vail Parcel - Ti7is 80-acre parcel is availaole to tiie Town of Vail at fair maric;:t eaiue under the authority of rue ?latiorial Forest Toc•~nsite Act of 1958. Z. ~raddle Creep Parcel is available to tiie Toc~n of Vail at fair :naricet value under the authority of the General Enchangc ~:ct of 1922, as amended by the Sis:c Act of lyu7 for one year from June 20, 199, 3. :taiuteaa~ice i,uil~in~ Parcel is available for conveyance to file Town of Vail under ti`le auti~ority of the Sisk Act of 1967< This parcel will be available for acqui:,i.tioa by the To,~m of Vail for one year fro:a Jung 26, 19u9. There has been deaonstrated interest in the Spraddle Creer Parcel fro•,a other parties. If tiie Tow;: is not interested in acquiring this parcel at tills time please let us icno;a. 7it:~x this interest from other parties, we c•~ould probably open the propos•ad acquisition of the Spraddle Creer to co~:petitive offers. Tide Town would ~e eli~i~le in ti~is process, Sincerely, THO:u'~S A, IIOOTS Forest Supervisor cc: RO lands Holy Cross RD !'own of Vail Council DECISION NOTICE AtdD F I ND I NG OF Id0 S I Gtd I F I CANT I h1PACT WESTERIJ LAND EXCHANGE COh1PANY EXCHANGE PROPOSAL TO1JN OF VAIL LAND EXCHANGE PROPOSAL TOWN OF VAIL TOWNSITE APPLICATIOtd USDA, Forest Service, White River National Forest Eagle County, Colorado Holy Cross Ranger District The Western Land Exchange Company (4r'LEC), representing Lodge Properties, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, has submitted a land exchange proposal to the I'lhite River National Forest. The Town of Vail has submitted proposals to acquire National Forest System (NFS) lands by purchase and land exchange. Four parcels of tdFS land are involved in the proposals. However, one 40-acre parcel of NFS land is involved in both the land exchange proposal by YlLEC and the Townsite Application by the Town of Vail. The purpose of this decision is to respond to the proposals which are described below. IVLEC is offering two non-Federal parcels totalling 385 acres in the Eagles Nest Vlilderness in exchange for two parcels of NFS land at Vail, Colorado. The NFS lands include 40.0 acres on Spraddle Creek (the Spraddle Creek parcel) and approximately 2.5 acres adjoining the south side of the Lodge at Vail (the Lodge parcel). The iVLEC exchange proponent has the primary objective of utilizing the Lodge parcel for comrnercial development as a hotel site. Utili- za-I-ion of the Spraddle Creek parcel would rangy from open space to high density residential development. The Townsite Act proposal by the Town of Vail involves two parcels of t`!FS land. These are the 40-acre East Vail parcel and the 40 acre Spraddle Creek ~__ ~' parcel. Concurrently, the Town of Vail has proposed to acquire the 5± acre 1 maintenance building parcel under authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922, as amended by the Sisk Act of 1967. The Tovrn's stated objective is to utillize all three parcels for low intensity recreation development and maintenance of open space. The Town also indicates that it would consider utilizing the East Vail parcel for employee housing development. On January 31, 1986, the Regional Forester, Rocky I,•lountain Region, USDA, Forest Service issued a Decision Notice stating that the land exchange proposed by L'lLEC is to be processed, the land exchange proposed by the Town of Vail is to be processed, and the East Vail parcel is to be retained as part of the National Forest System. In accordance with 36 CFR 211.18, this decision was appealed by the Town of Vail, Action Vail, Inc., and Emmet Mossman and David Cooper, On May 17, 1986, the Regional Forester withdrew the January 31, 1986, decision so that new information presented in the appeal process could be analyzed and to clarify the analysis of environmental effects displayed in the Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA disclosing the consequences of the land exchange proposal, the proposals by the To~vn of Vail, and a no action alternative was revised in accordance with the May 17, 1986, letter withdrah•ing the January 31, 1986, decision. That revised EA is available for review in the offices of the Forest Supervisor, L•lhite River National Forest, and the Holy Cross District Ranger. ' i A second Decision Notice was issued by the Regional Forester; Rocky P•tountain Region, USDA, Forest Service, on June 19, 1986, stating that~the land exchange proposed by 4~1LEC was to be processed, the land exchange proposed by the Town of Vail eras to be processed in modified form, and the conveyance of the East Vail parcel was to be processed under the To-vnsite Act of 1958. Ian accordance with 36 CFR 211.18, that decision was appealed by the Town of Vail and by Emmet hlossman and David Cooper. On April 29, 1987, the Chief, USDA, Forest Service, remanded the decision to the Regional Forester. ~ The Chief agreed with the appellantst concern that property values had not been established. The Chief concluded until such time as the property values are established, and a "Go/No Go" decision has been made, there was no basis for an appeal on merit. The Chiet also suggested the EA could have been released in draft form in order to solicit public comment. The Chief did address the concern raised by appellants P•lossman and Cooper whether WLEC meets the qualification requirements for entering into a land exchange. The Chief found WLEC did meet the qualification requirements. In summary, the alternatives discussed in the EA are as follows: P,Iternative A: The United States would issue patent to the Spraddle Creek parcel (40 acres) and the Lodge parcel (2.5+ acres) in exchange for acquisition of 385 acres in the Eagles Nest Wilderness under the authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and I.lanage- ment Act (FLPP•!A) of 197b. This configurat;~ion is based on the Amended Statement of Intent submitted by WLEC on June 28, 1984. Atternafiive B: The United States v~ould convey the Spraddle Creek and East Vail parcels (80 acres) to the Town of Vail at fair market value. These parcels were applied for in jthe National Forest Townsite Act application dated December 13, 1983. In addition, the United States would issue patent to the maintenance building parcel (5 + acres) under authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922 as amended by the Sisk Act of 1967, as amended. This action was proposed by the Town of Vail in their Statement of Intent dated; July 6, 1984. I Alternative C: No Action. Approved appraisals indicate that the value of the Lodge parcel is $600,000 and the value of the Spraddle Creek parcel is $» 0,000. The total value of the Federal lands in the WLEC proposal (Alternative A) Is $950,000, while the value of the non-Federal lands is $770,000. The difference in approved value of the Federal and non-Federal ownerships is $180,000, or 18.9 percent of the value of the Federal lands. Section 206(b) of FLPi•iA requires the value of the lands exchanged be equal, or if they are not equal, the values shall be equalized by the payment of money not to exceed twenty-five (25) percent o~f the value of the Federal lands. Further, Section 206 states the Secretary shall try to reduce the amount of payment to as small an amount as possible. WLEC originally selected seven (7) parcels of Federal land totalling 111 acres and offered six (6) parcels of non-Federal land totalling 2,447 acres: That 2 proposal was amended to delete five (5) of the Federal and five (5) of the non-Federal parcels, in part to bring the property values into accordance with FLPP~IA. Further adjustments in the acreage of the Federal land parcels is not feasible based on the legal descriptions and physiographic characteristics of those two properties. The proponent is unwilling to select additional Federal lands due to the history of local opposition to such selections, No other non-Fedora! lands are no-v available to YILEC for use in this exchange and other attempts to further minimize the cash equalization payment are not practical. It is in the public interest to proceed with Alternative A without additional efforts to reduce the cash equalization amount, The East Vail and maintenance building parcels have not been appraised. The 49hite River National Forest Land and Resource hlanagement Plan (Forest Plan) was approved September 20, 1984. The Forest Plan contains a set of goals which vrere developed in response to public issues and concerns presented during the planning process. The Forest Plan Goals relevant to WLEC1s land exchange proposal and the Town's proposal to purchase NFS lands are listed belo:v: 1. Acquire private lands within wilderness. Consolidate National Forest ownership patterns. 2. Pursue cpportunifiies to make landownership adjustments to improve managenent efficiency for both NFS land and intermingled private land and to meet hi~,h priority resource management objectives. 3. Provide the opportunity for economic grotivth of industries and communities dependent upon Forest outputs. The Forest Plan also provides General Direction for lando~,vnership adjustment activities which include land exchanges and land safes. The relevant portion of this direction is as follows: 1. Ensure flood plain and wetland values are approximately equal on both offered and selected tracts in proposed land exchanges or that values are In favor of the United States. 2. Classify lands for acquisition or to acquire interests where lands have been identified as more valuable for NFS purposes, or where current or potential use of private lands would adversely affect National Forest values and where acquisition would not transfer impacts to another site according to the following priorities: a. In designated wilderness and other Congressionally classified areas. b. Where lands or rights-of-way are needed to meet resource management goals and objectives. c. Lands which provide habitat for threatened or endangered animal or plant species. d, Lands which include flood plains or wetlands. 3 e. On lands having outstanding scenic values or critical ecosystems, when these resources are threatened by change ~of use or vrhen rnanagement may be enhanced by public ownership. f. Land which are National Forest in character that provide essential big game winter range and are valuable fcr other National Forest purposes. 3. Classify lands for disposal according to the following priorities: a. To States, counties, cities, or other Federal agencies when disposal will serve a greater public interest. b. In small parcels intermingled with mineral or homesteads patents. c. Suitable for development by the private sector if development (residential, agricultural, industrial, recreational, etc.) is in the public interest. d. When critical or unique resources (flood plain's, wetlands, essential big garne winter range, threatened orbendangered species habitat, historical or cultural resources, critical ecosysters, etc.) effects are mitigated by reserving interests to protect the resource, or by exchange -vhere critical resources to be acSuirEd are considered to be of equal or greater value. The criteria used in reaching this decision on the two subject proposals are shown below. Criteria nurabered 1 through 3 are relevant policy statements found in Forest Service P~anual 5403.1: 1. Consolidate National Forest lands within existing National Forest units. 2. Dispose of tracts no longer suitable for National Forest purposes. 3. Complete land-for-land exchanges to consolidate National Forest and private, State, or local government land patterns; to permit needed urban or industrial expansion;~or to make other adjustments in landownership clearly in the public interest. 4. Any conveyance must be consistent with and aid in implementation of the V~hite River National Forest Land and Resource t4anagement Plan. N1y decision is as follows: First, proceed with Alternative A, the land exchange proposed by WLEC. Of the three alternatives, Alternative A provides the best response to the above listed decision criteria. However, if the Spraddle Creek parcel is not conveyed to WLEC, it shall be available to the Town of Vail as described in Alternative B. This decision is subject tojrnitigation requirements listed hereinafter'. ~ Secondly, if the Spraddle Creek parcel is removed from the proposed Y~LEC land exchange for any reason, it may be conveyed to the Town of Vail under the authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922, as ,amended by the Sisk 4 Act of 1967. Since receipts under this authority may be used, when appropriated, to acquire lands valuable for Pational Forest System purposes in the State of Colorado, Alternate B also responds to the above listed decision criteria. This parcel will rernain available for conveyance to tl~e Town of Vail for one year from the date the parcel is formally deleted from the I+ILEC proposal. If no substantial progress is rnade toward conveyance -vithin one year, this parcel shall be available for disposal to other entities. The rationale for the above two-part decision is displayed below: The land exchange proposed by i~ILEC provides for disposal of PJFS lands which are suitable for development by the private sector. The Spraddle Creeic parcel is also suitable for conveyance to the Town of Vail. 4VLEC has demonstrated a willingness to reconvey this parcel to the Town. In exchange for 42.5 acres of NFS lands, the United States will acquire 385 acres of non-Federal land located in the Eagle's Nest Wilderness. Acquisition of non-Federal lands in wilderness areas is the highest pric•rity for acquisition according to the i•Ihita River National Forest Land and Resource hlanasement Plan. This acquisition will contribute to accomplishment of resource managernent Soais and objectives. Valuable flood plains and wetlands will be acquired. Habi~i'at for the Colorado River cutthroat trout, which -is listed a~ an endangered species by the State of Colorado and is listed as a candidate for classification as a threatened species by the Fish and i^lildlife Service, will be preserved. No decision is made on the proposals for the East Vail and maintenance building parcels in this Decision Notice. These proposals will be addressed in a separate decision. Circulafiion of the EA to local governments early in the exchange process, and after the June 19, 1986 decision, complies with the Chief's suggestion to issue the EA In draft form. In summary, the actions covered by this decision comply with direction in the Vlhite River National Forest Land and Resource htanagement Plan, legislative authorities, and the concerns expressed in the April 29, 1987 Decision of the Chief. For the purpose of protecting and preserving previously authorized public and private uses of the NFS lands to be conveyed as a result of this decision, the following mitigation measures are required: Sr~raddle Creek Parcel 1. The conveyance shall be subject to the highway right-of-way for Interstate 70. 2. Easements granting rights similar to uses currently authorized by Special Use Permit shall be granted to Holy Cross Electric Association for power transmission lines and to (Mountain States TelE~phone for overhead and buried telephone lines. 5 3. Aright-of-way for the Spraddle Creek Road or a suitabl will be conveyed to the United States by the proponent! patent. 4. This parcel will be conveyed subject to the Guide/Outti issued on January 23, 1981, to Spraddle Creek Ranch, Ir~ option of the proponent, the permittee may be moved to site designated by the Forest Supervisor, White River Forest. The proponent will pay the actual expenses for moving the permittee's existing facilities to the new I LodgQ Parcel e alternative or reserved in tiers permit c., or, at the an alternative !ational physically ocation. 1. The land exchange proponent shall execute an agreement with Vail Associates, Inc., permittee for the Yail Ski Area, which ensures that future development of the parcel will not materially interfere with current ski area operations and in which Vail Associates, Inc., agrees to relinquish all special use permits covering any part or all of the parcel. 2. Easements granting rights similar to uses currently authorized by special use permit shall be granted to the Town of Vail for a bike path, Holy Cross Electric Association for electric power transmission lines, Vail Water and Sanitation District for water and sewer lines, Mountain States Telephone for telephone lines, and roai access to One Vail Place. Findip.g of No Significant Impact ~ The actions covered by the above Decision Notice comply with diection in the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and all legisla- tive authorities. The actions are in the public interest. The Environmental Assessment, incorporated into this Finding by reference, indicates there will be no significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement addressing these actions will not be prepared. Implementation of this decision may take place following the 30-day public review period in accordance with EO 11988 and EO 11990. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18. Niotice of appeal must be in writing and submitted to Gary E. Cargill, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA, Forest Service, Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225, within 45 days from the date of this decision. A statement of rieasons to support the appeal and any reugest for oral presentation must be filed within the 45 day period for filing a notice of appeal. ~~ S «~ ~~ GARY E. CARGILL Date Regional Forester 6 DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICA(VT IMPACT TOWN OF V/~IL EXCHANGE PROPOSAL AND TO{9NSITE APPLICATION USDA, Forest Service, White River National Forest Eagle County, Colorado Holy Cross Ranger District The To-vn of Vail has submitfied proposals to acquire National Forest System (NFS) lands by purchase and land exchange. Three parcels of NFS land are involved in the proposals. The Townsite Act proposal by the To-vn of Vail involves two parcels of ~!FS land. These are the 40-acre East Vail parcel and the 40-acre Spraddle Creek parcel. Concurrently, the Town of Vail has proposed to acquire the 5+ acre maintenance building parcel under authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922, as amended by the Sisk Act of 1967. The To-vn~s stated objective is To utillize all three parcels for low intensity recreation development and maintenance of open space. The Town also indicates that it would consider utilizing the East Vail parcel for employee housing development. However, the 40-acre Spraddle Creek NFS parcel was also selectad in a land exchange proposal by Western Land Exchange Company ({VLEC). A separate Decision Notice dated September 17, 19137, directs that the 40-acre Spraddle Creek parcel be included in WILECPS exchange proposal with possible conveyance to the Town of Ya i 1 under specific c i rcur~~stances. On January 31, 1986, the Regional Forester, Roclcy Mountain Region, USDA, Forest Service issued a Decision Notice stating that the land exchange proposed by {VLEC is to be processed, the land exchange proposed by the Town of Vail is to be processed, and the East Vail parcel is to be retained as part of the National Forest System. In accordance with 36 CFR 211.18, this decision was appealed by the Town of Vail, Action Vail, Inc., and Emmet Mossman and David Cooper. On May 17, 1986, the Regional Forester withdrew the January 31, 1986, decision so that nett' information presented in the appeal process could be analyzed and to clarify the analysis of environmental effects displayed in the Environmentzl Assessment (EA). The EA disclosing the consequences of the land exchange proposal, the proposals by the Town of Vail, and a no action alternative was revised in accordance with the May 17, 1986, letter withdrawing the January 31, 1986, decision. That revised EA is available for review in the offices of the Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, and the Holy Cross District Ranger. A second Decision Notice ryas issued by the Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA, Forest Service, on June 19, 1986, stating that the land exchange proposed by {'1LEC was to be processed, the land exchange proposed by the Town of Vail was to be processed in modified form, and the conveyance of the East Vail parcel was to be processed under the Townsite Act of 1958. In accordance with 36 CFR 211.18, that decision was appealed by the Town of Vail and by Emmet t~lossman and David Cooper. On April 29, 1987, the Chief, USDA, Forest Service, remanded the. decision to .the Regional Forester. The Chief agreed with the appellants' concern that property values had not been established. The Chief concluded until such time as the property values are established, and a "Go/No Go" decisicn has been made, there was no basis for an appeal on merit. The Chief also sugsested the EA could have been released in draft form in order to solicit public comment. ~ The Chief did address the concern raised by appellants Nlossman and Cooper whether i~1LEC meets the qualification requirements for entering into a land exchange. The Chief found i'1LEC did meet the qualification requirements. i In summary, the alternatives discussed in the EA are as follows: Alternative A: The United States would issue patent to the Spraddle Creek parcel (40 acres) and the Lodge parcel (25+ acres) in exchange for acquisition of 385 acres in the Eagles Nest Wilderness under the authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922, as amended, and the Federal Land~Policy and P~lanage- ment Act (FLPP~A) of 1976. This configuration is based on the Amended Statement of Intent submittedlby H1LEC on June 28, 1984. P.Iternative B: The United States would conve;~ the Spraddle Creek and East Vail parcels (80 acres) to the Tctivn of Vail at fair market value. These parcels vrere applied for in~the National Forest Townsite Act application dated December 13, 1983. In addition, the United States would issue patent to the maintenance building parcel (5 + acres) urider authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922 as amended by the Sisk Act of 1967, as amended. This action was proposed by the Town of Vail in their Staterent of Intent dated July 6, 1984. C: No Action. The Sisk Act allows municipal governments to equalize the value of the selected Federal land up to 100 percent of the approved appraised value. The Townsite Act requires payment by the local government subdivision of riot less than fair market value. The East Vail and maintenance building parcels have not been appraised. The appraisal issue is addressed in the mitigation requirements listed hereinafter. The i'lhite River National Forest Land and Resource hianagement Plan (Forest Plan) was approved September 20, 1984. The Forest Plan contains asset of goals which were developed in response to public issues and concerns presented during the planning process. The Forest Plan Goals relevant to the Towri of Vail's exchange. and townsite proposals are listed below: ~ 1. Pursue opportunities to make landownership adjustments to improve management efficiency for both NFS land and intermingled private land and to meet high priority resource management objectives. 2. Provide the opportunity for economic growth of industries and communities dependent upon Forest outputs. The Forest Plan also provides General Direction for landovrnerjship adjustment activities which include .I and exchanges and land sales. The~relevant.portion of this direction is as follows: 2 ~. 1 1. Classify lands for disposal according to the follovring priorities: a. To States, counties, cities, or other Federal agencies when disposal will serve a greater public interest. b. In small parcels intermingled with mineral or homesteads patents. c. Suitable for development by the private sector, if development (residential, agricultural, industrial, recreational, etc.) is in the public interest, d. When critical or unique resources (flood plains, wetlands, essential big game winter range, threatened or endangered species habitat, historical or cultural resources, critical ecosystems, etc.) effects are mitigated by reserving interests i~o protect the resource, or by exchange where critical resources to be acquired are considered to be of equal or greater value. The criteria used in reaching this decision on the subject proposals are shorn below. Criteria numbered 1 through 3 are relevant policy statements found in Forest Service Manual 5403.1: 1. Consolidate National Forest lands within existing National Forest units. 2. Dispose of tracts no longer suitable for National Forest purposes. 3. Complete land-for-land exchanges to consolidate National Forest and private, State, or Local Sovernment land patterns; to permit needed urban or industrial expan_ion; or to make other adjustments in landownership clearly in the public interest. 4. Any conveyance must be consistent with and aid in irnplementation of the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. My decision is as follows: Convey the maintenance building parcel to the Town of Vail under authority of the Sisk Act of 1967. Since receipts under this authority may be used, when appropriated, to purchase lands valuable for National Forest System purposes in the State of Colorado, this portion of Alternative B responds to the above listed decision criteria. This parcel will remain available for conveyance to the Town of Vail for one year from the date of this decision. If no substantial progress is made toward conveyance within one year, this parcel shat be available for disposal to other entities. Convey the East Vail parcel to the Town of Vail under authority of the Townsite Act of 1958. Upon receipt of a complete application in compliance with 36 CFR 254.21, a designation order setting the parcel aside may be issued in accordance with 36 CFR 254.22. Conveyance of this parcel is subject to the mitigation requirements listed hereinafter. The rationale for the above decision is displayed below: 3 Disposal of the rnaintenance building parcel to the Town of Vail under authority of the Sisk Act of 1967 provides for conveyance of NFS lands suitable for ownership by the Tovrn of Vail. This parcel has significant improvements constructed and used by the Town of Vail as;part of its municipal golf course, and it no longer has the ability to produce resources characteristic of National Forest System lands. Cash payrnent by the Town of Vail of the approved appraised value will belutilized to acquire non-Federal lands in the State of Colorado trhich~will produce National Forest System resources for the public. Disposal of the East Vail parcel to the Town of Vail under authority of the Townsite Act of 1958 provides for conveyance of NFS lands suitable for ownership by the Town of Vail. Ownership of this parcel~by the Town will serve indigenous community objectives. In summary, the actions covered by this decision comply with direction in the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plar and legislative authorities. For the purpose of protecting and preserving previously au-i-horized public and private uses of the NFS lands to be conveyed as a result of this decision, the following mitigation measures are required: i East Vail Parcel 1. The conveyance shall be subject to highway easements for Interstate 70 and U.S. 6. 2. The withdrawal (PLO 1378, C-011497) must be revoked'~by the bureau of Land I.lanagement. Revocation of the withdrawal is subject to the Preliminary Injunction issued by the Federal District Court in the National Wildlife Federation v Burford,_et a1_, lav~suit. 3. Location of the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station must be preserved by easement or agreement. 4. The parcel must be appraised and the value reviewed and approved by the appropriate Forest Service officials. Maintenance Building Parcel 1. Easements granting rights similar to uses currentlyauthorized by special use permit shall be granted to permi•1•tees other than the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail shall relinquish all interest in special use permits it holds at the time of conveyance. 2. The parcel must be appraised and the value reviEwed ;and approved by the appropriate Forest Service officials. Finding o~ No SicnifL~nt Im act The actions covered by the above Decision Notice comply with direction in fihe L'Ihite River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan' and all legislative authorities. The actions are in the public interest. The I 4 L ., ~ Environmental Assessment, incorporated into this Finding by reference, indicates there will be no significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement addressing these actions will not be prepared. Implementation of this decision may take place following the 30-day public review period in accordance with EO 11988 and EO 11990. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18. Notice of appeal must be in writing and submitted to Gary E. Cargill, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA, Forest Service, Eox 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225, within 45 days from the date of this decision. A statement of reasons to support the appeal and any reugest for oral presentation must be filed within the 45 day period for filing a notice of appeal. ~A--GA Y E . CARG I LL Dat Regional Forester 5 By Michelle P. Fulcher and Michelle Mahoney Denver Post Staff Writers What was touted to be a banner summer for Colorado tourism is turning into bad news for the state's resort owners and promot- ers. - The tourist season doesn't offi- cially end until Labor Day, but a survey of state parks and privately owned attractions shows sluggish growth or declines in tourism. Experts blame a lackluster na- tional economy and Colorado's continuing financial. woes for the poor health of one of the state's key industries. The only Colorado areas escap- ing the downturn are mountain re- sorts, where aggressive advertis- ing campaigns apparently have succeeded in drawing people who might otherwise have spent time along the Front Range. "We're losing it to the moun- tains if you look at what's going on in tourism," said Jim Clark, execu- tive director of the Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau. "They're pulling the dol- lars out of here and putting them up there." Bob Jappe, executive director of the Summit County Chamber of Commerce, agreed. "Certainly, we've been popular all summer long." Visits to the Summit Chamber's visitor centers in Dillon and Frisco were up 62 percent in May, June and July compared with the same period last- summer. By contrast, visits to the Colora- do .Springs Visitors Center were down 6.5 percent. The U.S. Air Force Academy, the biggest Colo- rado Springs tourist attraction, re- ported ascant 3 percent increase in tourist traffic. The picture is equally gloomy elsewhere. "Overall, tourism at Colorado's national parks, recreation and his- torical areas was flat through Ju- ly," said Nancy McCallin, an econ- omist for the Legislative Council, the research arm of the state legis- lature. And the outlook for the rest of the year doesn't show much im- provement. Earlier this year; a Colorado State University study predicted tourists would spend $5.91 billion ; in Colorado during 1989, a 5 per- cent increase over 1988. McCallin now predicts that mark won't be met. "I think that's a little high," she said. "These numbers we have now are going to cause slower growth. The state will feel it and already is feeling it." So far this year, the state's larg- est tourist draw -Rocky Moun- Please see TOURISM on 12-A Cm,~.) ' '' ` 1ZA *. ~ . ~ ~ THE.DENVER 1'OSI' ~ ~ Sunday;'August27,1989 e ~ conom~st ~ sa s orest ~r m . , . es . ,, a "ave. urt state... tourism - Y . . TOURISM from Page 1-A ~ ~ out of the "total picture," McCallin tractions, the U.S. Mint and the Last year, a.total of 240,000 visi- . fists who planned to visit Yellow- thing, and what they've done is said. 'Coors brewery, reported erratic tors saw the facility, So far this "stone but took a detour south when they are taking what are tradition- ' fain National Park -has reported, She said July forest fires at Me- .summer traffic: year, only 178,000 people have tak- devastating fires struck the na- ally Front Range visitors and tak- a 1 percent decline in tourist traf- sa derde and in Boulder Canyon. "We're more down than up," en the tour. tional park. ' . ing them to the mountains,°.she fic. ~ may Gave contributed .to the de- ~ said Boris, McGowan of .Coors. "I don't think we're going to Canon City's Royal Gorge also is said. ' ' Visitors to the park through July cline. ` "We're seeing less and less out-of- make 240,000," Rael said. seeing fewer visitors. "Colorado Springs simply can-' 31,1969, totaled 1,270,826 - com- Gainers this summer are Hoven-. staters. That's something we've To the south tourist traffic is on "It has not been the year that.I pared with 1,284,162 for the same `1 weep National Monument, with • just noticed." ' ~ . ~ the downward curve at Pikes Peak- thought it.would be, .said, Royal ': not compete with' two nights. in period in 1988: Visits to Dinosaur .'tourist visits up 32 percent; Bent's : " At the Denver mint, "it started Highway, which has reported an 11~ Gorge Marketing Director Debo- ,:..,Vail for $39. , National Monument were down 9 ~ ~ Old Fort, up 9 percent; Black Can- "real good, and then it started drop- percent decrease in visitors so far rah Muehleisen. The town of Vail recently im- percent. yon of the Gunnison, up 7 percent; ping," said Tito Rael, chief of ex- this year. "August has been a real hard . Posed a new business licensing fee Overall, tourist visits to Colora= Colorado National Monument, up 6 ~, hibits and sales at the mint. At Seven Falls west of Colorado hitter. We're down about 6 or 7 ranging from $100 to $325 to raise' do national parks and recreation percent; Florissant Fossil Beds, up. Last August,, the mint hosted Springs, traffic was down 6 per- percent." money for summer marketing, " ', areas totaled 3,115,527 by July 31, 6,percent; and the Curecanti Na-' 48,000 visitors, cent through May, June and July, Like Clark, Muehleisen blames Said a Vail spokesman: "Sales virtually unchanged from 1988. tipnal Recreation Area, up 3"•per- .~ So far this month,'only 40,051 said manager Lee Higgins. increased competition from the "tax; (inquiry) call volume and "Tourism was up 2.7 percent c nt. tourists have walked through the Last year's traffic, Higgins said, ,mountain ski resorts. 'bookings have been up around 25 through June but July took a bite TWO bellwether Denver area at- turnstiles. was apparently bolstered by tour- "They've ,latched onto a good ~" percent in the valley." ;; ~ ~ .