HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-04 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, April 4, 2000
6:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
SPECIAL MEETING 6:00-8:00 P.M.
1. A follow-up discussion regarding the proposed White River National
Brent Wilson Forest Plan amendments. (2 hrs.)
Russell Forrest
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Solicit public comment and provide feedback on issues that warrant the
transmittal of formal comments to the U.S. Forest Service on behalf of the
Town of Vail and its residents.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
This is a follow-up discussion on the presentations to Council by the U.S.
Forest Service, the North West Colorado Council of Governments, Eagle
County Commissioners Tom Stone and James Johnson, Colorado Wild
and the Aspen Wilderness Workshop regarding the proposed
amendments to the White River National Forest Plan. Prior to these
presentations, the Town Council had the opportunity to review the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the plan, forest planning documents,
and maps/analysis provided by both Town of Vail and Eagle County staff.
At its February 22nd meeting, the Vail Town Council raised several key
issues regarding proposed plan amendments. Staff has prepared an
analysis of how those key issues are addressed under different plan
alternatives and is requesting feedback from Council in an effort to develop
formal comments on behalf of the Town of Vail. No formal action will be
taken by Council at this meeting.
REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 8:00 P.M.
1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.)
2. The second reading of Ordinance 5, Series of 2000, an ordinance amending
Brent Wilson Chapter 13-7, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the conversion of
accommodation units into condominiumized employee housing units.
(20 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance 5, Series of
2000 on second reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
In 1983, the Town of Vail passed Ordinance 2, Series of 1983 in an effort
to address the conversion of accommodation units ("live beds") into
condominiums within the Town. The ordinance placed restrictions on the
use of accommodation units that had been previously converted to
condominiums and required these units to participate in a short-term
rental pool. This principle of "lodging preservation" is a universal theme
throughout Colorado's mountain resort communities and the Town has
managed through both subdivision regulation and zoning to preserve a
substantial number of accommodation units.
In 1995, the Town of Vail amended this regulation in order to prohibit the
conversion of any accommodation units (au's) to condominiums. The
restrictions on previously-converted units remained in effect under this
amendment while the application process for conversion of a.u.'s into
condominiums was eliminated.
This proposed amendment to Chapter 13-7 would allow for the
conversion of accommodation units into employee housing through the
Town's existing condominium platting and conditional use permit
processes. None of the Town's other restrictions on condominium
conversions would be changed with this amendment.
STAFF/BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
The Town's Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7-0 (2/14/00)
to recommend approval of this request to the Vail Town Council.
Staff recommends the Vail Town Council approve Ordinance No. 5,
Series 2000 on second reading.
3. First reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series 2000, repealing and re-enacting
George Ruther Ordinance No. 1, Series 2000, Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn, Phase IV, to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel;
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (1:15 mins.)
1. A report of the Planning & Environmental Commission stating its
findings and recommendations on the request for a major
amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn,
Phase IV.
2. First reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, an ordinance
repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, to
provide for an amendment to the approved development plan for
Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, to
allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000,
on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On Monday, February 28, 2000, the Planning & Environmental Commission
held a public hearing on the requests for a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn.and for a conditional use permit
to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club. The major amendment
and conditional use permit requests are intended to allow for the
construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel.
Following an overview of the staff memorandum by the Town staff and
testimony from the applicant and the public the Commission deliberated
and discussed the hotel proposal. Upon review of the relevant criteria, a
motion was passed 4-1 (Bernhardt opposed) to recommend approval of
the major amendment request to the Vail Town Council and a motion was
passed 5-0 to approve the conditional use permit request. The
Commission has recommended 21 conditions of approval. The
recommended conditions and the specific findings of the Commission are
contained in the staff memorandum dated February 28, 2000. A copy of
approved meeting minutes are attached for reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town
Council approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, on first reading in
accordance with the staff memorandum, dated February 28, 2000.
4. First reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series 2000 repealing and reenacting
Dominic Mauriello Chapter 13, Employee Housing, Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Town Code
in order to provide additional incentives for the creation of employee
housing through out the Town of Vail; and amending Sections 12-6c-8
and 12-6d-8, Density Control, Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Town Code in
order to reduce the minimum lot size requirement in the two-family and
primary secondary residential zone districts from 15,000 sq. ft. to 14,000
sq. ft. ; and making other amendments in regard thereto. (30 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve/Modify/Deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000 on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On June 15, 1999 the Community Development Department presented to
the Town Council some potential revisions to the Town Code having
impact on the provision of employee housing in the Town's duplex zone
districts, Two-Family Residential and Two-Family Primary/Secondary
Residential. The Town Council gave staff the direction to move forward
with the concepts presented.
The PEC has reviewed the proposal at its August 23, 1999, and
September 13, 1999 meetings. The PEC recommended several
modifications to the proposal, which have been incorporated into the
proposal.
The PEC recommended approval of the proposed changes with 2 minor
modifications on September 27, 1999. The changes included allowing
EHU's to be separated from the main structure if constructed in
conjunction with garage and removal of the provision that would have
required both owners of a duplex to sign the application for an EHU.
Those changes are included in the proposed text.
On October 5, 1999, the Town Council gave staff direction to move
forward with the amendments after the new Town Council was seated.
There was general acceptance by the Town Council of the proposed
amendments given at that meeting. The Council also wanted to
incorporate a requirement for an EHU on large lots. This can be easily
incorporated, however, staff is very concerned about doing this without
proper analysis showing a nexus between large homes and impacts on
employee housing. The staff has discussed this with several
professionals in the field and they believe that an extensive analysis of
neighborhoods needs to occur to show that large homes are different
than smaller homeswith respect to employee generation. Staff believes
that while we may intuitively believe that large homes generate more
employees, the courts will require evidence. We anticipate that this
regulation will bring challenges.
On March 21, 2000, the Town Council directed staff to present an
ordinance for these amendments. The ordinance has been provided
and is included in your packet.
As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the
community stated that the Town needed to improve its incentives for
private developers to create Employee Housing Units (EHUs). Staff has
identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be
modified in order to ensure that the Zoning Regulations are truly
"promoting" employee housing rather than acting more as a disincentive.
On October 5, 1999 the Town Council agreed that the following were
disincentives to providing EHUs:
• Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code-does not require
garage space for other dwelling units
• Restricting the sale of a Type I and Type II EHU and requiring that it
be a rental property
• Taking away the right to do a "250" on older homes if an EHU GRFA
credit is used
• Not allowing enough site coverage to build the EHU on smaller lots
• Counting Type III EHUs as an impact on density
Please refer to the memo in your packet for a detailed analysis.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6, 2000, on first reading.
5. First reading of Ordinance No.7, Series of 2000, an ordinance repealing
George Ruther the establishment of Special Development District No. 30, Vail Athletic
Club and amending the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map; and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions,
or deny Ordinance No.7, Series of 2000, on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: A proposed redevelopment plan for Vail
Athletic Club & Spa was recently approved by the Town of Vail. The plan
was approved in accordance with the development standards prescribed for
the Public Accommodation Zone District. The special development district
designation is no longer needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town
Council approve Ordinance No.7, Series of 2000, on first reading.
6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series 2000 - Supplemental
Steve Thompson Appropriation. (15 mins.)
BACKGROUND RATIONAL: The enclosed supplemental appropriation
for $4.1 million is needed to fund incomplete 1999 projects (roll forwards):
unanticipated expenditures (i.e., purchase of Creekside EHU's or the
Water Park); projects that have changed in scope (i.e., way finding
improvements); and projects that are funded by an unanticipated revenue
( i.e., grants). The required RETT and capital project fund amendments
have been presented to the council within the last three weeks. I have
also enclosed an updated 5-year RETT and Capital Project fund
summary of revenue and expenditures, which includes the amendments.
We.will be discussing this at the work session as well as the evening
meeting.
7. International Building Safety Work Proclamation. (5 mins.)
Gary Goodell
8. Design Review Board (DRB) Appointments. (5 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint two applicants to the Design
Review Board for a term of two years each.
BACKGROUND RATIONAL: There are currently two vacancies on the
Design Review Board. The Town received two applications for these
positions: Hans Woldrich and Clark Brittain. Both are incumbent members
of the DRB. The Council needs to interviewed each applicant at a previous
work session and should appoint two applicants to the Design Review Board
at the evening meeting.
9. Art in Public Places (AIPP) Appointments. (5 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint two applicants to the AIPP
for a term of three years each.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: There are currently two vacancies on the
AIPP. The Town received three applications for these positions: Jonathan
Greene, Jim Miller and Nancy Sweeney. The Council interviewed each
applicant at a previous work session and should appoint two applicants to
AIPP at the evening meeting.
10. Town Manager's Report. (5 mins.)
Bob McLaurin
11. Adjournment (11:00 P.M. )
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/11/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/18/00,
BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/18/00, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:WGENDA.TC
s ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS
DATE: APRIL 4, 2000
1. PURPOSE:
Today's meeting is a follow-up discussion on the presentations made earlier this year by
the U.S. Forest Service, the North West Colorado Council of Governments, Eagle
County Commissioners Tom Stone and James Johnson, Colorado Wild and the Aspen
Wilderness Workshop regarding the proposed amendments to the White River National
Forest Plan. Prior to these presentations, the Town Council had the opportunity to
review the Draft, Environmental Impact Statement for the plan, forest planning
documents, and maps/analysis provided by both Town of Vail and Eagle County staff.
At its February 22nd meeting, the Vail Town Council raised several key issues regarding
proposed plan amendments. Staff has prepared an analysis of how those key issues
are addressed under different plan alternatives and is requesting feedback from Council
in an effort to develop formal comments on behalf of the Town of Vail. Staff would also
appreciate knowing whether the Town Council would like to schedule any additional
public hearings prior to commenting on the plan.
2. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES:
Following is a brief synopsis of the three plan alternatives that will be used for
discussion.
Alternative B - "an updated version of the existing Forest Plan that reflects current
forestwide direction, represents the "No Action" alternative. No Action means that
current management allocations, activities and management direction found in the
existing Forest Plan, as amended, would continue."-
Alternative C - "This alternative responds to a diverse range of comments on recreation
issues. It acknowledges the need to provide a range of recreational opportunities to
serve forest customers and local communities while maintaining Forest ecosystems. It
represents a balance of recreational uses with ecological considerations."
Alternative D - "This alternative was developed in response to concerns that wildlife
habitat for a wide variety of species, as well as biological diversity as a'whole, needs to
be given special emphasis. It addresses the idea that a higher priority be given to
physical and biological resources tharl to human uses of the Forest."
The U.S. Forest Service announced its preferred plan for adoption is Alternative "D".
The plan that is adopted by the U.S. Forest Service will determine management direction
F:everyone\brent\wrnfplan\memo 1
for the forest for the next 15 years. The deadline for submission of comments on the
plan is May 09, 2000.
3. PRIMARY ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 22ND. 2000:
Timber Hauling - Under the current forest.plan, much of the area adjacent to Red
Sandstone Road is managed under a "Resource Production - Forest Products"
designation. This designation places an emphasis on timber harvest. Under
Alternatives "C" and "D", the designation is shifted to "Forested Flora and Fauna
Habitats." Although logging activity would be permitted under this designation, the
primary management emphasis would be towards forest ecosystem management.
Therefore, we might anticipate a decrease in logging activities in the area north of town -
particularly under Alternative "C". The area south of the permitted ski area would be
managed (with Alternatives "C' and "D") under a philosophy that emphasizes forest
carnivore habitat. Although this designation also permits some timber activities, logging
would be "limited to a degree compatible with habitat management prescriptions."
Therefore, we should anticipate limited logging activities south and east of the Vail ski
area.
Overall, the amount of "suitable timber area" proposed under Alternative "C" is
substantially lower than what is proposed under "Alternative D" for the area adjacent to
Vail (please refer to Attachments 6 & 7 for details). Maps of "suitable timber area" will be
available for public review at the April 4th Town Council meeting.
¦ East Vail Chutes / Two Elk Pass - a change in management direction from "Backcountry
Recreation, Non-Motorized" to "Forest Carnivores" (lynx habitat) under Alternative "D"
could potentially preclude human recreation in the area. The management direction
imposed under this designation places a high priority on habitat and a low priority on
human recreation. The USFS states in the plan (pages-3-66 and 3-67) they do not yet
have the guidance and direction necessary to develop a management plan for lynx
habitat. However, the consequences of this designation could potentially involve the
closure of the East Vail Chutes, the Commando Run, Two Elk Trail, Bowman's Shortcut
and other areas to human activities seasonally or year-round. The lynx is now listed as
a "threatened" species in Colorado.
¦ General Trail/Road Closures - Under Alternative "D", 62% of the existing (permitted or
social) roads and trails in the area adjacent to Vail would be closed to mountain bikes,
while over 80% of the roads and trails in this area would be closed to motorized vehicles
(please refer to Attachment 2 for details). Although staff supports many of the proposed
road/trail closures, a number of routes that significantly affect tourism/recreation in our
area are slated for closure under Alternatives "C" and "D". A detailed analysis of
road/trail management proposed under each plan alternative is included in the "Road
and Trail Management Strategies" section of this report. Detailed maps of proposed "
travel management strategies (full-sized motor vehicles, ATVs, motorcycles and
mechanized vehicles) under Alternatives "B" and "D" are currently available for review in
the Vail Town Council chambers (75 S. Frontage Road).
Sinaletrack Hikino/Biking Trails on Vail Mountain - The Forest Plan's inventory of travel
routes does not include the singletrack trail system on Vail Mountain. Staff believes
written clarification of the status of these trails under each plan alternative is necessary.
This should include information on the potential for trail system expansion and special
F:everyone\brent\wmfpfan\memo 2
event usage (races, demonstrations, etc.). Staff believes this trail system is a vital
component of Vail's summer tourism amenities. Additionally, trail access within the
developed ski area alleviates pressure from trail usage in non-developed forest areas
adjacent to Vail.
¦ Other National Forests Underaoina Plan Revision - A concern was expressed by council
that the preferred plan could place Vail "at a competitive disadvantage." Council
inquired how many other national forests are currently undergoing plan revisions.
According to research by a trail advocacy group from Boulder, 36 (of approximately 125)
national forests are beginning either the "scoping" process or plan revision process.
Many groups have voiced concerns that the adopted White River National Forest Plan
could set a precedent for other forests around the nation.
4. OTHER ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY STAFF FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Bulleted below are some substantial issues identified by staff as outlined in the plan
alternatives:
¦ The topic of "urbanization" and compliance with local aovernment plans - Section 219.7
of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that the USFS assess (in the forest plan's
environmental impact statement) the impacts of forest plan revisions on local
government planning strategies. Although staff believes the issue of "intermix" lands
and private inholdings within the forest is more an issue of county or regional jurisdiction,
staff supports the NWCCOG's position on this issue. Please refer to the attached
NWCCOG position statement for more details.
Additionally, staff believes the issue of urbanization is substantial enough to warrant a
separate revision topic. It would be beneficial for affected municipalities to see how new
USFS policies might impact infrastructure demands and the need for housing in areas
adjacent to White River National Forest. Staff would encourage additional discussion
regarding the potential for housing or infrastructure location on USFS lands.
¦ Vail Ski Area Permit Boundaries - Under Alternative "D", the "Ski Based Resorts -
Existing and Potential" management area would be limited to what is essentially the
current ski area boundary. Under Alternative "C", the area would also include an area
adjacent to Mushroom Bowl and a small area southwest of Game Creek Bowl. Under
Alternatives "C" and "D", a small area located northwest of Eagle's Nest would be
removed from potential permitted expansion areas. Management area maps will be
available for review at the February 22nd meeting. The ski company has expressed
concern that ski area improvements in the existing boundaries could be, impacted.
Further clarification is needed to determine if Alternative "D" would adversely impact
skier operation in the existing permit area.
¦ Aerial Transportation Corridors - Like the existing forest plan, neither Alternative "C" nor
"D" proposes any lift/gondola transportation connections (outside the permitted ski area
boundary) in the Vail area. Staff would recommend a position of opposition on any
potential transportation corridor/ski portal connections between the Town of Minturn and
the Vail ski area.
F:everyone\brent\wmfplan\memo 3
• Fire/Pine Beetle/Noxious Weed Management - USFS standards and guidelines for
management of these issues under a new plan is attached as Attachment 4. If more
specific information is required, it will be provided upon request.
¦ Snowmobile Access - Under Alternative "D", snowmobile access adjacent to Vail would
be restricted to designated routes. These include Shrine Mountain Road, Lime Creek
Road, Red Sandstone Road, Red & White Mountain Road, Tigiwon Road and
Homestake Road. Under Alternative "C", snowmobile access would be restricted to the
above-referenced designated routes with an additional unrestricted access_area
between Lime Creek and Shrine Mountain Roads. Additionally, snowmobile access
along Lost Lake Road would be maintained under this alternative.
• Vail North of 1-70 - Under alternatives "C" and "D", management of forest lands north of
Vail (from West Vail east to the Gore Range) would change from "Dispersed Recreation"
to "Deer and Elk Winter Range" or "Bighorn Sheep Habitat." This could preclude certain
human activities (especially in the winter and spring months) in these areas, although
almost all significant trails in this area would remain accessible by the public during peak
user periods.
¦ Game Creek/Couaar Ridae Area - a change in management direction from
"Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized" to "Deer and Elk Winter Range" could
preclude human recreation activity in the winter/spring seasons in the Game
Creek/"Minturn Mile" area outside the permitted ski area boundary. However, staff
supports the proposed seasonal closures due to the presence of elk calving areas.
ATTACHMENT 1 - FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS
ATTACHMENT 2 - ROAD AND TRAIL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
ATTACHMENT 3 - ROAD AND TRAIL INVENTORY
ATTACHMENT 4 - DISTURBANCE PROCESSES
ATTACHMENT 5 - NWCCOG MEMO
ATTACHMENT 6 - SUITABLE TIMBER AREA (ALTERNATIVE "C")
ATTACHMENT 7 - SUITABLE TIMBER AREA (ALTERNATIVE "D")
F: everyone\brent\wrnfplan\memo 4
ATTACHMENT 1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS -
VAIL VICINITY
The following five pages summarize the existing and proposed
management strategies for specific areas within the forest surrounding Vail.
Maps for descriptive purposes are on file in the Department of Community Development.
F:everyone\brent\wrnfplan\summary 1
DESIGNATED WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS
VAIL. COLORADO VICINITY
Following is a brief summary of management area designations proposed for the areas of the forest
surrounding Vail under each plan alternative. The current management area designation is listed above
with the proposed designations under alternatives "C" and "D" listed below.
AREA = EAST VAIL CHUTES / TWO ELK PASS
Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction
(3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized
Non-Motorized recreation.
Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Management Direction
(3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized
Non-Motorized recreation.
Alternative "D" Management Area Designation Management Direction
(5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation restricted to a level compatible
with maintaining the effectiveness of the
area for use by the target species (lynx and
wolverine).
AREA = BOOTH FALLS / PITKIN CREEK (NORTH OF 1-70)
Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction
(4.3) Dispersed Recreation- Resource management activities are
compatible with, and reduce impacts to,
recreation sources and opportunities.
Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Management Direction
(5.42) Bighorn Sheep Recreation activities that disturb Bighorn
Sheep should be restricted.
Alternative "D" Management Area Designation Management Direction
(5.42) Bighorn Sheep Recreation activities that disturb Bighorn
Sheep should be restricted.
F:everyone\brent\wrnfplan\summary 2
AREA = RED SANDSTONE / WEST VAIL (NORTH OF I-70)
Current USFS Manaaement Area Designation Management Direction
(4.3) Dispersed Recreation Resource management activities are
compatible with, and reduce impacts to,
recreation sources and opportunities.
(5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products Grazing of domestic livestock is
coordinated with timber management
activities to ensure adequate regeneration.
Alternative "C" Manaaement Area Designation Manaaement Direction
(5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
Alternative "D" Manaaement Area Designation Manaaement Direction
(5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
AREA = VAIL MOUNTAIN / PERMITTED SKI AREA
Current USFS Manaaement Area Designation Manaaement Direction
(8.25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing & Potential Resource management activities minimize
impacts to recreational resources within
existing permitted sites and areas planned
for future development.
Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Management Direction
(8.25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing & Potential Resource management activities minimize
impacts to recreational resources within
existing permitted sites and areas planned
for future development.
Alternative "D" Manaaement Area Designation- Manaaement Direction
(8.25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing & Potential Resource management activities minimize
impacts to recreational resources within
existing permitted sites and areas planned
for future development.
Please note: Under Alternative "D Vail Mountain ski area operations would be restricted to
the existing permit area boundary.
F:everyone\brent\wrnfplan\summary 3
AREA = GAME CREEK / COUGAR RIDGE (WEST OF SKI AREA),
Current USFS Management Area Desienation Management Direction
(3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized
Non-Motorized recreation.
(5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
Alternative "C" Management Area Desienation Management Direction
(3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized
Non-Motorized recreation.
(5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
Alternative "D" Management Area Desienation Management Direction
(5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
(5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products Grazing of domestic livestock is
coordinated with timber management
activities to ensure adequate regeneration.
F:everyone\brent\wrnfplan\summary 4
AREA = LIME CREEK / TURKEY CREEK (SOUTH OF CATEGORY III)
Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction
(5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation restricted to a level compatible
with maintaining the effectiveness of the
area for use by the target species (lynx and
wolverine).
(5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products Grazing of domestic livestock is
coordinated with timber management
activities to ensure adequate regeneration.
Alternative "C" Management Area Desienation Management Direction
(5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation restricted to a level compatible
with maintaining the effectiveness of the
area for use by the target species (lynx and
wolverine).
(5.4) Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Motorized and non-motorized recreation
opportunities (with seasonally restricted
access). Human use high during fall
hunting seasons.
Alternative "D" Management Area Designation Management Direction
(5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation, restricted to a.level compatible
with maintaining the effectiveness of the
area for use by the target species (lynx and
wolverine).
The following page includes a table summarizing allowed activities in the forest
management areas as proposed.
F: everyone\brent\wmfplan\summary 5
GENERALLY ALLOWED ACTIVITIES AND ALLOCATIONS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS SURROUNDING VAIL
I
Non-Ski-
Timber Motorized Mechanized Oil & Gas Locatable Developed Based
Category Management Area Harvest Recreation Recreation Leasing Minerals Recreation Resorts
Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized summer-no;
3.32 (with winter motorized) yes winter-yes yes yes yes yes no
4.3 Dispersed Recreation yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
5.13 Resource Production - Forest Products yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
5.41 JDeer and Elk Winter Range yes yes* yes* yes yes yes ~ yes
5.42 jBighorn Sheep Habitat yes yes* yes* yes yes yes yes
summer-yes;
5.45 Forest Carnivores yes winter-no yes* yes yes yes yes
decision by
8.25 Ski Based Resorts-Existing and Potential yes yes yes yes area yes no
* designated routes only; additional restrictions may apply
ATTACHMENT 2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
ROAD AND TRAIL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES -
VAIL VICINITY
The following three pages summarize the existing and proposed
management strategies for specific areas within the forest surrounding Vail.
Road and trail closures are displayed for 139 routes surrounding Vail.
Maps for descriptive purposes are on file in the Department of Community Development.
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\closure 1
The following is a summary of proposed road/trail closures within the forest for the area
surrounding Vail. An inventory of 139 routes surrounding Vail was compiled and closures or
seasonal restrictions for each route are listed below. Comments from staff regarding specific
trail or road closures are also listed.
Alternative "C" - Trail/Road Closures and Seasonal Restrictions
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
Use New Closures New Seasonal Restrictions
Full-sized Motor Vehicles 15 7
Motorcycles 16 7
ATVs 16 7
Mechanized Vehicles 64 21
Horseback 0 0
Hiking 0 0
Staff believes the closure of the following trails to mechanized vehicles under Alternative "C"
should be reconsidered due to user demands and potential impacts to tourism/recreation based
establishments: FDT 1851.1 (Bowman's Shortcut), Way 2133W.1 (Commando Run), FDR
734.1/734.1A (Red and White Mountain Road), and Way 711 WA (Minturn to Game Peak).
Staff supports all of the seasonal restrictions proposed for trails/roads in the Vail vicinity under
this plan alternative.
Alternative "D" - Trail/Road Closures and Seasonal Restrictions
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
Use New Closures New Seasonal Restrictions
Full-sized Motor Vehicles 16 8
Motorcycles 16 9
ATVs 16 9
Mechanized Vehicles 65 16
Horseback 1 0
Hiking - 1 0
Staff believes the closure of the following trails to mechanized vehicles under Alternative "D"
should be reconsidered due to user demands and potential impacts to tourism/recreation based
establishments: FDT 1851.1 (Bowman's Shortcut), FDR 719.2E (Eiseman Hut Spur), FDR
751.1B (Fowler-Hilliard Hut), and Way 711 WA (Minturn to Game Peak).
Staff supports all of the seasonal restrictions proposed for trails/roads in the Vail vicinity under
this plan alternative.
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\closure 2
The following tables summarize the existing and proposed numbers of accessible routes for each
type of user group. The percentages listed at the right of each table illustrate the percent of all
trails within the forest a particular user group would have access to under each plan alternative.
Existing WRNF Plan - Available Roads and Trails
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
Use Accessible Routes Percent of Total
Full-sized Motor Vehicles 32 23.0%
Motorcycles 33 23.7%
ATVs 33 23.7%
Mechanized Vehicles 128 92.1%
Horseback 139 100%
Hiking 139 100%
Alternative "C" - Available Roads and Trails
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
Use Accessible Routes Percent of Total
Full-sized Motor Vehicles 20 14.4%
Motorcycles 20 14.4%
ATVs 20 14.4%
Mechanized Vehicles 62 44.6%
Horseback 138 99.2%
Hiking 138 99.2%
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\closure 3
Alternative I'D" - Available Roads and 't'rails
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
Use Accessible Routes Percent of Total
Full-sized Motor Vehicles 20 14.3%
Motorcycles 25 17.9%
ATVs 25 17.9%
Mechanized Vehicles 52 37.4%
Horseback 139 100%
Hiking 139 100%
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\closure 4
ATTACHMENT 3
The tables on the following pages are an inventory of 139 trails, roads, routes and
ways within the portion of White River National Forest surrounding Vail. Routes to
be impacted by changes proposed under each plan alternative are listed in bold
type. Other symbols used in the tables are described in the legend at the bottom of
each page.
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\closure 5
ALTERNATIVE B
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 711.5D Back Bowls x X X 0 0 0
FDR 734.1 D Bally Hoo Spur Rd x X X 0 0 0
FDR 728.1A Big Spruce x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2013.1 Bighorn x X X X 0 0
FDT 2011.1 Booth Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 710.1 E Bottom of Lift 11 X X X 0 0 0
FDT 1851.1 Bowman's Shortcut x X X 0 0 0
FDR 734.1 B Buffehr x X X 0 0 0
FDR 787.1 Buffehr 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2111.1 Buffehr Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2110.1 Buffehr Mountain x X X 0 0 0
Way 2133W.1 Commando Run x X X 0 0 0
FDR 709.1A Communication Site x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2006.1 Cross Creek x X X X 0 0
FDR 781.1 Davos Trail (Cortina Lane) 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2014.1 Deluge Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 719.1A East Red Sandstone x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.2E Eiseman Hut Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2128.1 Fall/Martin Creek x X X X O 0
FDR 751.1 B Fowler-Hilliard Hut x X X 0 0 0
FDR 734.1C Freeman Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.31 Game Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2130.1 Game Creek x X X X 0 0
FDR 711.3C Game Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 736.1 Gitalong Rd x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1A Golden Peak x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2015.1 Gore Creek x X X X 0 0
FDT 2015.1 A Gore Lake x X X X 0 0
FDT 2127.1 Grouse Lake x X X 0 0 0
FDR 713.1 Hanks Gulch 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR. 713.113 Hanks Gulch Spur B X X X 0 0 0
FDR 759.1 Holy Cross City 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 703.213 Homestake Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 703.2A Homestake Spur 0 0 O 0 0 0
FDR 711.5C Lift 14 X X X 0 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
F:\everyone\brenl\wmfplan\trailyds.xls "0" = OPEN
ALTERNATIVE B
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 710.1 C Lift 6 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 728.1 Lime Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 748.1 Line Shack x X X 0 0 0
FDR 791.1 Lionshead 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.2B Lost Lake x X X 0 O 0
FDR 786.2D Lost Lake x X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.2E Lost Lake x X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.2F Lost Lake x X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.2G Lost Lake x X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.2H Lost Lake x X X 0 0 0
FDT 1893.1 Lost Lake x 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 Lost Lake Road 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 A Lost Lake Spur X X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 B Lost Lake Spur 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.,1C Lost Lake Spur 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 D Lost Lake Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 H Lost Lake Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.2 Lost Lake Spur 0 0 0 0 O 0
FDR 786.2A Lost Lake Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 786.2C Lost Lake Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDT 1894.1 Lost Lake to Piney x X X 0 O 0
FDR 711.1 Main Vail x X X 0 0 0
FDR 749.1 Meadow Mountain x X X O 0 0
FDR 748.1A Meadow Mountain Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2129.1 B Meadow Mountain Tie Through x X X X 0 0
FDR 719.1 Middle Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
Way 2135.1 Middle Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.3B Middle Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.1 B Middle Creek Canyon 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 719.1 C Middle Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.1 D Middle Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.2A Middle Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.2B Middle Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.2C Middle Creek Spur x X X 0 O 0
FDR 719.2D Middle Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\trailyds.xls °0" = OPEN
ALTERNATIVE B
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 719.3 Middle Creek Spur 0 0 0 O 0 0
FDR 719.3A Middle Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.3D Mid-Vail Water Tank x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 Mill Creek 0 O 0 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 D Mill Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 F Mill Creek Spur 1 F X X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1G Mill Creek Spur 1G X X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 H Mill Creek Spur 1 H X X X 0 0 0
Way 711 W.4 Minturn to Game Peak x X X 0 0 0
FDR 405.1 Muddy Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 720.1 North Sandstone x X X 0 0 0
FDR 720.1 A North Sandstone Spur A 0 0 0 O 0 0
FDR 720.1 B North Sandstone Spur B X X X 0 0 0
FDR 720.1C North Sandstone Spur C X X X 0 0 0
FDR 720.1 H North Sandstone Spur H X X X 0 0 0
FDT 1896.1 North Trail x X X 0 O 0
FDT 1896.2 North Trail x X X 0 0 0
FDT 1896.3 North Trail x - X X 0 0 O
FDT 1896.5 North Trail x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2107.1 Nottingham Ridge x X X 0 .0 0
FDR 734.1 E Old FDR 734 0 O 0 0 0 O
FDR 728.1 C Old Sawmill Road x X X 0 0 0
Way 2349W.1 Paulie's Plunge x X X 0 0 0
Way 2347W.1 Paulie's Sister x X X 0 0 O
FDR 701.1 Piney 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2012.1 Pitkin x X X X 0 0
FDR 751.4B Ptarmigan Spur 4b x X X 0 0 0
FDR 751.2B Ptarmigan Spur E X X X 0 0 0
FDR 734.1 Red & White Mountain 0 0 0 0 0 O
FDR 734.1A Red & White Mountain 0 0 O O 0 0
FDR 700.1 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 O 0 0 0 0
FDR 700.2 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 700.3 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 728.1 B Ridge Road 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 713.1 A Shrine Mountain x X X O 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\trailyds.xls "0" = OPEN
ALTERNATIVE B
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 709.2 Shrine Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2136.01 Son of Middle Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 737.1 Spraddle Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 711.5E Sunup Bowl x X X 0 0 0
FDR 707.1A Tigiwon Campground 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 707.2A Tigiwon Sale Spur 2A X X X 0 0 0
FDR 707.28 Tigiwon Sale Spur 2B X X X 0 0 0
FDR 707.2C Tigiwon Sale Spur 2C X X X 0 0 0
FDR 707.3A Tigiwon Sale Spur 3A X X X 0 0 0
FDR 707.313 Tigiwon Sale Spur 3B X X X 0 0 0
FDR 707.3C Tigiwon Sale Spur 3c x X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.6A Top of Lift 10 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.7A Top of Lift 7 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.3E Top of Lift 9 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 736.1 A Tourist Trap Spring x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 B Town Water Tank 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x X X X 0 0
NRT 2005.1 Two Elk x X X 0 0 0
FDR 762.2 Two Elk Trailhead 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2109.1 A Upper Turquoise Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 711.513 Vail Mountain Spur x X X 0 0 0
NRT 49.1 Vail Pass - Ten Mile x X X 0 0 0
FDR 752.1 Wearyman Spur 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 752.1A Wearyman Spur 3a x X X 0 0 0
FDR 752.1 B Wearyman Spur 3b x X X 0 0 0
FDR 752.1 C Wearyman Spur 3c x X X 0 0 0
FDR 751.4A Wearyman Spur 4a X X X 0 0 0
FDR 751.1 C Wearyman Spur C X X X 0 0 0
FDR 751.2A Wearyman Spur D X X X 0 0 0
Way 2348W.1 Whiskey Creek x X X 0 0 0
Way 2348W.1 A Whiskey Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 770.1 A Willow Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 770.1 B Willow Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 770.1C Willow Creek x X X 0 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\trailyds.xls "0" = OPEN
ALTERNATIVE "C"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 711.51) Back Bowls x X X 0 0 0
FDR 734.1 D Bally Hoo Spur Rd x X X X* 0 0
FDR 728.1A Big Spruce x X X X* 0 0
FDT 2013.1 Bighorn x X X X 0 0
FDT 2011.1 Booth Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 710.1 E Bottom of Lift 11 X X X 0 0 0
FDT 1851.1 Bowman's Shortcut x X X X* 0 0
FDR 734.1 B Buffehr 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 787.1 Buffehr S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDT 2111.1 Buffehr Creek x X X S* 0 0
FDT 2110.1 Buff ehr Mountain x X X 0 0 0
Way 2133W.1 Commando Run x X X X* 0 0
FDR 709.1A Communication Site 0 0 0 0 O 0
FDT 2006.1 Cross Creek x X X X 0 O
FDR 781.1 Davos Trail (Cortina Lane) X X X S* 0 0
FDT 2014.1 Deluge Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 719.1A East Red Sandstone x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.2E Eiseman Hut Spur 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2128.1 Fall/Martin Creek x X X X 0 0
FDR 751.1 B Fowler-Hilliard Hut x X X 0 0 0
FDR 734.1C Freeman Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 711.313 Game Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2130.1 Game Creek x X X X 0 0
FDR 711.3C Game Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 736.1 Gitalong Rd x X X O 0 0
FDR 710.1 A Golden Peak x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2015.1 Gore Creek x X X X 0 0
FDT 2015.1A Gore Lake x X X X 0 0
FDT 2127.1 Grouse Lake x X X S* 0 0
FDR 713.1 Hanks Gulch X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 713.1B Hanks Gulch Spur B X X X X* 0 0
FDR 759.1 Holy Cross City S* S* S* S* 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\trailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "C"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 703.213 Homestake Reservoir X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 703.2A Homestake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 711.5C Lift 14 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 C Lift 6 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 728.1 Lime Creek S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 748.1 Line Shack x X X S* 0 0
FDR 791.1 Lionshead 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.213 Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.21) Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2E Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.21F Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2G Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2H Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDT 1893.1 Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.1 Lost Lake Road 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 A Lost Lake Spur 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 B Lost Lake Spur 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.1 C Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 786.1 D Lost Lake Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.1 H Lost Lake Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2 Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 786.2A Lost Lake Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2C Lost Lake Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDT 1894.1 Lost Lake to Piney x X X 0 0 0.
FDR 711.1 Main Vail x X X 0 0 0
FDR 749.1 Meadow Mountain x X X S* 0 0
FDR 748.1A Meadow Mountain Spur x X X S* 0 0
FDT 2129.1 B Meadow Mountain Tie Through x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.1 Middle Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0
r Way 2135.1 Middle Creek x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.38 Middle Creek x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.1 B Middle Creek Canyon x X X X* 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\lrailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "C"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 719.1C Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.1D Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.2A Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 -0
FDR 719.2B Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 O
FDR 719.2C Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.2D Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.3 Middle Creek Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 719.3A Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 711.3D Mid-Vail Water Tank x X X .0 O 0
FDR 710.1 Mill Creek O 0 0 .0 O 0
FDR 710.1 D Mill Creek Spur x X X O 0 0
FDR 710.1 F Mill Creek Spur 1 F X X X 0 0 0
FDR 710A G Mill Creek Spur 1 G X X X O O 0
FDR 710.1 H Mill Creek Spur 1 H X X X O O 0
Way 711 W.4 Minturn to Game Peak x X X X* 0 0
FDR 405.1 Muddy Pass X* X* X* X* X* X*
FDR 720.1 North Sandstone x X X X* 0 0
FDR 720.1A North Sandstone Spur A- X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 720.1 B North Sandstone Spur B X X X X* 0 0
FDR 720.1 C North Sandstone Spur C X X X X* 0 0
FDR 720.1 H North Sandstone Spur H X X X X* 0 0
FDT 1896.1 North Trail x X X S* 0 0
FDT 1896.2 North Trail x X X S* 0 0
FDT 1896.3 North Trail x X X S* 0 0
FDT 1896.5 North Trail x X X S* 0 0
FDT 2107.1 Nottingham Ridge x X X X* 0 0
FDR 734.1 E Old FDR 734 0 0 O O 0 0
FDR 728.1C Old Sawmill Road x X X X* 0 0
Way 2349W.1 Paulie's Plunge x X X S* 0 0
Way 2347W.1 Paulie's Sister x X X X* 0 0
FDR 701.1 Piney O 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2012.1 Pitkin x X X X 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
= NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplanUrailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "C"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 751.413 Ptarmigan Spur 4b x X X X* 0 0
FDR 751.21B Ptarmigan Spur E X X X X* 0 0
FDR 734.1 Red & White Mountain X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 734.1A Red & White Mountain X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 700.1 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 700.2 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 700.3 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 728.1 B Ridge Road X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 713.1A Shrine Mountain x X X X* 0 0
FDR 709.2 Shrine Pass S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDT 2136.01 Son of Middle Creek x X X S* 0 .0
FDR 737.1 Spraddle Creek X* X* X* 0 0 0
FDR 711.5E Sunup Bowl x X X 0 0 0
FDR 707.1A Tigiwon Campground X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 707.2A Tigiwon Sale Spur 2A X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.213 Tigiwon Sale Spur 2B X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.2C Tigiwon Sale Spur 2C X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.3A Tigiwon Sale Spur 3A X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.313 Tigiwon Sale Spur 3B X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.3C Tigiwon Sale Spur 3c x X X X* 0 0
FDR 711.6A Top of Lift 10 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.7A Top of Lift 7 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.3E Top of Lift 9 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 736.1 A Tourist Trap Spring x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 B Town Water Tank X* X* X* 0 0 0
FDT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x X X X 0 0
NRT 2005.1 Two Elk x X X 0 0 0
FDR 762.2 Two Elk Trailhead 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2109.1 A Upper Turquoise Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 711.513 Vail Mountain Spur x X X 0 0 0
NRT 49.1 Vail Pass - Ten Mile x X X 0 0 0
FDR 752.1 Wearyman Spur 3 X* X* X* X* 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
= NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\trailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "C"
TRAIUROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 752.1 A Wearyman Spur 3a 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 752.1 B Wearyman Spur 3b x X X X* O O
FDR 752.1 C Wearyman Spur 3c x X X X* O O
FDR 751.4A Wearyman Spur 4a x X X X* O O
FDR 751.1 C Wearyman Spur C X X X 0 0 0
FDR 751.2A Wearyman Spur D X X X X* O O
Way 2348W.1 Whiskey Creek x X X S* O O
Way 2348W.1A Whiskey Creek x X X S* O O
FDR 770.1A Willow Creek x X X X* O O
FDR 770.1 B Willow Creek x X X X* O O
FDR 770.1 C Willow Creek x X X X* O O
"X" = CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
= NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wrnfplan\trailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "D"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 711.5D Back Bowls x X X 0 0 0
FDR 734.1 D Bally Hoo Spur Rd x X X X* 0 0
FDR 728.1 A Big Spruce S S S S* 0 0
FDT 2013.1 Bighorn x X X X 0 0
FDT 2011.1 Booth Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 710.1 E Bottom of Lift 11 X X X 0 0 0
FDT 1851.1 Bowman's Shortcut x X X X* O 0
FDR 734.1 B Buffehr x 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 787.1 Buffehr x 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2111.1 Buff ehr Creek x 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2110.1 Buffehr Mountain x 0 0 0 0 0
Way 2133W.1 Commando Run x X X 0 0 0
FDA 709.1A Communication Site S S S S* 0 0
FDT 2006.1 Cross Creek x X X X O 0
FDR 781.1 Davos Trail (Cortina Lane) S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDT 2014.1 Deluge Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 719.1A East Red Sandstone x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.2E Eiseman Hut Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDT 2128.1 Fall/Martin Creek x X X X 0 0
FDR 751.1 B Fowler-Hilliard Hut x X X X* 0 0
FDR 734.1 C Freeman Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 711.38 Game Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2130.1 Game Creek x X X X 0 0
FDR 711.3C Game Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 736.1 - Gitalong Rd x X X 0 0 0,
FDR 710.1 A Golden Peak x X X 0 0 0
FDT 2015.1 Gore Creek x X X X 0 0
FDT 2015.1 A Gore Lake x X X X 0 0
FDT 2127.1 Grouse Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 713.1 Hanks Gulch X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 713.1 B Hanks Gulch Spur B X X X X* 0 0
FDR 759.1 Holy Cross City S* S* S* S* 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0"' = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\trailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "D"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 703.213 Homestake Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 703.2A Homestake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 711.5C Lift 14 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 C Lift 6 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 728.1 Lime Creek S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 748.1 Line Shack x X X S* 0 0
FDR 791.1 Lionshead S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 786.28 Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2D Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2E Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.21F Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2G Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2H Lost Lake x X X X* 0 0
FDT 1893.1 Lost Lake X S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 786.1 Lost Lake Road 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 786.1A Lost Lake Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.1 B Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 786.1C Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 786.1 D Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 786.1H Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 786.2 Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 786.2A Lost Lake Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 786.2C Lost Lake Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDT 1894.1 Lost Lake to Piney x X X S* 0 0
FDR 711.1 Main Vail x X X 0 0 0
FDR 749.1 Meadow Mountain x X X 0 0 0
FDR 748.1A Meadow Mountain Spur x X X S* 0 0
FDT 2129.1 B Meadow, Mountain Tie Through x X X 0 0 0
FDR 719.1 Middle Creek S* S* S* S* 0 0
Way 2135.1 Middle Creek x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.3B Middle Creek x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.18 Middle Creek Canyon X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 719.1C Middle Creek Spur X - rlcFn X X* 0 0
"0"' = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\lrailyds.xis Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "D"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 719.1D Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.2A Middle Creek Spur x X X X*. 0 0
FDR 719.213 Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.2C Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.2D Middle Creek Spur x X X X* 0 0
FDR 719.3 Middle Creek Spur X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 719.3A Middle Creek Spur x X X X* O 0
FDR 711.313 Mid-Vail Water Tank x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 Mill Creek X* X* X* 0 O 0
FDR 710:1 D Mill Creek Spur x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 F Mill Creek Spur 1 F X X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 G Mill Creek Spur 1G X X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 H Mill Creek Spur 1 H X X X 0 0 0
Way 711 W.4 Minturn to Game Peak x X X X* 0 0
FDR 405.1 Muddy Pass X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 720.1 North Sandstone x X X X* 0 0
FDR 720.1A North Sandstone Spur A X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 720.1 B North Sandstone Spur B X X X X* 0 0
FDR 720.1C North Sandstone Spur C X X X X* 0 0
FDR 720.1 H North Sandstone Spur H X X X X* 0 0
FDT 1896.1 North Trail x X X 0 0 0
FDT 1896.2 North Trail x X X 0 0 O
FDT 1896.3 North Trail x X X S* 0 0
FDT 1896.5 North Trail x X X S* 0 0
FDT 2107.1 Nottingham Ridge x X X X* 0 0
FDR 734.1E Old FDR 734 X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 728.1 C Old Sawmill Road x X X X* 0 0
Way 2349W.1 Paulie's Plunge x X X 0 0 0
Way 2347W.1 Paulie's Sister x X X X* 0 0
FDR 701.1 Piney 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2012.1 Pitkin x X X X 0 0
FDR 751.4B Ptarmigan Spur 4b x X X X* 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0"' = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\trailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "D"
TRAIUROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 751.2B Ptarmigan Spur 'E X X X X* 0 0
FDR 734.1 Red & White Mountain 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 734.1A Red & White Mountain 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 700.1 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 700.2 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 700.3 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 728.1 B Ridge Road X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 713.1A Shrine Mountain x X X X* 0 0
FDR 709.2 Shrine Pass S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDT 2136.01 Son of Middle Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 737.1 Spraddle Creek S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 711.5E Sunup Bowl x X X. 0 0 0
FDR 707.1A Tigiwon Campground S* S* S* S* 0 0
FDR 707.2A Tigiwon Sale Spur 2A X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.2B Tigiwon Sale Spur 213 X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.2C Tigiwon Sale Spur 2C X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.3A Tigiwon Sale Spur 3A X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.313 Tigiwon Sale Spur 3B X X X X* 0 0
FDR 707.3C Tigiwon Sale Spur 3c x X X X* 0 0
FDR 711.6A Top of Lift 10 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.7A Top of Lift 7 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.3E Top of Lift 9 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 736.1A Tourist Trap Spring x X X 0 0 0
FDR 710.1 B Town Water Tank X* X* X* 0 0 0
FDT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x X X X 0 0
NRT 2005.1 Two Elk x X X 0 0 0
FDR 762.2 Two Elk Trailhead 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDT 2109.1A Upper Turquoise Lake x X X X 0 0
FDR 711.513 Vail Mountain Spur x X X 0 0 0
NRT 49.1 Vail Pass - Ten Mile x X X 0 0 0
FDR 752.1 Wearyman Spur 3 X* X* X* X* 0 0
FDR 752.1A Wearyman Spur 3a x X X X* 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0"' = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL. RESTRICTIONS
NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brenf\wmfplan\trailyds.As Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "D"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor' Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 752.1 B Wearyman Spur 3b x X X X* 0 0
FDR 752.1C Wearyman Spur 3c x X X X* 0 0
FDR 751.4A Wearyman Spur 4a x X X X* 0 0
FDR 751.1 C Wearyman Spur C 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 751.2A Wearyman Spur D X X X X* 0 0
Way 2348W.1 Whiskey Creek x X X 0 0 0
Way 2348W.1 A Whiskey Creek x X X 0 0 0
FDR 770.1A Willow Creek x X X X* 0 0
FDR 770.1 B Willow Creek x X X X* 0 0
FDR 770.1C Willow Creek x X X X* 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0"' = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
= NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
F:\everyone\brent\wmfplan\trailyds.xls Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
p ~
ATTACHMENT 4
Standards and Guidelines
S E C T I O N T H R E E
Disturbance Processes
Fire
STANDARDS 1. Decisions made concerning vegetation management activities including "no
action" will minimize exposure of firefighters and the public to fire hazards.
2. Human-caused ignitions will be suppressed utilizing the appropriate manage-
ment response for fire.
3. Lightning-caused fires in areas not covered by a site-specific fire manage-
ment plan will be managed using the forestwide resource direction (fire em-
phasis) map and legend and the appropriate management response.
GUIDELINES 1. Where feasible and appropriate, prescribed fire may be utilized to accomplish
resource management goals and objectives.
2. Minimize ground-disturbing activities associated with fire management
actions.
3. Fire management activities should be designed to retain the natural character
of the ecosystems.
4. In areas covered by a site-specific fire management plan, lightning-caused
fires may be managed to accomplish resource management objectives.
Insects and Disease
GUIDELINES - 1. Plan management activities with consideration for potential insect or disease
outbreaks. Design management to meet or enhance management area ob-
jectives.
2. Manage vegetation in high-use recreation areas to-provide for public safety
and to improve forest health, as needed to maintain or improve the desired
recreation setting(s).
3. Use integrated pest management techniques, including silvicultural treat-
ments, to meet management area objectives. Treatment activities should be
based on values of, and risks to, wildlife habitat and adjacent private lands as
well as public lands. Priority should be given to areas in which values to be
protected exceed the cost of protection.
4. Project plans should consider existing infestations of insects or disease within
a project area. Activities should be designed to minimize.the risk of spreading
Proposed Revised Forest Plan 2-21
/r ~ a v
Chapter 2
the infestation while still providing habitat for those wildlife species dependent
upon the presence of insects and disease.
5. Control natural insect and disease outbreaks in Wilderness only when justi-
fied by predicted loss of resource values outside of Wilderness.
Undesirable Species
STANDARDS 1. For all proposed projects or activities, determine the risk of noxious weed
introduction or spread, and implement appropriate mitigation measures.
2. Noxious weeds and other undesirable exotic species of plants and animals
are controlled or eliminated where possible.
3. Only certified and approved "noxious weed free" hay, straw, or mulch used
for feed or revegetation projects shall be used on NFS lands.
4. Contracts and permits for use of NFS lands and resources shall include provi-
sions that are necessary to prevent the spread of noxious weeds.
GUIDELINES 1. Develop a noxious weed and pest management program that addresses the
following components:
• awareness
• prevention
• inventory
• planning
• treatment
• monitoring
• reporting
• management activities.
Priorities for controlling noxious weeds are:
• prevent the introduction of new invaders
• conduct early treatment 'of new infestations .
• contain and control established infestations.
When setting priorities for the treatment of noxious weeds, give consideration
to the following:
• rate of spread of the species
• invasions found within special management areas such as research
natural areas and Wilderness
• probability that the treatment(s) will be successful.
2-22 White River National Forest
ATTACH?ma 1 5
OL1tVC1L OF GOVERNMENTS' MEMORANDUM
To: NWCCOG Members and Interested Parties
From: Gary Severson, Executive Director
Date: 10/27/99
Re: NWCCOG Focus Regarding the White River National Forest Plan
The mission of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) is to build multi jurisdictional,
intergovernmental partnerships to address issues affecting the region and to advocate members' interests and
needs with local, state, and federal entities. NWCCCG will remain focused on this mission in response to the
White River National Forest (WRNF) Proposed Plan Revision and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). Therefore, NWCCOG will respond to the WRNF in the following manner:
1. Multi-Jurisdictional Collaborative Planning, Implementation, And Monitoring For Intermixed Lands.
The WRNF recognizes the need for multi-jurisdictional, intergovernmental planning and management given the
intermix of lands of multiple jurisdictions and the National Forest. The WRNF stated, "?n order to effectively
manage the Forest in the future, it is necessary to consider the impacts on both public and private lands ...Most
important will be the need to establish cooperative relationships with others to try to deal with issues beyond
National Forest System lands."' The WRNF went on to say that a goal should be to develop a system of
°boundaryless'2 planning by actively involving adjacent jurisdictions in the process. The USDA Committee of
Scientists recommended that a way to improve the management of National Forests is to "...develop more
collaborative relationships with local communities... throughout the planning process.' NWCCOG is in
agreement with the WRNF and the USDA Committee of Scientists.
The stated theme of the WRNF Intermix prescription is to, ".-.protect natural resources, provide compatible
multiple uses, and maintain cooperative relationships between private landowners and other gcvemments with
jurisdiction. However, the preferred alternative identified by the WRNF in the Proposed Plan Revision and
DEIS identifies zero (0) acres of multi-jurisdictional intermix lands on which to apply intermix prescriptions.
Therefore, NWCCOG will ask the WRNF to revisit the intermix issue. We will ask the WRNF to collaboratively
work with adjacent governmental jurisdictions to identify intermix areas of concern, then to identify issues,
establish goals and objectives, develop multi-jurisdictional management prescriptions, and initiate. a
management implementation and monitoring system for the intermix areas.
2. The Effects Of Urbanization On Multi-,Jurisdictional Planning And Management.
The WRNF stated, "The current Forest Plan does not address management of resources in the context of this
topic [urbanization]. It is expected that growth in the planning area will continue throughout the period of
i Analvsis of the Management Situation, White River National Forest 1997.
2 Ibid.
3 USDA Press Release T 0104.99. March 15, 1999.
° Manaiement Area Direction. White River National Forest, 1999.
P.O. Box 2208 + 249 Warren Ave. ? Silverthome, CC 80498 + 9701468-0295 + Fax 970/468=1208 +www.nwc.cog.co.us
r
revision. This will be coupled by anticipated increases in use of the Forest by visitors. The issues associated
with this topic (urbanization) are expected to continue. In order to effectively manage the Forest in the future, it
is necessary to consider the impacts on both public and private lands. It is also necessary to consider the
effects of development on private lands on the Forest. This will include goals and objectives and Forest-wide
direction. Development of a management area prescription, allocation of some lands to that prescription, and
monitoring of how well actions are achieving established goals and objectives will also be necessary Most
important will be the need to establish cooperative relationships with others to try to deal with issues beyond
National Forest System lands. `5
Urbanization is a topic that all governmental jurisdictions are facing in light of unprecedented population growth
within the region. The WRNF identified urbanization as a separate issue topic in the Analvsis of the
Management Situation, but eliminated it as a separate topic and alternative in the DEiS because,
urbanization is not directly controlled by Forest Service management activities." '3 NWCCOG agrees with the
WRNF Analvsis of the Management Situation, but disagrees with the WRNF conclusion in Summary of the Draft
Environmental Imoact Statement.
A plausible argument could be advanced that no local governmental jurisdiction can directly control urbanization
within its legal authorities. However, if this rationale were used by other jurisdictions in addition to the WRNF for
eliminating the urbanization topic, then urbanization and its effects on the region would not be addressed. It is
the position of NWCCOG that urbanization is an extremely important regional topic that affects multiple
governmental jurisdictions and must be addressed by all working in cooperation- and collaboration with one
another. Therefore, NWCCOG will propose that the WRNF reexamine the urbanization topic in collaboration
with multiple governmental jurisdictions within the region to fully assess the topic 'on all jurisdictions including the
WRNF.
3. Community Relationships To Sustain Community Vitality And Healthy Ecosystems.
A stated goal of the USDA Forest Service is to, "...build community relationships that sustain both community
vitality and healthy ecosystems, plus enhance the quality of life."~ In addition, three main goals apply to the
management of all National Forest System Lands: ensure sustainable ecosystems, provide multiple benefits for
people within the capabilities of ecosystems, and ensure organizational effectiveness.' Finally, a stated forest-
wide goal, which applies to all National Forests in the Rocky Mountain Region is, "Cooperate with individuals
and organizations, and local, state, tribal, and federal governments to promote ecosystem health and
sustainability across landscapes."NWCCOG is in agreement with the conceptual linkages between healthy
ecosystems and healthy communities through sustainability.
The WRNF is also aware that impacts on an ecosystem extend beyond the Forest's boundaries. The WRNF
stated, "Where multiple ownership exists in a watershed of any level, it is important that the Forest work with the
appropriate agencies and individuals where necessary to protect the watershed. "10 The WRNF went on to state,
'Cooperative relationships are emphasized with other agencies and adjacent private landowners.""
Ecosystems do not stop at the National Forest boundaries, but extend to lands of adjacent jurisdictions.
However, NWCCOG questions the ability of the WRNF to-manage its lands and achieve its stated goals without
examining complete ecosystems. (The preferred alternative identified zero acres of intermix lands.) In addition,
NWCCOG is concerned that there are no Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines specifically designed to
address the Forest-wide Goal of 'Cooperate with ...local governments to promote health and sustainability
z
across landscapes. 42
s Analvsis of the fanaQement Situation, White River National Forest, 1997.
6 Summary of the Dram Environmental Imnact Statement, White river national Forest, 1999.
7 Rural Community Assistance, USDA Forest Service.
s Government Performance and Results Act, 1993.
9 Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. White River National Forest, 1999.
10 Draft Environmental Imoact Statement, White River National Forest, 1999.
11 Pronosed Revised Land and Resource Manasement Plan, White River National Forest. 1999.
12 Ibid.
Therefore, NWCCOG will propose that the VVRNF, working in collaboration with adjacent governmental
jurisdictions, develop a continuing multi-;urisdicticnai policy level process, supported by specific Forest-wide
Standards and Guidelines. The purpose of the intergovern mental process will be to address regional issues,
including urbanization, and their effects on ecosystems, community vitality, and quality of life during the
development of the Forest Plan Revision .as well as the implementation and monitoring of the approved Forest
Plan.
Conclusion
NWCCOG believes that by focusing on the three aforementioned areas, multi jurisdictional collaborative
relationships can be developed to address important region-wide issues, producing mutual benefits to the
environment and communities of the northwestern region of Colorado.
ATTACHMENT 6
SUITABLE TIMBER AREA (ALTERNATIVE "C")
no
Eagle E~ Vail
* t
04
Bas It ry
ACRES
Suitable Timber 56,000
Suitable Timber Areas
F"
Other Ownership
ATTACHMENT 7 j
SUITABLE TIMBER AREA (ALTERNATIVE "D")
Yom- ._~,~~~~1~ t pC ~ 1:,
i R i.! 1~~r ~r
Eagie VailI
swk._. Pk
ex
Rye ~fy ~.t 't1 14~ ~
T
~H
Bas Its :f~ .
57
ACRES
Suitable Timber 434,000
Suitable Timber Areas
Other Ownership
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: April 4th, 2000
SUBJECT: An information update on revisions to Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000, an
ordinance amending Chapter 13-7, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the
conversion of accommodation units into condominiumized employee housing
units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Brent Wilson
On March 21, 2000, the Vail Town Council voted to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000
on first reading. Pursuant to requests by council members and the town attorney, the following
revisions have been made to Ordinance No. 5 prior to second reading:
13-7-6-B (oaaes 3 & 4) - The original language regarding "current rental rates and present
tenants" is not applicable to employee housing units and has been removed.. Additional
language requiring a PEC review of condominium declarations and sales prices during the
conditional use permit review process has been added.
13-7-6-D/E (pages 4-11) - Additional language has been added to require that the provisions of
the ordinance be incorporated into condominium declarations (to be reviewed and administered
by the town) to ensure compliance with the employee housing provisions. This added code
section requires that the sale of employee housing units be handled through the town's housing
lottery process (to ensure the units are purchased by qualified buyers) and that a 2%
commission be paid to the town to cover administrative expenses.
13-7-6-D-7 (oaaes 7 & 8) - Language regarding the negotiation of sales price has been
removed and replaced with language from the Town's housing lottery guidelines. The
negotiation period has been eliminated and the new language requires a qualified buyer to
proceed with a purchase contract within 5 days. If the buyer does not commit to purchasing the
unit within 5 days, the unit will be offered to another qualified buyer.
No other changes or deletions have been made to Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 since first
reading.
1 TOW*VAIL
Ali
ORDINANCE NO. 5
SERIES OF 2000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13-7, TOWNa OF VAIL CODE, TO ALLOW
FOR THE CONVERSION OF ACCOMMODATION UNITS INTO CONDOMINIUMIZED
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has long identified a need for affordable local
employee housing; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council held multiple public hearings for discussion of
this topic in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-6, Town of Vail Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
unanimously voted to recommend approval of this amendment at its public hearing held
February 14, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare to amend said Sections of the Town of Vail Code:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
Title 13, Section 7, of the Town of Vail Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(Note: Added text is shown in bold and underlined type; deleted text is shown in striGken
type)
SECTION:
13-7-1: Purpose
13-7-2: Definitions
13-7-3: Preliminary Map
13-7-4: Final Map
13-7-5: Review Procedure
13-7-6: Additional Requirements For Condominium Conversions to Emplovee Housina
Units
13-7-7: Condominium Conversion Of Lodge Or Accommodation Units
13-7-8: Restrictions on Units Converted Prior to February 7. 1995
13-7-9: Action On Preliminary Map
4-3-' 9: Pra!-;min3ry PUb'!is-RePGFt
13-7-10: Final Map; Certification And Approval
13-7-11: Improvement Security
13-7-12: Exemptions
13-7-13: Applicability
13-7-14: Filing And Recording
13-7-1: PURPOSE:
This Chapter has been adopted in accordance with the provision of the Local
Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as found in Colorado Revised
Statutes section 29-20-101 et seq., as more particularly spelled out in Colorado Revised
Statutes section 29-20-104, to regulate condominium developments which may result in
significant changes in the population of the Town and to control the impact thereof on
the Town and the surrounding areas. The Town finds that this Chapter is necessary for
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 1
J
the protection of the public health, safety and welfare to accomplish the following
purposes:
A. To ensure the performance of maintenance responsibilities in condominiums and
converted condominiums, and to promote the public health, safety and welfare.
B. To ensure that rental units being converted to condominiums meet reasonable
physical standards as required by subdivision and building codes adopted by the
Town.
C. To protect from unnecessary eviction the residents of rental units being
converted to condominiums, and to assist these residents in meeting their future
housing needs.
D. To preserve a reasonable balance in the owned versus rental housing mix and to
maintain the supply of low to moderate income units available in the Town.
E. To monitor the supply of low to moderate income units so that the Town may
take measures to avoid a worsening housing crisis.
F. To ensure the rental pool of accommodation units is not depleted by the
conversion of lodges and accommodation units to condominiums. (Ord. 1(1995)
§ 1: Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-2: DEFINITIONS:.
The following definitions shall apply to the interpretation of this Chapter:
BYLAWS: Shall refer to the bylaws of the unit owners' association or corporation.
COMMUNITY APARTMENT: A development in which there is an undivided interest in
the land coupled with the right of exclusive occupancy of an apartment located therein.
Community apartments shall be subject to the same restrictions and conditions set forth
in this Chapter for condominium units.
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION: The development-or use of the land and existing
structures as a condominium project regardless of the present or prior use of such lands
and structures, and regardless of whether substantial improvements have been made to
such structures. It shall not be permitted to convert existing lodges or accommodation
units to a condominium project.
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: The entire parcel of real property, including all structures
thereon, to be divided into two (2) or more units for the purpose of constructing or
converting existing structures to condominium units.
CONDOMINIUM UNIT: An individual air space unit together with the interest in the
common elements appurtenant to such unit.
DECLARATION: An instrument recorded pursuant to the statutes of the State and which
defines the character, duration, rights, obligations, and limitations of condominium
ownership. The declaration shall include all restrictions, limitations and specifications
which may be required by the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town
Council, including provisions relative to time-sharing estates, licenses or fractional fees;
and the procedure for amendments of the declaration which requires approval of the
Town.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT: Shall be defined in accordance with Section 12-2-2,
Town of Vail Code.
INDIVIDUAL AIR SPACE UNIT: Consists of any enclosed room or rooms occupying all
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 2
or part of a floor or floors of a building of one or more floors to be used for residential,
professional, commercial or industrial purposes, which has access to a public street.
MODERATE INCOME: Shall be as defined from time to time by the Council. (Ord.
1(1995) § 2: Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-3: PRELIMINARY MAP:
All proposed condominium projects shall submit the preliminary map, containing the
information and requirements specified in Chapter 3 of this Title, as may be applicable to
the proposed condominium project. In addition to that information, the preliminary map
for the condominium project shall include:
A. A map showing all common areas and usages of the building and grounds, and
plans for the interior division of the building showing horizontal and vertical
boundaries of all units.
B. A copy of the declaration applicable to the condominium project.
C. A copy of the bylaws. The bylaws shall contain the information required by the
Condominium Ownership Act of the State of Colorado. All condominium projects
shall comply with this requirement. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-4: FINAL MAP:
The final map for the condominium project shall contain all information required by
Chapter 3 of this Title as the same may be applicable to the condominium project. In
addition, if there are any restrictive covenants, conditions or restrictions other than
specified in the declaration, they shall be filed concurrently with the final map. (Ord.
2(1983) § 1)
13-7-5: REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The review procedure for condominium projects and condominium conversions shall be
in accordance with the procedures for subdivisions as specified in this Title. Th@F£ &.C!~
REA bF.i'~d uny GGRVGF6+eR-9f-C3JCt!Rg ledges -sr asscr~im
GORGIGMiRi6IM61 0. (Ord. 1(1995) § 3: Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-6: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS TO
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS:
The applicant proposing to make a condominium conversion shall provide the following
documentation with the preliminary map:
A. Conversion Report Listing Building Conditions: A condominium conversion report
from the Town Building Official on the condition of the building, listing all Building
Code violations, Fire Code violations and related violations which are detrimental
to the health, safety and welfare of the public, the owners, and the occupants of
the building. T4c app4aat-s` all have a~sit 0c a:A
n unit +S.7~T nr lRteFe i... t,4&
brn
GGRGIGMiRiUM prajeet.
B-. As part of the Planninq and Environmental Commission's review of a
conditional use permit request for conversion to emnlovee housina units,
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 3
the followina submittal information shall be reauired: Required Inf9frr3ti9rv-
A report of the proposed conversion that includes
1. ! eagth ofescUrc-4G~cf preserit tcnants.
T. cciti^^ Of present tenant6
s 3n
3. rrcnt ran A ruts; whether cti`ltE i 14P - RxGlude Lit' A-F
a summary of the proposed ownership of the units; imft a unitc will e-seld ac tir;a-
; the approximate proposed sale price of units and
financing arrangements to be provided by the applicant; a draft set of
condominium declarations demonstratina compliance with the arovisions
of this title. These declarations will be reviewed aaain by the Town during
the condominium platting process.
C. Plans And Descriptions: Plans and descriptions showing how the following will be
performed:
1. All site work shall be brought up to current Town standards unless a
variance therefrom is granted to the applicant by the
Plannina and Environmental Commission in accordance with the
variance procedures of Chcr arm-of Chic T'.#& Title 12. Zoninq. The Tewr~
GGHF}6il Plannina and Environmental Commission may, if it deems
necessary, require additional parking facilities to meet requirements of
owners and guests of the condominium units.
2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by
the Building Official.
3. Condominium projects shall meet current Uniform Building Code
requirements for#sat c. ss and-systsms.
D. MAXIMUM SALES PRICE
1. The provisions of Article "D" (Maximum Sales Price) shall be
incorporated directly into the condominium declarationsfor anv
units converted pursuant to this chapter. The Town of Vail shall
review and administer these documents to ensure compliance with
these provisions.
2. In the event that an Owner desires to sell the Unit. the Owner shall
execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the
Colorado Real Estate Commission with the Town providing for a
180-dav listina period. or such other time period as reauired by the
Town of Vail Affordable Housina Guidelines in effect at time of
listina. At this time. the Owner shall deposit with the Town an
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 4
amount equal to one-half percent (1/2%) of the estimated value of
the Unit. The Town shall promotiv advertise the Unit for sale by
competitive bid to Qualified Buvers. At the time of closing, the
Owner shall vav to the Town an additional one and one-half percent
(1 1/2%).
3. In no event shall a Unit be sold for an amount ("Maximum Sales
Price") in excess of the owner's purchase price, plus an increase of
three percent (3%) of such price per vear from the date of purchase
to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell (prorated at the rate of
.25 percent for each whole month for anv part of a vear).
NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE A
REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE BY THE TOWN OF VAIL THAT
ON SALE THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM SALES
PRICE.
4. Determining Maximum Sales Price:
a. For the purpose of determinina the Maximum Sales Price in
accordance with this Section, the Owner may add to the amount
specified in Paragraph 3 above, the cost of Permitted Capital
Improvements (as defined in this section). The amount shall not
exceed ten percent (10%) of the initial listed purchase price set forth
in paragraph 3 above. For everv ten vear period from the date of
oriainal purchase and deed restriction, another ten percent of the
purchase price may be added to the value of the property for capital
improvements. In calculatina such amount. only Permitted Capital
Improvements shall qualifv for inclusion. All such'Permitted Capital
Improvements installed or constructed over the life of the unit shall
qualifv.
b. Permitted Capital Improvements shall not include anv changes or
additions to the property made by the Owner during construction or
thereafter, except in accordance with Paraaraph 4a above.
Ordinance No. 5 Series of 2000 5
Permitted Capital Improvements shall not increase the base price,
even if made or installed durina oriainal construction.
C. In order to aualifv as Permitted Capital Improvements. the Owner
must furnish to the Town the followina information with respect to
the improvements which the Owner seeks to include in the
calculation of Maximum Sales Price:
1~ Oriainal or duplicate receipts to verifv the actual costs
expended by the Owner for the Permitted Capital
Improvements,
Owners affidavit verifvina that the receipts are valid and
correct receipts tendered at the time of purchase: and
31 True and correct copies of anv buildina permit or certificate
of occupancv reauired to be issued by the Town of Vail
Buildina Department with respect to the Permitted Capital
Improvements.
d. For the purpose of determinina the Maximum Sales Price in
accordance with this Section, the Owner may also add to the
amount specified in Paraaraphs 3 and 4a. the cost of anv permanent
z.
improvements constructed or installed as a result of anv
reauirement imposed by anv aovernmental aaencv. or Home
Owners Association, provided that written certification is provided
to the Town of both the applicable reauirement and the information
reauired by Paraaraoh 4c. 1 - 3.
e. In calculatina the costs under Paraaraphs 4a and 4d. oniv the
Owners actual out-of-pocket costs and expenses shall be eliaible for
inclusion. Such amount shall not include an amount attributable to
Owners "sweat eauitv" or to anv appreciation in the value of the
improvements.
5. Permitted Capital Improvements
A. The term "Permitted Capital Improvements" as used in the Section
shall oniv include the followina:
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 6
I. Improvements or fixtures erected. installed or attached as
permanent, functional. non-decorative improvements to real
propertv. excludina repair, replacement and/or maintenance
improvements:
2. Improvements for enerav and water conservation:
3. Improvements for health and safety protection devices:
4. Improvements to add and/or finish permanent/fixed storaae
space: and/or
5. Improvements to finish unfinished space.
B. Permitted Capital Improvements as used in this Section shall NOT
include the followina:
1. Upgrades/replacements of appliances. plumbina and
mechanical fixtures, carpets and other similar items included
as part of the oriainal construction of the unit:
2. The cost of addina decks and balconies, and anv extension
thereto:
3. Jacuzzis, saunas, steam showers and other similar items:
4. Improvements reauired to repair, replace and maintain
existina fixtures, appliances, plumbina and mechanical
fixtures, oaintina, carpetina and other similar items: and/or:
5. Unarades or addition of decorative items. includina liahts.
window coverinas and other similar items.
C. All Permitted Capital Improvement items and costs shall be
approved by the Town staff prior to beina added to the' Maximum
Resale Price as defined herein.
6. Owner shall not permit anv prospective buver to assume anv or all of the
Owners customarv closina costs nor accept anv other consideration which
would cause an increase in the purchase price above the bid price so as to
induce the Owner to sell to such prospective buver.
7. In the event that one qualified bid is received eaual to the Maximum Sales
Price herein established, the propertv shall be sold to such bidder at the
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 7
Maximum Sales Price: and in the event Owner receives two or more such
bids equal to the Maximum Sales Price, the Qualified Buver shall be
selected accordina to the priority for Sale Units set forth in the Town of Vail
Emplovee Housing Guidelines: and. in the event that all such qualified
bidders are of equal priority Pursuant to the Guidelines. the Qualified Buver
shall be selected by lotterv amona the qualified buvers. whereupon the
Unit shall be sold to the winner of such.lotterv at the Maximum Sales Price.
if the -:.-rrnc _ _ ,-n -et a+}-a ss, as i}~cIIl,
Cyr,
s enas shal!-be-a
man 113)~6:-s~scs days te allew the sr srd-
Peteatial "~lyeFt9 reach an ageemar;t rig suid43.-mr_, !RGIHd!Rg et
limitedts, tha GIGS! eg dints an ieC. If, af4eF the-negetiatieR
died avcr-, tae Seller and bi) snt, thS Rext
bi449r-c a sseRted to the Seller f^-.r nsrn
wlll - then L.C r .,i4sr2t:e+aan
i') Li4 + 3cc day Re9Gtiatir gain. If the lotterv winner does
not proceed to contract within five (5) business davs after notification. the
next in line will be notified and so on, until the unit is under contract for
purchase. Back-up contracts in the priority order set forth in the lotterv will
be accepted. Prospective purchasers must be pre-aualified by a lender
prior to submittina a bid for a unit at the subiect property/oroiect. The
seller may reiect anv and all bids, however, the Owner is subiect to the
provisions in the Town of Vail Emplovee Housina Guidelines oertainina to
the listina fee. Bids in excess of the Maximum Sales Price shall be
reiected. If all bids are below Maximum Sales Price, Owner may accept the
hiahest qualified bid. If all bids are below Maximum Sales Price and two or
more bids are for the same price, the Qualified Buver shall be selected by
lottery from amona the hiahest qualified bidders.
8. In the event that title to the unit vests by descent in individuals and/or
entities who are not Qualified Buvers as that term is defined herein
(hereinafter "Non-Qualified Transferee(s)"). the unit shall immediately be
listed for sale as Provided in Paragraph 3 above (includina the pavment of
the specified fee to the Town). and the hiahest bid by a Qualified Buver, for
not less than ninetv-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Sales Price or the
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 8
appraised market value, whichever is less. shall be accepted: if all bids are
below ninetv-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Sales Price or the
appraised market value, the Unit shall continue to be listed for sale until a
bid in accordance with this section is made, which bid must be accepted.
The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the Non-Qualified Transferee(s).
a. Non-Qualified Transferee(s) shall ioin in anv sale, convevance or
transfer of the Unit to a Qualified Buver and shall execute anv and
all documents necessarv to do so: and
b. Non-Qualified Transferee(s) aaree not to: 1) occupv the said Unit: 21
rent all or anv part of the Unit: 3) enaaae in anv other business
activitv on or in the Unit: 4) sell or otherwise transfer the Unit
except in accordance with this Section and the Affordable Housina
Guidelines: or 5) sell or otherwise transfer the Unit for use in a trade
or business.
C. The Town, or their respective successors. as applicable, shall have
the riaht and option to purchase the Unit, exercisable within a
period of fifteen (15) calendar davs after receipt of anv sales offer
submitted to the Town by a Non-Qualified Transferee(s). and in the
event of exercisina their riaht and option. shall purchase the Unit
from the Non-Qualified Transferee(s) for a price of ninetv-five
percent (95%) of the Maximum Sales Price, or the appraised market
value. whichever is less. The offer to purchase shall be made by the
Non-Qualified Transferee within fifteen (15) davs of acauisition of
the Unit.
E. ENFORCEMENT
1. In the event that the Town has reasonable cause to believe the
Owner is violatina the provisions of this Section, the Town. by its
authorized representative. may inspect the unit between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondav throuah Fridav. after providina
the Owner with no less than 24 hours written notice.
2. The Town of Vail, in the event a violation of this Chapter is
discovered, shall send a notice of violation to the Owner detailina
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 9
the nature of the violation and allowina the owner fifteen (15) davs to
cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner may request a hearinq
before the Vail Town Council within fifteen (15) davs to determine
the merits of the alleaations. If no hearina is reauested and the
violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period. the Owner
shall be considered in violation of this Section. If a hearina is held
before the Vail Town Council. the decision of the Town based on the
record of such hearina shall be final for the purpose of determininq
if a violation has occurred.
If the Town determines that there has been a violation of the
occupancy standards. the owner of the restricted emolovee housing
unit shall be found to be in non-compliance. Penalties the Town
may assess against the owner include eliminatina resale pain (per
Paragraph 3). and/or Penalties found in the Town of Vail Municipal
Code Section 01-01-01.
3. There is hereby reserved to the Parties hereto anv and all remedies
provided by law for breach of this Section or anv of its terms. In the
event the parties resort to litigation with respect to any or all provisions of
this Section, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
4. In the event the Unit is sold and/or conveved without compliance
herewith. such sale and/or convevance shall be wholly null and void
and shall confer no title whatsoever upon the purported buver.
Each and everv convevance of the Unit. for all Purposes, shall be
deemed to include and incorporate by this reference. the covenants
herein contained. even without reference therein to this section.
5. In the event that the Owner fails to cure anv breach, the Town may
resort to anv and all available leaal action. includina. but not limited
to. specific Performance of the reauirements of this section or a
mandatorv iniunction reauirina sale of the Unit by Owner. The
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 10
costs of such sale shall be taxed aaainst the proceeds of the sale
with the balance beina paid to the Owner.
6. In the event of a breach of anv of the terms or conditions contained
herein by the Owner, his heirs, successors or assians, the Town's
initial listed purchase price of the Unit as set forth in this section
shall, upon the date of such breach as determined by the Town.
automatically cease to increase as set forth in this section, and shall
remain fixed until the date of cure of said breach.
13-7-7: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF LODGE OR ACCOMMODATION UNITS:
A. No New Conversions Allowed; Exception: There shall not be permitted any
conversion of a lodge or accommodation unit within the Town to a condominium,
except as provided for the provision of emplovee housina units. Emplovee
housing units created pursuant to this chapter are subiect to the
definitions, requirements and provisions of Chapter 12-13. Town of Vail
Code ("Employee Housina") and Chapter 12-16. Town of Vail Code
("Conditional Use Permits").
13-7-8: RESTRICTIONS ON UNITS CONVERTED PRIOR TO 1995:
A. Any accommodation unit within the Town which has been converted to a
condominium or has received approval for a conversion prior to the effective
date of Februarv 7. 1995 shall comply with the requirements of this Section. The
requirements contained in this Section shall not apply to structures or building
which contain two (2) units or less.
B. Use By Owner/Renter: The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall
be included in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record
with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The condominium units created shall
remain in the short term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations
available to the general public.
1. An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to twenty
eight (28) days during the seasonal periods of December 24 through January 1
and February 1 through March 20. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to
as "high season". "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner occupancy
of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit off the rental market
during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than
necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable:
Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge,
however, shall not be restricted by this Section.
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 11
2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the
owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three (3)
times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the
time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of
the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the
owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit
of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be
evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected by foreclosure
on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage
or deed of trust on real property. The. condominium association's failure to
enforce the owner's personal use restriction shall give the Town the right to
enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If
the Town enforces the restriction, the Town shall receive the funds collected as a
result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of
the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award
such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney fee incurred.
3. The Town shall have the right to require from the condominium
association an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons for
all converted condominium units.
4. The converted lodge units shall not be used as permanent residences.
For the purposes of this Section, a person shall be presumed to be a permanent
resident if such person has resided in the unit for six (6) consecutive months
notwithstanding from time to time during such six (6) month period the person
may briefly dwell in other places.
C. Converted Lodge Retains Customary Facilities: Any lodge located within the
Town which has converted accommodation units to condominiums shall continue
to provide customary lodge facilities and services including a customary
marketing program.
D. Unsold Condominiums Rented: The converted condominium units shall remain
available to the general tourist market. If unsold thirty (30) days after recording of
the condominium map, the unsold converted condominiums shall be required to
be furnished and made available to the general tourist market within ninety (90)
days after the date of recording of the condominium map. This requirement may
be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium project at comparable rates
in any local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the
Town.
E. Common Areas Remain: The common areas of any lodge with converted units
shall remain common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its
previous character. Any changes, alterations or renovations made to common
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 12
areas shall not`diminish the size or quality of the common areas.
F. Employee Housing: Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide
housing for employees at any time during the three (3) years previous to the date
of the application shall remain as employee units for such duration as may be
required by the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Town Council.
G. Applicability: All conditions set forth within this Section shall be made binding on
the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personal representatives and
assigns and shall govern the property which is the subject of the application for
the life of the survivor of the present Town Council plus twenty one (21) years.
Conversion of accommodation units located within a lodge pursuant to this
Section, shall be modified only by the written agreement of the Town Council and
the owner or owners of the units which have been converted into condominiums.
The documents creating and governing any accommodation unit which has been
converted into a condominium shall be modified by the owners of such units only
with the prior written approval of the Town Council. (Ord. 15(1995) § 1: Ord.
1(1995) § 4: Ord. 21(1987) 1-3: Ord 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-9: ACTION ON PRELIMINARY MAP:
A. Criteria Considered: At the hearing on the preliminary map, the Planning and
Environmental Commission shall consider whether the proposed conversion is
consistent with the following housing goals of the Town:
1. To encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the Town
through a variety of housing types.
2. To expand the supply of decent housing for low- and moderate-income
families.
3. To achieve greater economic balance for the Town by increasing the number
of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them.
B. Determine Percentages For Sale Or Rent: The Commission may require that a
reasonable percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to
persons of moderate income.
C. Findings Supporting Denial: The Planning and Environmental Commission may
deny the tentative or preliminary map upon finding that:
1. Based on the information required by Section 13-7-6 of this Chapter, and on
the vacancy rate for rental housing, tenants will have substantial difficulty in
obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below five
percent (5%) based on the most recent Town survey constitutes a housing
emergency situation.
2. The ratio of multiple-family rental units would be reduced to less than twenty
five percent (25%) of the total number of dwelling units in the Gore Valley,
from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with no replacement rental
housing being provided. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13 77 9: PP.E! UNARY P'dBNC-REP9RT-~
A. Ownership 9pfier: Plc 12tar4han f+ve-(5)-days aftai fie -filing sf c:a-a isat+eR €e~
eeeveFsicn, the 4rN!ica-nt ch~all n9tif„ the +°nsf tr
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 13
GeRveFsien cn c PIwr St :4-&
pUblIG hcsring, the ap scirin
69F iF}iu,m 9WReFshep.
E. Ea~iet;r g-taro- is a",all ba-netified cf tha-prepesed 3ala-
pF;Ge. EaG; rtc: Cnt chix!I have s r}!-isty (90) day a;csc:gRabte-eptieF--tc pjrGhase
their -,Ait t this pFelir,,r.acy market v-aWe. The prelim! mar
f2-'.,r marl: it, w:;d if the Dlarinirg M. d rnmfEia4-
d }F.:ncs +kat th Fnu-.qt valueva•ac t99 high, t#c arp!isatier mad=
he denied.(QFd. 711H3) §11
13-7-10: FINAL MAP; CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL:
A. Required Information; Certification: The final map to be filed by the applicant shall
contain the information required by subsection 13-3-613 of this Title, relating to
subdivisions as the same may be'applicable to the condominium project. In addition to
that information, the applicant shall obtain the following certification to be filed with the
final map: receipt of a condominium report from the Building Official of the Town stating
that condominium structure and units are in conformance with the Town Building Codes,
Fire Codes and other related codes adopted by the Town or the Vail Fire P-retestieR
1Di6tFiet Department, eF thatagKeementE ' aye-beer-BRtered iRt9 with the T.,WR Ciro
PFetest;GR DiEtrist GGRGeFRiRg caid struatwc ani units.
B. Final Map Approval: No final or partial map shall be approved until the certification
required in subsection A above is obtained. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
12 --11: SUEDI OP.T:
A. 9.94#ent; Tsnant ~latifisaticr: T-#£ Ehall Eta±e that sales
aFe subjeGt e-esc~pu, : #e-existing-te, rt €G ninety cm t-hc dcte-
publ+s Fepcr:, tha-appi+saet shaI
The date "f is S',a2
2 The right of "ocb PG
3. TI ccct qa-Fcpc.ir 9F FemedeliRg Will begiR -until ct !cact thrty-E3Qy4ays
afteF the `fate of the 2S'-'39se-e€thC
Gf RGtifiGatiari, ~Vhieheyer is Infer.
2. Na#Gec F!Ied; Gepies of said cs cha!! be-filed wi'.h +,t-: FneF~tof
GGMMURity Icpm2q4t at , te time the Retiee is given to the fencn+
.E. Ire-t4e-
o,-1 pr sec-, ;4c cpplisa4#
shall e,;t th inal map.
13-7-11: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY:
A. Acceptable Form Of Security: The Planning and Environmental Commission and
the Town Council may require a security to be posted by the applicant which
shall consist of one or more arrangements which the Council shall accept to
secure the actual cost of construction of such public improvements as are
required by the ordinances of the Town. The improvement security may include
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 14
any one or a combination of the types of security or collateral listed in this
subsection and the applicant may substitute security in order to release portions
of the condominium project for sale. The types of collateral which may be used
as security are as follows:
1. Restrictions on the conveyance, sale or transfer of any unit within the
condominium project as set forth on the final map.
2. Performance of property bond.
3. Private or public escrow agreement.
4. Loan commitment.
5. Assignments of receivables.
6. Liens on property.
7. Letters of credit.
8. Deposits of security funds; or other similar surety agreements.
B. Amount Determined: Security other than plat restrictions, required under the
improvement security, shall equal in value the cost of the improvements to be
completed but shall not be required on the portion of the condominium project
subject to plat restrictions. The Council shall not require security with collateral
arrangements in excess of the actual cost of construction of the improvements.
The amount of security may be incrementally reduced as subdivision or
condominium improvements are completed. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-12: EXEMPTIONS:
The terms of this Chapter shall not apply to developments or structures of two (2) units.
(Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-13: APPLICABILITY:
The terms of this Chapter shall be applicable to GGRdemiRiuR+ projects that are
commenced or converted after the effective date hereof. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1)
13-7-14: FILING AND RECORDING:
The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related
documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder; however, no plat for subdivided
land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the
Town with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's office indicating that all ad
valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which
approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant.
The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their
records. (Ord. 18(1993) § 6).
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 15
Section 2.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 4.
The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall
not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred
prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The
amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith
are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 16
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST. READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2000. A public hearing on
this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Vail, Colorado, on the twenty-first day of March, 2000, in the Municipal Building of the
Town.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE THIS
FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: April 4, 2000
SUBJECT: Amendments to Title 12, Zoning with respect to Employee Housing Unit
Standards, Minimum Lot Size Requirements in the Primary/Secondary and Two-
Family Residential Zone Districts and Site Coverage Standards.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On March 21, 2000, the Town Council directed the staff to prepare an ordinance to adopt the
proposed code amendments. Additionally, a majority of the Town Council requested that a
provision be added to the proposals requiring both property owners in a duplex to sign the
application for a Type II EHU. That provision has been added (see page 3 of Ordinance).
There was also discussion regarding employee housing linkage to residential development (i.e.,
large home linkage). The Town Council directed staff to begin researching this requirement, but
not to include that provision in this ordinance.
The ordinance revises numerous sections of the code. The EHU provisions are included in each
zone district and with the reformatting of the EHU Chapter, every mention of EHUs had to be
amended to reference new sections (pages 6 -12). The Arterial Business District (Cascade
Crossings and Vail Professional Building) only allows dwellings in the form of EHUs. The ABD
district contains language based on the older deed restrictions and was not modified with the
previous amendments to the EHU Code in 1995. The old language is being removed and -
reference is being made to the EHU Chapter (Sections 12-7F-4, 12-7F-9, and 12-7F-15).
II. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ZONING TEXT CHANGES
Chapter 13, Employee Housing
1. Deed Restrictions/Enforcement
This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for
a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed
so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation. The
current compliance statement provides for "publication" of the violation with the Housing
Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing-
that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not
meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy
requirements.
Page I of 4
*VAIL
F:\EVERYONE\COUNCIL\MEMOS\00\EHU_404.doc TOW
is
Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of
rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit from the owner. This will aid with
the enforcement of EHUs.
Language has been added to the purpose section allowing for the administrative creation
of incentives and the development of the clearing house concept. Staff is currently
developing plans for implementation of these concepts and will present these to the
Planning and Environmental Commission at some point in the future.
2. Development Standards
This proposal includes a provision for detaching garages with EHUs on small lots at the
direction of the PEC. The criteria for this change is different than that for a separation
,request under the design guidelines. Allowance of this separation is subject_to DRB
review for compatibility with surrounding uses, impacts on vegetation, and effect of
presence on street (i.e., does not dominate the street). A standard for occupancy has
been added allowing no more than two persons per bedroom to-occupy an EHU.
3. Application Procedure
This section is proposed to be amended to allow existing dwelling units to be deed
restricted administratively. Additionally, this section would allow legal nonconforming
units to be deed restricted as long as they otherwise conform to the Uniform Building
Code and can meet the Town's-parking requirements. This will allow EHUs to be created
without going through a lengthy review process and helps encourage the legalization of
substandard dwelling units/lock-offs.
Additionally, a provision has been added requiring signatures of both owners of a duplex
when applying for a Type 11 EHU.
The proposal also includes waiving the DRB fees for a project. Other fee waivers can be
developed administratively to encourage the development of EHUs.
4. Changes by EHU Type
A. Type I (2nd unit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.)
• Allowed to be sold separately from main residence (currently, both units on lot
must be deed restricted to allow sale)
• Allowed an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA (currently only allowed 250 sq. ft.)
• Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence
• Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5% for lots with an
EHU
• Removal of age limitations
• Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (all parking
required on-site)
• Addition of 75 sq. ft. storage space credit
B. Type II (3'd unit allowed on duplex lots 15,000 sq. ft.)
• Allowed as a conditional use (no change)
• Maintain as a rental unit and not allow sale (no change)
Page 2 of 4
F:\EVERYONE\COLJNCIL\wIEMOS\00\EHU_404.doc
i
w:r
• Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence
• Maximum size increased to 1,200 sq. ft. (currently 900 sq. ft. limit)
• Removal- of,age limitations
• Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (all parking
required on-site)
• Addition of 75 sq. ft. storage space credit
C. Type III (rental unit in multiple-family, residential cluster)
• Not counted as GRFA per definition of GRFA (No change)
• Parking simplified to meet Chapter 10 requirements
• Modified to include Type IV EHUs (Type IV category being removed)
• Min./Max. sq. ft. modified to allow 300 sq. ft. minimum and 1,200 sq. ft.
maximum for dwelling unit or 500 sq. ft. maximum for a dormitory style
building
• Proposed to not count as density (currently count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit and
Type IV as 0.333 of a dwelling unit)
• Removal of age limitations
• Additional change since PEC review removing limitation that if a Type III is
sold it must be owner occupied
r D. Type IV (multiple family, dormitory)
• Eliminated as a category but rolled into Type III
F. Type V (Hillside Residential - Spraddle Creek)
• Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (all parking
required on-site)
G. New Type IV (New Type for projects like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone)
• Allowed on any existing dwelling unit in the town
• EHUs must be sold separately (they are for sale units, not rental)
5. Minimum Lot Size in the Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone Districts
The minimum lot size requirement in the Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential
Zone districts of 15,000 sq. ft. has an impact on the number of EHUs property owners are
willing to develop and an impact on redevelopment and upgrading of these units.
The 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement dates back to 1973 with the first full-
scale re-codification of the Zoning Code (the 1969 Zoning Code required only 10,000 sq.
ft. lots). That minimum lot size was applicable to platting occurring mostly in the Vail
Village and Vail Valley filings. When the West Vail areas (1986 - 87) and the East Vail
(1974) areas were annexed, the Town's zoning was applied to lots platted in Eagle
County without regard for the County's lot size requirements of the time.
There are approximately 936 lots in the Town of Vail that are zoned Two-Family or Two-
Family Primary/Secondary which are undeveloped, developed with a single-family home,
or a two-family residence (i.e., this number does not include properties developed with
multiple family projects). Of these 936 lots, staff estimates that 32% (300 lots) of these
lots have lot sizes less than 15,000 sq. ft. Staff was not able to break down the number
of lots by specific lot size. This ability will be available in the near future with the
Page 3 of 4
F:\EVERYONE\COUNCIL\MEMOS\00\EHU 404.doc
.yR #
implementation of our geographic information system (GIS).
The PEC and staff believe that by lowering the minimum lot size, even by 1,000 sq. ft.,
may encourage redevelopment of homes and the creation of Type II EHUs. The majority
of lots of less than 15,000 sq. ft. are located in East and West Vail. These lots were
annexed to the Town of Vail and applied zoning that did not reflect the plats that were
recorded by Eagle County. These lots range from 9,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft.
The PEC and the staff believe that a change to the minimum lot size requirement of
15,000 sq. ft. might encourage redevelopment of older homes in Vail. The PEC felt that
lowering the minimum lot size to 14,000 sq. ft. might be a good idea to test the concept
and that lowering the limit might encourage redevelopment. The proposal includes
having a provision that any new subdivisions would continue to have a minimum lot size
of 15,000 sq. ft. and that any existing deed restricted employee housing units would have
to be maintained and not eliminated.
6. Incentives developed administratively
The PEC has recommended that continuing incentives be developed in order to
encourage appropriate use of EHUs in Town (i.e., annual ski pass). Also recommended
is that these incentives only apply to newer rental EHUs with the current deed restriction.
Therefore, if an owner with an older deed restriction would like to take advantagb of any
new incentives that might be developed, they would have to update the deed restriction.
Staff is proposing that incentives be developed administratively and with Town Council
approval and not be codified, as they may need to change from time to time.
Page 4 of 4
F:\EVERYONE\COUNCIL\MEMOS\00\EHU 404.doc
` t
y 1
ORDINANCE NO. 6
Series of 2000
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 13, EMPLOYEE HOUSING,
TITLE 12 ZONING REGULATIONS, TOWN CODE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INCENTIVES FOR THE CREATION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING THROUGHOUTTHE TOWN OF
VAIL; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 12-6C-8 AND 12-6D-8, DENSITY CONTROL, TITLE 12
ZONING REGULATIONS, TOWN CODE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENT IN THE TWO-FAMILY'AND PRIMARY SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
DISTRICTS FROM 15,000 SO. FT. TO 14,000 SO. FT.; AND MAKING OTHER AMENDMENTS
IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these amendments will provide additional
incentives to the private sector to provide employee housing units throughout the Town of Vail;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure proper utilization of
employee housing units and the proper enforcement of the occupancy of all employee housing
units; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes the proposed amendments will encourage
redevelopment of older homes in the Town; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of the proposed amendments at its September 27, 1999 meeting, and
has recommended approval of the amendments to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare to amend these code sections.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Title 12, Chapter 13 Employee Housing, is hereby repealed and reenacted
as follows:
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
SECTION:
12-13-1: Purpose
12-13-2: Applicability
12-13-3: General Requirements
12-13-4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type
12-13-1: Purpose.
The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on
exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a
strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the
community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability of housing
plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work
force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in
sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with
the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town may pursue additional incentives
administratively to encourage the development of employee housing units. These incentives
may include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in kind
services to owners and creators of employee housing units. The Town of Vail or the Town's
1
designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in
the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing.
12-13-2: Applicability.
A. Chapter Provisions In Addition: The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to the
requirements set forth in each zone district where employee housing units (EHU) are permitted
by this Chapter and all other requirements of this Code.
B. Controlling Provision: Where the provisions or requirements of this Chapter conflict with the
provisions or requirements set forth in any zone district or any other requirements of this Code,
the provisions of this Chapter shall control.
12-13-3: General Requirements.
This section provides general requirements which are applicable to EHUs.
A. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type I, II, III, and V.
1. No employee housing unit which is governed by this Chapter shall be subdivided
or divided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee. All
Employee Housing Units are required to be occupied and shall not sit empty or
unoccupied.
2. For EHUs which are required to be_leased, they shall only be leased to and
occupied by tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. An
EHU shall not be leasedifor a period less than thirty (30.) consecutive days. For
the purposes of this Chapter, a full-time employee is one who works an average
of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week on a year round basis. The owner of
each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than
those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town. An EHU shall be
continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed 4
consecutive months.
3. For an EHU which can be sold separately, the EHU must be occupied by the
owner of the EHU as a permanent residence, except for Type III Employee
Housing Units, which may be occupied by any person meeting the employment
requirements contained herein. For the purpose of this paragraph, a permanent
residence shall mean the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to
which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of returning
after a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of absence. In
determining what is a permanent residence, the town staff shall take the following
circumstances relating to the owner of the residence into account: business
pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income or other tax pur-
poses, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if any,
location of personal and real property, and motor vehicle registration. Thirty (30)
days prior to the transfer of a deed for an EHU, the prospective purchaser shall
submit an application to the Department of Community Development documenting
that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth herein and shall include
an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria.
4. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit
within the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this Chapter
shall submit two (2) copies of a sworn affidavit on a form to be obtained from the
Community Development Department, to the Community Development
Department setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has
been rented or owner occupied throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer,
and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time
employee in Eagle County.
5. The provisions set forth in this subsection (A) shall be incorporated into a written
agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land
and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town.
Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder office prior to
the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU.
2
S
B. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type IV.
All Type IV Employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an
agreement in a form and substance acceptable to the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
C. Development Standards.
1. No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in
Title 12 except as specifically provided in herein.
2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed.
3. All surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Chapter 12-
11, Design Review.
4. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from
any EHU to any dwelling unit it may be attached to.
5. An EHU may be located in, or attached to, an existing garage (whether located in
a required setback or not), provided that no existing parking required, by the Town
Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. A Type I EHU which has 500 sq. ft. or
less of GRFA may be considered for physical separation from the primary unit, if it
is constructed in conjunction with a two car garage and is otherwise compatible
with the surrounding properties, does not have an adverse impact on vegetation,
and does not dominate the street. The Design Review Board shall review such
requests for separation.
6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom.
7. Occupancy of an of an employee housing unit shall be limited to the maximum of
two persons per bedroom.
D. Application Requirements.
1.. Applicants for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing employee
housing shall not be required to pay a conditional use permit application fee or
Design Review application fee. -
2. EHU applications requiring a conditional use permit are subject to review and
approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission as provided for in
Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permits.
3. EHU applications which do not require a conditional use permit shall be reviewed
by the Community Development Department subject to a Design Review
Application.
4. Applications for a Type II employee housing unit shall include the signatures
of all owners of the property (i.e., both sides of a duplex) or there shall be a
letter accompanying the application from all owners agreeing to the addition
of an employee housing unit. Applications will not be accepted unless this
provision is met.
5. Any existing legal non-conforming dwelling unit in the Town of Vail may be
converted to an EHU administratively by the Town without obtaining a conditional
use permit. Dwelling units and'lock-off units which exist as of the date of this
ordinance but which are nonconforming with respect to density and GRFA may be
converted to a conforming EHU administratively by the Town, as long as they
otherwise comply with the development standards and parking requirements
found herein and comply with the Building Code requirements of the Town of Vail.
Upon being converted to an EHU per this section, such dwelling units shall be
considered legally conforming EHUs and shall be governed by all requirements of
this chapter.
E. Enforcement Provisions.
All employee housing units governed by this title shall be operated and maintained in
accordance with this title. Failure to do so may result in enforcement proceedings in a
3
12-13-4: EHU Requirements by Type.
EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA/Site Additional Site Coverage Garage Parking Minimum/ Density
permitted by right or Transference Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Credit/Storage Maximum
by conditional use Requirement GRFA of an
EHU
Type I Permitted Use: The EHU may be GRFA: Site Coverage: Allowed 300 sq. ft. of Per Chapter 12- Per Zone District. Counts as
Primary/Secondary sold or transferred The EH U is entitled to an The site is entitled to an garage area per 10 as a dwelling 2nd unit on
Residential, as separate unit additional 500 sq. ft. additional 5% of site coverage enclosed vehicle unit. property.
Two-Family Residential on the property. for EHU. space at a maximum
(all with lots less than of 2 parking spaces
15,000 sq. ft.) Landscape Area: (600 sq. ft.).
(Previously The site is entitled to a
required deed reduction of landscape area by
restriction on both -5% (reduced to 55% of site All units not
units to allow sale) area) for EHU. constructed with a
garage shall be
required a minimum
75 sq. ft. of storage
area in addition to
normal closet space.
This 75 sq. ft. shall be
a credit for storage
only.
Type II Conditional Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is entitled to an N/A Allowed 300 sq. ft. of Per Chapter 12- Allowed as
300 sq. ft. min.
Sin le-Famil be sold or additional 500 sq. ft. GRFA additional garage area 10 as a dwelling ft 3rd unit on
g y transferred credit. for the EHU. unit. 1,200 sq. . max. Residential, Two-Family property.
Residential, separately from Does not
Primary/Secondary the unit it is count as
associated with. All units not densitResidential, Agriculture constructed with a Y.
& Open Space
garage shall be
required a minimum
75 sq. ft. of storage
area in addition to
normal closet space.
This 75 sq. ft. shall be
a credit for storage
only.
5
pddI'tion
ea Garage Credit Parking Minimum/ Density
EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFAISite Additi ec~I Landscape Site to Cov Cover e
permitted by right or Transference Coverage /Reduc Maximum
by conditional use GRFA of an
EHU
Type III Permitted Use: The EHU may be Per Section 12-15-3 of the NIA NIA Per Chapter 12- A. Dwelling Not counted
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 sold or transferred Town Code, Type III 10. unit format. as density.
separately. Employee Housing Units
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 are excluded from the 300 sq. ft. min.
calculation of GRFA. 1,200 sq. ft. max.
Conditional Use:
Residential Cluster B. Dormitory
format
Low Density Multiple-
Family 200 sq. ft, min.
Medium Density 500 sq. ft. max.
Multiple-Family
High Density Multiple- Dormitory format
Family may consist of
Public Accommodation
several
Commercial Core 1
bedrooms
Commercial Core 2
Commercial Core 3 sharing common
kitchen and
Commercial Service bathing facilities
Center
Arterial Business in a variety of
formats or
Parking District arrangements, in
General Use
Ski Base/Recreation which case may
exceed the 500
sq. ft. maximum.
Type IV Any dwelling unit may The EHU may only Shall be determined by NIA Shall be determined by Per Chapter 12- Shall be Shall be
be designated and deed be sold or zoning on property. zoning on property. 10 as a dwelling determined by determined
restricted as a Type IV transferred unit. zoning on by zoning on
Employee Housing Unit, separately. property. properly.
unless already
designated as an
employee housing unit.
Type V Permitted Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is not entitled to NIA The EHU is not Per Chapter 12- 1,200 sq. ft. max. Counts as
Hillside Residential be sold or additional GRFA. entitled to additional 10 as a dwelling 2nd unit on
transferred garage area credit. unit. properly.
separately from
the unit it is
associated with.
6
Section 2. Sections 12-6A-2, 12-613-3, 12-6C-2, 12-6C-3, 12-6D-2, 12-6D-3, 12-6E-3, 12-6F-
3, 12-6G-3, 12-61-11-3, 12-7A-3, 12-7B-4(B), 12-7B-5(B)(8 and 9), 12-7D-2, 12-7E-4, 12-7F-4, 12-
7F-9, 12-7H-2(C), 12-7H-3(C), 12-7H-4(A), 12-71-2(C), 12-71-3(C), 12-71-4(A),12-8A-3, 12-8D-3,
12-913-3, and 12-9C-3 , Title 12, Zoning Regulations are hereby amended as follows:
12-6A-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the HR District:
Single-family residential dwellings.
Type V employee housing unit, one per lot, as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title.
12-613-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title.
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type II employee housing unit as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title.
12-6C-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the R District:
Single-family residential dwellings.
Two-family residential dwellings.
Type I employee housing unit as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title.
12-6C-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the R District, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type II employee housing units as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title.
12-6D-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted:
Single-family residential dwellings.
Two-family residential dwellings. `
Type I employee housing unit as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
7
Ordinance No. 6. Series of 2000
12-6D-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type II employee housing unit as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title.
12-6E-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the RC District, subject to issuance of
a conditional use\permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type IV employee hGa'ag unrt- € U) Gs hided -in SaGLt3n 12 1 3-7--ef this ',44e.
12-6F-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the LDMF District, subject to issuance
of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section'remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type 1V employee hmriag unit (EHU) as pFeyide^'Gti;?i 12 13 7 of !his Titl--7
12-6G-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the MDMF District, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type IV employee 1--sing unit (EHLJ) as provided in Seetion 12 13 7 of this Titles
12-61-1-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the HDMF District, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:.
8
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type 1V eMP19yee 3::-Gi,ag URit EHU) aTprevided in Se6t+eR12 7 of this Tit's
12-7A-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA District, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type IV pi°yee " ; I) r
~s~rav-id°~'~-n;-SeetTon 12 13 7 of this Titl?:
12-7B-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR:
B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors above
grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 16 of this Title-
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type 1V employee g unit ;-E-HU) us prav-ided in S96tieo 12 1-3-7-$f this T-+0
12-713-5: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; ABOVE SECOND FLOOR:
B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted, on any floor above the
second floor above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with
the provisions of. Chapter 16 of this Title. Any permitted or conditional use which eliminates any
existing dwelling or accommodation unit, or any portion thereof, shall require a conditional use
permit. Such uses may include:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
8. Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type IV employee housing unit (EH U) J) as-~s~ided in --et+eR-i2 12-7-e€4h i c Tj tle:
12-7D-2: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Commercial Core 3 District, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
9
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title aRd Type IV
U) uc primed in 'Saotlen 12 3 7 of this Titer
12-7E-4: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC District, subject to issuance
of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type-IV-cc p!eyee het.}s+ag :snit ~E-14U) uc pied in Saetion 12 13-~ e€ tf}is Tit!
12-7F-4: CONDITIONAL USES:
A., Enumerated: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Arterial
Business District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type IV employee housing URit (EHU) as pirevided in caeti°^ 12 13 7 of this Titla:
12-7F-9: DENSITY CONTROL:
Not more than sixty (60) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be
permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total donsity :ball n9t
exeeed tweRt„ five (25) dwelling units p°-, re of yi4d-able sta area.
12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL:'
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden
levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this
Title).
10
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL:
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street
level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this
Title).
12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE:
A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on those floors
above the first floor within a structure:
[AII other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this
Title).
12-71-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL:
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden
levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this
Title).
12-71-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL:
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street
level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
11
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
J 1
removed.]
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this
Title).
12-71-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE:
A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted-on those floors
above the first floor within a structure:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge
dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type III (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this
Title).
12-8A-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type 11 employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
12-8D-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Ski Base/Recreation District,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type -Il~ornpl-,- " g :snit'EH'U) as p;avided in See-tio 'moo-7 of this, T;41e.
12-913-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
12
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type IV ,r,;;playee housiRg unit (-€f=1U) as pr^„ided in metier, j 2 13-~ G Title.
12-9C-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
A. Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GU District,
subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of
this Title:
[All other uses or text listed in this section remains unchanged. Stricken text is being
removed.]
Type III employee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title.
Type IV employee ousigg unit (E=H U) as pravioed in SeEti3n 12 13 7 of-this Title:
Section 3. Section 12-7F-15 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 4. Sections 12-6C-8 and 12-6D-8 are amended to read as follows:
12-6C-8: DENSITY CONTROL:
A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each
site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existina, lots less than fifteen th3us'and
(16,000) fourteen thousand (14.000) square feet.
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site:.
a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one
hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site
area; plus
b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred
(100) square feet of site area over fifteen'thousand (15,000) square feet, not to
exceed thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus
c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred
(100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit.
3. Ne4we4amil` residential let eveept these legated entireh• 'in +he red hazard av lanGhe
plain, er these E) s~ !h--:,n fifteen thauaa at sra!l be so
fa3±risited that it eanne+ he nnc-upied by a-Ma4cmily dwefl'Rg. No4withst
f
l-3mplayee h0USiR W4t (CHU) may, he allowed OR lets ~e ihieh are less than fifteen thousand
~
T~Ff+ sq porn feet in 4eee i+ ,h S 7 12 13 n oof thi-n T' '
(1;.,399-,~~-~rt..,,-tie~ ~,--p~ .-+fle:
C. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provision of subsections A and B of this
Section, a Type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fifteen
thousand (6,000) fourteen thousand (14.000) square feet in accordance with the
13
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
provisions of Chapter 13 of this Title. Anv Tvpe I Emglovee Housina Unit existina on or
before April 18. 2000 shall not be eliminated. However. an existina Tvge I Emglovee
Housina Unit may be reglaced with a Tvge II Emglovee Housina Unit on lots of 14,000 sq.
ft. or areater.
12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL:
A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each
site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existina lots less than fifteen thoL,3a:4d
(15,000) fourteen thousand (14.000) square feet.
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site:
a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one
hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site
area; plus
b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred
(100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not to
exceed thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus
c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one,hundred
(100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
2; In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit.
0. Na two family 'dontia! lei except those leeated eRtiFely on the Fed hazar", lane e
zone, 3; the flood Nluir t"ase of 1-C-33 than fifteen -t#3uaan 5, quara-feet. ohal!-be se
fs,J risted that i; tenet be-eeoupiadH)~• a rive-Farr.;ly dwelling. PdeN
;;hs;an
iRg the fore
Type -1 amp! ch ara43- ss than f4#tean theucar.d
~nE)E)FdRr~GGe ~PY' with Ce etien 1f 13 ^ of thin
q:~ars - feet - ln urGQfUPT'2 ~IZYT~T'CrfJ 74le: ,
s
C. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provision of subsections A and B of this
Section, a Type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fifteen
thousand 3 fourteen thousand (14.000) square feet in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 13 of this Title. Anv Tvge I Emglovee Housina Unit existina on or
before April 18. 2000 shall not be eliminated. However. an existina Tvpe I Emglovee
Housina Unit may be replaced with a Tvge 11 Emglovee Housing Unit on lots of 14.000 sa.
ft. or areater.
Section 5. Subsection 12-15-3(A)(2)(b)(8) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(8) Floor area to be used in a Type III 3r.-:, Type4-V "Employee Housing Unit (EHU)" as
defined and restricted by Chapter 13 of this Title.
Section 6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
T.
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
14
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
Section 7. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 8. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 9. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall
not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of April, 2000 and a public hearing
for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 18th day of April, 2000, in the Council Chambers
of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
15
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 18`h day of
April, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
16
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000
ORDINANCE NO.7
'SERIES OF 2000
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 30, VAIL
ATHLETIC CLUB AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to repeal Special Development District No. 30,
Vail Athletic Club and to amend the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, In 1993, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993,
establishing Special Development District No. 30, Vail Athletic Club; and
WHEREAS, Ron Bryne, dba VML, Inc., as owner of the property, has submitted an
application for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning Regulations, the
Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the majorexterior alteration
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed criteria
for a major exterior alteration and has approved the redevelopment proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Special Development District designation is no longer required and the
Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail needs to be amended accordingly; and
WHEREAS, all public notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been
sent to the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare to repeal Special Development District No. 30, Vail Athletic Club and to amend
the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Purnose of the Ordinance
The purpose of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2000, is to repeal Special Development District No. 30, Vail
Athletic Club and to amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail.
Section 2. Property to be Rezoned
The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended and Special Development District No.
30 is hereby repealed.
1
Ordinance 7, Series of 2000
,-yr
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N790 46' 00" W along the Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S060 26' 52" W a distance of
348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded
January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also being the
True Point of Beginning; thence S790 04' 08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the
Southeast corner therof; thence N620 52' 00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in
Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the
Northeasterly corner, of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek
Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N27° 13' 37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly
right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N89129' 22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeasterly corner
of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No.
102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 foot radius curve
to the left having a central angle of 401 30' 00" whose chord bears N53140' 00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a
point of tangency; thence N73° 55' 00" W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N84° 43' 09" W a distance
of 43.72 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S020 18' 00" W and along the
Easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.98 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence
S381 37' 52" E a distance of 33.36 feet to the True Point of Beginning
The zoning designation for the above-described parcel of land is Public Accommodation.
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or 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 the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 4.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided
in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted.
The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
2
Ordinance 7, Series of 2000
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer
shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of April, 2000, and a public hearing for second
reading of this Ordinance set for the 18th day of April , 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 18th day of
April, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
3
Ordinance 7, Series of 2000 .
PROCLAMATION NO. 1, 2000
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING SAFETY WEEK PROCLAMATION
APRIL 2-8, 2000
WHEREAS, the safety of the buildings we occupy daily is essential to the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of the world; and
WHEREAS, among the world's most fundamental laws and ordinances are those
which provide standards for the safe construction of buildings in which people live, work
and play; and
WHEREAS, for construction and building codes to be effective and enforced,
understanding and cooperation must exist between building and fire code officials and the
people they serve, and
WHEREAS, through the efforts of code officials worldwide, and their cooperative
relationship with the design and construction industry, the administration of these health
and life safety standards is assured; and
WHEREAS, units of government around the world - along with such prestigious
organizations as the International Conference of Building Officials, the International
Code Council and the World Organization of Building Officials - are joining to promote
the use of building and construction codes today, for a lifetime of building safety;
NOW THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Vail, State of Colorado,
does hereby designate the week of April 2-8, 2000, as International Building Safety
Week.
The Town Council urges all of the citizens of the town to visit the Town's Building
Safety and Inspection Services Team office in the Community Development Department
and to better familiarize themselves with the important building safety information and
services provided by the people there.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Town Seal this
Fourth Day of April, 2000.
Attest:
Mayor, Town of Vail
Town Clerk
qVAIL
TOWN 75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 31, 2000
Contact: Bob McLaurin, 479-2105
Town Manager
Log On...Dial it Up...or Jot it Down
TOWN OF VAIL LAUNCHES ANNUAL COMMUNITY SURVEY
WITH THREE WAYS TO PARTICIPATE
(Vail)--The Town of Vail's annual community survey is underway. Now in its thirteenth year, a
new feature of the 2000 survey is the addition of multiple formats--on the Internet, by mail or by
phone. About 2,000 randomly-chosen residents will receive a mail-back form. Another 3,700
post cards are being mailed to Vail residents and second homeowners announcing the new
format and inviting participation.
Vail Town Manager Bob McLaurin says the new format gives participants additional options for
added convenience. "We realize this is a busy time of year for people, so we've attempted to
make it as easy as possible by adding three ways to participate."
The town relies on the survey to help determine community needs and evaluate municipal
services, according to McLaurin. "Therefore, it's important we hear from as many people as
possible," he said.
The survey is being conducted by RRC Associates of Boulder, an independent research firm.
This year's survey contains 44 questions, many of which have been repeated from year to year
to track the town's performance in a variety of areas, including bus service, snow plowing,
parking, street maintenance and emergency services, among others.
Respondents also are being asked to rate the importance of the town's involvement in six
(more)
RECYCLED PAPER
-r
v
Add 1 /TOV Community Survey
issue areas, as well as the town's overall effectiveness in those areas. The six areas of focus
are: 1) protection of Vail's environmental resources; 2) improvement of the sense of community
in Vail; 3) construction and maintenance of public infrastructure to serve residents and guests; 4)
improving various modes of transportation in and around Vail; 5) facilitating a range of housing
opportunities for those who work in Vail; and 6) sustaining economic viability of businesses in
Vail.
The post card invitations being mailed next week list toll-free numbers which can be used to
request a mail-back survey or to make arrangements for a survey to be completed over the
telephone. An Internet address also is included for those who wish to complete a Web-based
version of the survey. Individuals are asked to complete only one survey; a security code is
provided on the post card as a means of accessing the Web or telephone portion of the survey.
For those who don't have Internet access at home or work, there are numerous Internet
stations for public use at the Vail Library. Responses within all three formats are being
requested within 10 days after receipt of the post card. Results from all three survey versions
will be available in mid-May.
Last year, the town introduced a random telephone survey and a Web survey which were
developed to coincide with the town's two-year budget cycle. Before that, the town had relied
exclusively on a mail-back format.
For more information, contact Vail Town Manager Bob McLaurin at 479-2105.
J
Vail Community Survey 2000
FIRST, A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT TOWN OF FAIL GOVERNMENT...
1 How satisfied are you with the following functions of the Town of Vail government? Use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means "not at all
satisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied" to rate each of the following items. Please use DKINO (Don't Know/No Opinion) as appropriate.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Current Town Council 1 2 3 4 5 x
Planning and Environmental Commission
(also known as the PEC) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Design Review Board (a.k.a. the DRB) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Art in Public Places Board (a.k.a. AIPP) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Town of Vail staff 1 2 3 4 5 x
2 Over the past year, would you say the responsiveness of the Town of Vail government has gotten worse, stayed the same, or
improved? GOTTEN STAYED THE
WORSE SAME IMPROVED
1 2 3
3 The Town of Vail has identified its involvement in the following issues as important to the future of Vail. Please rate how important
you feel these issues are.
NOT AT ALL VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT DKINO
Protection of Vail's environmental resources 1 2 3 4 5 x
Improvement of the sense of community in Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
Construction and maintenance of public infrastructure
(roads, sewers, etc.) to serve both residents and guests 1 2 3 4 5 x
Improving various modes of transportation in and
around Vail (bus, pedestrian, bike, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Facilitating a range of housing opportunities for those
who work in Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
Sustaining economic viability of businesses in Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
4 How effective is the Town of Vail in addressing these same issues?
NOT AT ALL VERY
EFFECTNE EFFECTIVE_ DKINO
Protection of Vail's environmental resources 1 2 3 4 5 x
Improvement of the sense of community in Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
Construction and maintenance of public infrastructure
(roads, sewers, etc.) to serve both residents and guests 1 2 3 4 5 x
Improving various modes of transportation in and
around Vail (public, private, pedestrian, bike, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Facilitating a range of housing opportunities for those
who work in Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
Sustaining economic viability of businesses in Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
5 Do you have any comments about the Town's approach to these issues?
TOWN OF VAIL PRIORITIES
6 Do you feel the Town of Vail government should take action to improve the community's economic vitality (including retail quality and
variety, keeping businesses in Vail, etc.) in commercial areas?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [SKIP TO Q. 8]
7 (IF YES) In which of the following areas should the Town government take action to improve community vitality?
NOT AT ALL VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT DK/NO
Increase commercial space 1 2 3 4 5 x
Increase number of lodging beds 1 2 3 4 5 x
Increase lodging occupancy 1 2 3 4 5 x
Improve lodging quality 1 2 3 4 5 x
Increase employee (affordable) housing 1 2 3 4 5 x
Improve retail mix/quality 1 2 3 4 5 x
Improve streetscape (pavers, street fixtures, landscaping, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Increase events/programs for local residents (cultural events/programs,
arts, family entertainment, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Increase events/programs for visitors (cultural events/programs,
arts, family entertainment, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Review the sign code to clarity and update provisions 1 2 3 4 5 x
Do you have any comments on these potential actions?
8 Please rate your satisfaction with the following Town of Vail functions.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DK/NO
General administration (manager's office, finance department,
human resources department, clerk's office, staff) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Information dissemination (via town newsletters,
town website, Channel 19, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Municipal Court 1 2 3 4 5 x
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The Community Development Department provides planning, design review, environmental programs, and building and
restatirant inspection services.
9 Have you used the Community Development Department with the past 12 months?
Yes [I No [SKIP TO Q.11]
10 (IF YES) Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DK/NO
Overall service and efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 x
Courtesy and attitude 1 2 3 4 5 x
Building permit review and inspections 1 2 3 4 5 x
2
11 (ALL RESPONDENTS) Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DK/NO
Livability of Vail (environment, quality of
development, amenities versus cost to live here) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Environmental quality in the Town of Vail (air, water, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Quality of new development and redevelopment over the past
three years (Austria Haus, Golden Peak, Slifer Plaza, streetscape, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 x
Cleanliness of restaurants in Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
PUBLIC WORKS
The Public Works Department provides maintenance of public areas including narks, roads and streets.
12 Rate your satisfaction with Public Works services in the Town of Vail:
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Snow removal 1 2 3 4 5 x
Frontage Road maintenance by the State of Colorado 1 2 3 4 5 x
Road and street maintenance by the Town of Vail 1 2 3 4 5 x
Park playground equipment safety 1 2 3 4 5 x
Overall park maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 x
Appearance and condition of town owned buildings 1 2 3 4 5 x
Friendliness and courteous attitude of Public Works employees 1 2 3 4 5 x
Cleanliness of pedestrian villages 1 2 3 4 5 x
EMERGENCY SERVICES
13 Have you utilized Fire Services within the past 12 months?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
14 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Fire Services in the Town of Vail.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Fire response time/arrival on-scene 1 2 3 4 5 x
Emergency medical or first aid assistance 1 2 3 4 5 x
Courtesy and attitude 1 2 3 4 5 x
Public fire safety education program 1 2 3 4 5 x
Fire prevention/inspection service 1 2 3 4 5 x
Professional in appearance and actions 1 2 3 4 5 x
Firefighters take time to explain what needs to be done 1 2 3 4 5 x
Your confidence in the ability of the Vail Fire Department 1 2 3 4 5 x
3
15 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Police Services in the Town of Vail.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Overall feeling of safety and security 1 2 3 4 5 x
Friendliness and approachability of 1 2 3 4 5 x
Vail police department employees
Overall quality of service 1 2 3 4 5 x
Overall fairness of police employees 1 2 3 4 5 x
Visibility of police foot/vehicle patrol 1 2 3 4 5 x
Uniforms of police footlvehicle patrol 1 2 3 4 5 x
Decals/signs on police cars 1 2 a 4 5 x
16 Is the level of enforcement for the following too little, just about right, or too much?
TOO JUST ABOUT TOO
LITTLE RIGHT MUCH
Traffic enforcement (speeding, DUI, reckless driving, etc.) [ ] [ ] [ ]
Parking enforcement [ ] [ 1 [ ]
Code enforcement (signage, abandoned vehicles, etc.) [ ] [ ] [ ]
Do you have any comments or suggestions about Town of Vail fire or police services?
ANIMAL CONTROL
(Contracted from Eagle Countj)
17 Have you had contact with animal control within the past 12 months?
[ j Yes
[ j No [SKIP TO Q. 201
18 Please rate your satisfaction with animal control services.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Response time to complaints 1 2 3 4 5 x
Overall-quality of service 1 2 3 4 5 x
19 Are patrols for leash law violations too little, just right, Too JUST Too
or too much? LITTLE RIGHT MUCH
II II
TOWN OF VA IL BUS SYSTEM AND PUBLIC PARKING
20 Have you used the TOV bus system within the past 12 months?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [SKIP TO Q. 24]
21 How often do you normally use the bus system?
[ ] Frequently-almost every day [ ] Sometimes-once a month or so
[ J Often-about once a week [ ] Rarely---less than once a month
4
22 Please rate your satisfaction with bus service.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Bus driver courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 x
Safe driving habits of bus driver 1 2 3 4 5 x
Dependability of bus service 1 2 3 4 5 x
Cleanliness of buses 1 2 3 4 5 x
Cleanliness of Vail Transportation Bus Terminal 1 2 3 4 5 x
23 Do you think the frequency of the following bus services is appropriate?
TOO ABOUT NOT FREQUENT
FREQUENT RIGHT ENOUGH
Frequency of In-town shuttle [ ] [ ]
Frequency of outlying services [ ] [ ] [ ]
24 Please rate your satisfaction with public parking services in Vail.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Booth attendant courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 x
Speed of transaction at staffed exit booths 1 2 3 4 5 x
Speed of transaction at automatic exit booths 1 2 3 4 5 x
Overall parking fees/pricing structure 1 2 3 4 5 x
Cleanliness and lighting of parking structures 1 2 3 4 5 x
Do you have any comments or suggestions about parking in Vail?
LIBRARY
25 Do you hold a library card in the Town of Vail?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
26 Have you visited, called or e-mailed the library within the past 12 months?
[ ] Yes
[ J No [SKIP TO Q. 29]
27 Have you used the Community Room within the past 12 months?
[ ] Yes
[J No
28 Please rate your satisfaction with the following Vail library services and facilities.
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED DKINO
Research information 1 2 3 4 5 x
Material checkout 1 2 3 4 5 x
Fiction and non-fiction books 1 2 3 4 5 x
Magazines and newspapers 1 2 3 4 5 x
Alternate media including video and books on tape 1 2 3 4 5 x
On-line databases 1 2 3 4 5 x
Youth materials 1 2 3 4 5 x
Youth programs 1 2 3 4 5 x
Parking/ access 1 2 3 4 5 x
5
29 Over the past two years, has the sense of community within the Town improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse?
[ ] Improved
[ ] Stayed the same
[ ] Gotten worse
[ ] Don't know/no opinion
30 Are there any actions the Town could take to encourage you to attend Town Council meetings?
ABOUT YOU
Please provide the ffollowing demographic information. Please remember that all responses remain strictly confidential and are
reported only in group format.
31 Where is your residence within the Town of Vail located?
East Vail [ ] Potato Patch, Sandstone
[ ] Booth Falls/ Bald Mountain Road areas [ ] Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley
[ ] Booth Creek/Aspen Lane [ ] Vail Commons/Safeway area
Golf Course [ ] West Vail (north of 1-70)
[ ] Vail Village [ J Matterhorn, Glen Lyon
[ ] Lionshead [ ] Intermountain
[ ] Not a resident of the Town of Vail [ ] Other:
32 What is your employment status?
[ ] Employed full time
[ ] Employed part time
[ ] Not employed [SKIP TO Q. 35]
IF EMPLOYED
33 Do you work within Town of Vail boundaries?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
34 . How do you typically travel to work?
[ ] Foot/walk
[ ] Bus
[ ] Bike
[ ] Car/truck
[ ] Other:
35 Do you have any of the following Town of Vail parking passes?
[ ] Blue Card
[ ] Gold Card
[ ] Value
36 Do you own or rent your residence?
[ j Own
[ j Rent
[ ] Other (specify)
6
37 How long have you lived within the Town of Vail (or owned property if a non-resident)?
[ ] Less than 1 year
[ ] 1-5 years
[ J 6-15 years
[ ] More than 15 years
38 Do you have computer access to the Internet?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No [SKIP TO Q. 40]
39 How often do you go online?
[ ] Every day or almost every day
[ ] At least once a week
[ j Once every couple of weeks
[ ] Monthly
[ ] Rarely
40 Which of the following best describes you?
[ ] Non-resident owner of business/commercial property [SKIP TO Q. 42]
[ j Year-round resident (12 months/year)
[ ] Seasonal resident
41 (IF RESIDENT) Do you own or operate a business within the Town of Vail?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
42 Are you a registered voter in Vail?
[ ] Yes [ J No
43 Which of these categories best describes your household status?
[ ] Single, no children
[ ] Couple, no children
[ ] Household with children
[ ] Empty-nester, children no longer at home
44 Do you have additional comments or suggestions for the Vail Town Government?
Titank you for your participation in our continuing evaluation program.
Your input is extremely important.
For your inforntation, the following a-mail and telephone numbers can be used to contact your
Town Council or Town Manager. We invite additional comments or suggestions.
towncouncil(d),ci.vail.co.us
website: http://cl.vail.co.us
council 24-hour voice mail: (970) 479-1860
town manager's phone: (970) 479-2105
town manager's e-mail: mclaurin d)..vail.net
11RRCSERVERIIDATA2lworddocskVAIL1TOWN120001Vail Community Survey 2000.DOC
7
(I-1k. 66 kQfm"
Testimony of Andy Wiessner
Town of Vail Hearing on the White River Forest Plan
April 4, 2000
My name is Andy Wiessner and .I live at 811 Potato Patch Drive.
I am a public lands consultant with more than 25 years of experience in
National Forest land legislation, management and planning. I am here
tonight on behalf of Citizens for the White River Forest Plan (CWRFP) to
urge you to support a modified version of the basically sound Alternative D
plan which the Forest Service proposed last fall.
I also ask you NOT to support Alternative C, which our County has
suggested as a starting point. Here's why...
By now, you have probably read a lot about how Alternative D is
allegedly "anti-recreation" and "anti-multiple-use".... and how Alternative C
is more "balanced".
However... if you look in the DEIS and read Section 1 of the Multiple
Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 you will see "multiple use" is defined
as, and I quote "outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and
fish purposes"... end quote.
And if you examine Alternative D versus Alternative C, you will find
that Alternative D has DOUBLE the proposed timber harvest... and 21/2
times the firewood cutting of Alternative C... the SAME level of grazing...
equal or superior watershed protection... and, according to the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, the best outputs for fish and wildlife.
SO...for at least 4 of the 5 multiple uses mentioned in the Multiple
Use and Sustained Yield Act, Alternative D is as good... OR BETTER
THAN... than Alternative C.
Other issues addressed by Alternative D and C rank as follows:
Controlline insect and disease outbreaks: As Vail residents are well
aware, around Vail and other areas of our forest, we have a problem with
pine bark beetle disease. This is part of a natural cycle of lodgepole
pine... but it isn't pleasant to look at in its current stage. If you look at page
2
3-459 of the DEIS you will see that it is Alternative D... NOT Alternative
C... which will result in better control of insects and disease. So unless you
dispute the Forest Service's expertise in these matters, Alternative D is
preferable once again.
Fire manaeement: The same is true when it comes to controlling forest
fires. If you look at pages 3-163/3-164 of the DEIS... Alternative D, by
virtue of its increased timber harvest will have certain advantages in
preventing large scale fires... whereas Alternative C could increase the
threat of so-called larger "stand replacing" fires. The DEIS concludes that
Alternative C, and I quote: "will create more risk to firefighters, the public
and adjoining high resource values"... end quote.
-Mountain Bikes: We recommend modifying Alternative D to treat
mountain bikers the same as horse and foot travelers on all roads and trails,
except for trails in Wilderness Areas where mountain bikes are disallowed
by law. However, we agree with Alternative D's proposal to confine
mountain bike use to road and trails and to prohibit cross-country travel by
bikes. Incidentally, we note that the International Mountain Bike Association
(IMBA) has now endorsed Alternative D if it is modified as I just described.
-Livestock grazing: the level of livestock grazing is the same in EVERY
alternative... because grazing levels are determined by a separate allotment
planning process. Therefore, anything you have heard about Alternative D
hurting the ranching community not based in fact! Nevertheless, our group
supports modifying D to retain even those grazing allotments that are
currently vacant... in case the ranchers need them in emergency situations
such as drought.
Road and snowmobile closures: I think residents of the upper valley
STRONGLY support most of the road and snowmobile closures contained
in Alternative D.... and, they support the policy that roads and trails should
be closed to motorized use unless posted open. This is a very important
change in policy because it will it will remove any incentive for the small,
but vocal minority of off road vehicle users who are scofflaws to destroy
road closure signs or rip out barriers... in an attempt illegally open roads
or trails. Under present policy you can rip out a sign and pretend you didn't
know a road or trail was closed. But under the new policy, if you're on a
trail or road that isn't posted open, you're in trouble. And that will make it
MUCH easier for the Forest Service to enforce road and trail closures. By
3
the way, if you look on page 3-254 of the DEIS, you will see that only 89
more miles of roads are open under Alternative C than under Alternative D.
So...I don't understand the statements that D is "anti-recreation", whereas C
would allegedly "allow access to continue".
However, as no plan is perfect, our group supports revising
Alternative D to allow snowmobile use to continue in the traditional play
areas on Vail Pass, Holy Cross City, upper Tigiwon, and in the Meadow/Big
Park areas near Fulford. We also recommend retaining Forest roads 413 and
431 near Crooked Creek Pass and Hardscrabble Mountain.
Ski Area expansions Now we come to the MAJOR difference between
Alternatives D and C.... and the reason why I and many others have been so
concerned about C.
If you look at the Forest Service maps for Alternative C...
as amended by Vail Resorts recent request to this Town Council to keep
aerial tramway options open from Minturn to Vail and Beaver Creek... you
will see a possible interconnection of Vail to Beaver Creek, Copper
Mountain to Breckenridge, Breckenridge/Parkville to Keystone, and
Keystone to A-Basin. Alternative C also would permit the possible extension
of ski lifts from McCoy Park in Beaver Creek down to Mud Springs near
Arrowhead.
The real problem here is not with the SKI terrain connections but
with the large private land holdings at the base of EACH of those inter-
connects, here here ...here here here and here. New ski villages,
subdivisions and base areas in 5 or six locations! And so...the CRITICAL
difference between Alternatives C and D is that Alternative D would
disallow the use of our National Forest lands to create NEW base areas.
portals and real estate development opportunities on private land....
And, we support that! The National Forests are public lands... and
should not be used as springboards for private for real estate speculation.
We are particularly opposed to the idea of making a new ski portal to
Vail Mountain in Minturn. It makes sense to cluster base area development
for Vail Mountain in Vail ...NOT to create a new portal in Minturn where
development of the the railroad yards, Gilman tract, or other private lands
will have EXTREMELY adverse impacts on wildlife, Meadow Mountain,
and the Holy Cross Wilderness.
4
In summary, I have a twofold message tonight.
First, is that Alternative D, with the modifications mentioned,
deserves your support. Thus far, it has been endorsed by, the Aspen Skiing
Company, the Colorado Wildlife Federation, the Colorado Mountain Club,
the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the 10ffi Mountain Hut Association, the
Backcountry Skiers Alliance, the International Mountain Bike Association,
Pitkin County, Trout Unlimited, and numerous others...
I believe the reason for those endorsements... all of them by moderate
organizations or entities... is that, on most categories of multiple
uses (except for private real estate enhancement... which is definitely NOT
a multiple use)... Alternative D has EXCELLENT outputs which are
superior to Alternative C in virtually every category.
i
Estimate of the Economic Impacts and
Analysis of the Proposed Revised Land
and Resource Management Plan For
The White River National Forest
EXECL I i VE S Y
Prepared for:
Wtu i E RIVER FOREST ALLIANCE
P.O. Box 1000
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
By:
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
P.O. Box 270993
Fort Collins, Colorado 80527
(970)-2264413
February, 2000
i
.Executive Summary
The Forest Service has released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act regarding the Proposed Revised
Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest (WRN
Forest). The DEIS presents and evaluates six alternatives (B, C, D, E, F and 1) that
represent differences in management of the WRN Forest. Alternative B is described as
the DEIS "No Action" Alternative and represents current management under the existing
1984 Forest Plan. Alternative D is described by the Forest Service as the "Preferred
Alternative" and represents the Forest Service's decision on the most appropriate way
to manage the WRN Forest.
The White River Forest Alliance has retained Hazen and Sawyer to evaluate the
economic and financial analyses of the DEIS. Alternative D, as described in the DEIS,
will change land management activities on the WRN Forest which may impact
recreational activities and resource production. The purpose of this study is to identify
and evaluate the potential economic impacts of implementing Alternative D the
preferred alternative of the Forest Service.
Hazen and Sawyer has identified three areas that require additional consideration
before an alternative management plan for the WRN Forest can be chosen. These
areas are as follows.
1. The Forest Service has chosen Alternative D as their preferred alternative
even though the economic analysis did not fully consider the impact of the
plan on recreation.
A change in land management under Alternative D would reduce the amount of acreage
open to summer and winter motorized travel (e.g. snow mobiles, all-terrain vehicles),
mechanized travel (e.g. mountain bikes) and reduce the acreage that would available
for future ski area expansions. Reducing the acreage and miles of trails open for
various recreational opportunities will increase crowding in areas and trails that remain
open which can cause additional conflicts between users. This will decrease the
quantity and quality of the recreational experience in the WRN Forest.
A reduction in Recreational Visitor Days (RVDs) for these activities within the study area
by individuals using the WRN Forest will impact sales to the local service industries
including hotels, restaurants, service stations and grocery stores. The results estimated
by Hazen and Sawyer indicate that a reduction in RVDs under Alternative D relative to
Alternative B could reduce direct, indirect and induced present value sales and income
by approximately $1.6 billion and $1.0 billion respectively, over the twenty-year study
period. Additionally, Hazen and Sawyer estimated that employment would fall by 150
jobs in year one when the plan is implemented. In the sixth year after implementing
Alternative D there will 1,700 fewer jobs than will exist under Alternative B. By 2020
there will be 4,500 fewer jobs. The results estimated by Hazen and Sawyer are
summarized in Table E-1.
Co1: Exe_sum_ format ES-1 Economic Impact of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Table E-1
Cumulative Impact of Altemative D on Recreational Expenditures, Sales, Income
and Employment (Direct, Indirect and Induced) from Reduced Recreational Use in
the WRN FOREST
Year Estimated Estimated Change in Total Sales, Income and Employment
Reduction in Reduction in (Direct, Indirect and Induced)
Recreational Recreator
Visitor Days Expenditures
(RVDs)
Change in Total Change in Total Change in
Sales Income Total
Employment
I (2) I (3) I (4) (5) (6)
20001 -128,5871 -$7,247,4001 -$7,885,000 -$4,632,000 -147
20011 1 -132,4581 -$7,450,3001 -$7,938,000 -$4,710,000 -149
2002 -136,3301 -$7,651,5501 -$8,063,000 -$4,783,000 -152
20031 -140,2011 -$7,848,0501 -$8,187,0001 -$4,855,000 -155
20041 -144,0721 -$8,051,6001 -$8,313,0001 -$4,935,000 -157
20051 -405,5891 -$44,645,3791 -$77,313,0001 -$47,956,000 -1,678
20061 -374,9001 -$40,216,3931 -$68,893,0001 -$42,706,000 -1,492
20071 -441,4841 -$49,532,9831 -$86,480,0001 -$53,669,000 -1,879
20081 -426,133 -$47,272,7691 -$82,160,0001 -$50,970,000 -1,783
20091 -455,6821 -$51,354,5221 -$89,842,0001 -$55,759,000 -1,952
20101 -536,0491 -$62,613,4851 -$111,113,0001 -$69,015,000 -2,421
20111 -646,6921 -$78,055,5671 -$140,212,0001 -$87,158,000 -3,064
2012 -765,5981 -$94,664,2551 -$171,518,0001 -$106,680,000 -3,755
20131 -847,9011 -$106,100,8401 -$193,037,0001 -$120,094,000 -4,229
20141 -839,4381 -$104,716,6111 -$190,294,0001 -$118,382,000 -4,169
20151 -879,5481 -$110,196,6241 -$200,537,0001 -$124,765,000 -4,394
20161 -908,8251 -$114,150,5111 -$207,891,0001 -$129,346,000 -4,555
20171 -893,3861 -$111,783,2181 -$203,290,0001 -$126,474,000 -4,453
20181 -899,5481 -$112,471,0841 -$204,462,0001 -$127,203,000 -4,479
20191 -905,8151 -$113,171,9091 -$205,662,0001 -$127,948,000 -4,505
_ 20201 -912,1911 -$113,884,2801 __-$206,884,0001 4128,712,000 -4,531
(Present Value' 1 -$937,038,0001 41,658,193,0001 41,029,782,0001
Impacts are measured as recreational expenditures, sales, in,,,,...,;. and employment under ARemative D less recreational
expenditures, sales, income and employment under Alternative B, the baseline alternative.
2 Present value calculated at 2.8 percent real discount rate.
COL: Exec_sum. fin ES-2 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The economic impacts estimated by the Forest Service are smaller than those
estimated by Hazen and Sawyer. The Forest Service assumed very little change in
recreational use in the WRN Forest under the various alternatives. It is the opinion of
Hazen and Sawyer that this assumption underestimates the impact of Alternative D to
future recreational uses of the WRN Forest. Therefore, the analysis by Hazen and
Sawyer summarized here indicates a larger negative economic impact than the impact
reported by the Forest Service.
2. The Forest Service did not demonstrate that Alternative D should be the
"Preferred Alternative".
The Forest Service completed a Present Net Value (PNV) analysis but considered only
a subset of benefits and costs of each alternative. The PNV provided in the DEIS was
designed to determine the economic efficiency to society of each alternative by
comparing the benefits to the costs. The Forest Service assigned monetary values
(market and non-market) to recreation, grazing and timber outputs to estimate the
benefits of each alternative. However, several benefits of the alternatives were not
included in the analysis including such things as biological diversity, increased wildlife
habitat, changes in watershed management, changes in air quality, improvements in
visual amenities, and some social impacts.
By ignoring these important benefits of each alternative the PNV analysis offers little
insight into which alternative provides the maximum net benefits to society or the
opportunity costs of implementing one alternative over another. Given these limitations,
the analysis provided by the Forest Service indicates that Alternative D has the second
lowest PNV of any of the altematives. Additionally, the financial analysis shows the
Forest Service has a negative return on their investment for Alternative D. Therefore,
the Forest Service did not justify with this analysis that Alternative D should be the
"Preferred Alternative".
3. Alternative D will reduce the spending for trail and recreational facility
maintenance, which will result in further deterioration of roads, trails and
recreational facilities already suffering from deferred maintenance.
It is the opinion of Hazen and Sawyer, that the Forest Service has not fully considered
the budgetary implications for each alternative. For instance, how will the budgetary
constraints of the WRN Forest affect the agency's ability to manage areas for dispersed
as well as developed recreation? This includes the backlog of deferred maintenance of
roads, trailheads and campsites as well as increased needs for trail construction and
maintenance especially given the directive to concentrate recreational uses on fewer
trails and roads.
Additionally, estimated budgets under each alternative emphasize different objectives.
For instance, Alternative D will almost triple the budgetary resources allocated for
COL: Exec_sum f n ES-3 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Also,
Alternative D will decrease the budget for infrastructure management, which will further
add to the backlog in facilities maintenance mentioned above. While the Forest Service
did show different outputs associated with budgetary levels it is not apparent that the
budgetary considerations were taken into account in the economic analysis.
These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Background Information on the WRN Forest
The WRN Forest, located in central Colorado is one of the oldest and largest national
forests in the U.S. The WRN Forest is well known for its world class skiing, hunting and
fishing, camping and a variety of backcountry recreational opportunities including
motorized and non-motorized recreational uses. According to the Forest Service, the
WRN Forest accounts for 64 percent of downhill skiing use in Colorado and 30 percent
of Colorado's recreational use on National Forest Service System lands in the state.'
Additionally, the WRN Forest is used for grazing and timber production. The WRN
Forest is located in the counties of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco,
Routt and Summit. Use of the WRN Forest for traditional natural resource commodity
production (e.g. grazing, timber, etc.) as well as recreational uses have become an
important economic component to the local and regional economy.
The National Forests are managed for a variety of uses including natural resource
production, wildlife habitat, and recreation. The Forest Service is required to develop
plans that guide the use of each individual forest. Several policies and laws governing
the management of Forest Service lands have changed since the implementation of the
WRN Forest Plan in 1984. Therefore, the Forest Service is now in the process of
revising the Forest Plan for this area.
The Forest Service provided an economic and financial analysis of each of the
alternatives, including the economic impact analysis of a change in recreation and
resource production under each alternative. The DEIS compared the benefits and costs
to the agency of each alternative such as revenues from grazing activities (benefits) and
the costs to administer the grazing program. Finally, a Present Net Value (PNV)
analysis of each alternative was discussed briefly in the document. The PNV analysis
was designed to determine the economic efficiency of each alternative considering the
costs and benefits to society.
1 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
to Accompany the Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Fores4
White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, July, 1999.
COL: Exec sum fin ES-4 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Economic Impacts of Alternative D on Recreation
The purpose of this study was to review the economic analysis provided by the Forest
Service in the DEIS with a focus on evaluating the potential economic impacts of
Alternative D relative to Alternative B. By evaluating the economic impacts of one
alternative, this study provides results that can be compared with those offered by the
Forest Service. Because Alternative B is considered the "No Action" alternative it was
chosen to represent the baseline conditions over the study period. Hazen and Sawyer
used a twenty-year study period to analyze economic impacts because it closely follows
the expected life of the Forest Plan.
According to the DEIS, Alternative B is described as follows.
Alternative B emphasizes production of goods and services such as
developed recreation, downhill skiing, and range, which all would be
increased to meet expected levels of demand.2
According to the DEIS, Alternative D was developed to address the biological diversity
and wildlife habitat concerns and thus gives higher priority to physical and biological
resources other than human uses of the WRN Forest. The DEIS summarizes
Alternative D as follows.3
Alternative D emphasizes active management of all habitat types including
use of such tools as timber harvesting, prescribed fire, and structural
improvement... It will use active management to make the most rapid
progress, compared to other alternatives, toward a diverse, healthy
ecosystem condition. Of all the alternatives, Alternative D places a low
emphasis on developments for human uses or recreation.
Economic impacts of the proposed Alternative D occur as employment and income to
businesses and households are affected by a change in recreation and resource
production in the WRN Forest. The economic impact of a sector can be described in
terms of changes in the direct, indirect and induced sales, income and employment
generated in the region due to the production of that sector. The direct, indirect and
induced economic impacts are described as follows:
¦ Direct Economic Impacts - Changes in production of sectors directly affected
by a change in resource use can cause changes in direct sales, employment
and income to proprietors and employees of those sector(s).
¦ Indirect Economic Impacts - Sales, income and employment changes can occur in
other sectors in the region that provide goods and services to the direct sector(s).
2 Ibid., p. 2-6.
3 Ibid., p. 2-10.
COL: Exec sum- in ES-5 Economic impact Of WRAF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
¦ Induced Economic Impacts - Sales, income and employment changes can occur to
sectors that provide goods and services to the indirect sector(s) and to the
employees of the direct, indirect and induced sectors.
In evaluating the economic impacts of Alternative D, Hazen and Sawyer focused on
recreational activities that may realize the greatest impacts due to a change in land
management. This included motorized and mechanized recreational activities such as
snow mobiling, all-terrain vehicles and mountain biking, and downhill skiing. While
these activities were the focus of the economic impact analysis, there are indications
that other recreational activities may be negatively impacted. These activities will be
further evaluated for the Final Report.
A change in land management under Alternative D would reduce the amount of acreage
open to motorized travel, reduce the trails available for motorized and mechanized
travel and reduce the acreage that would available for future ski area expansions.
These management actions will likely reduce the number of Recreational Visitor Days
(RVDs) for these activities within the study area.
Hazen and Sawyer estimated the loss in RVDs based on the percentage of acreage lost
to these activities, the loss in ski area capacity, and the potential behavioral responses
of recreators. For instance, as acreage and trails are closed to recreation, remaining
acreage and trails become overcrowded and conflicts may occur. This reduces the
quantity and quality of the recreational experience for individuals who use the WRN
Forest. As a result recreators will choose to recreate in other areas outside the study
region.
As stated in the DEIS, Alternative D will reduce the amount of miles of trails that are
open to summer and winter motorized travel relative to Altemative B. Off-road vehicle
use will essentially be eliminated and the miles of trails open for summer and winter
motorized use will be reduced. To get an understanding of the change in acreage
available for summer motorized use, the miles available for summer motorized use
under Alternative D were converted to acres. This calculation indicates that the amount
of acreage available for off-highway use will be significantly reduced under Alternative D
relative to Alternative B from approximately 141,000 acres to 7,004 acres or a 95%
reduction.
While the amount of acreage that will be open for off-highway vehicle OHV use in the
WRN Forest could be reduced by as much as 95% it is likely that actual OHV use in the
region would not be reduced by a similar proportion. This is due to the fact that some
OHV users will still use the roads and trails and ways open in the WRN Forest for
recreation. Additionally, there are other public lands in the regional study area that are
reasonable substitutes for areas in the WRN Forest. Therefore, it was estimated that
OHV use could decrease in the regional area by as much as 25%.
COL Exec-sum-fin ES-6 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
According to the DEIS, unrestricted winter motorized use will be reduced on 614,000
acres under Alternative D relative to Alternative B. The 614,000 acres will be converted
to management strategies consisting of motorize travel on designated routes. It
appears that this management action would reduce acreage open to motorized winter
travel by over 50 percent. Using the reduction in acreage as a guide, it was estimated
that winter motorized recreational use would decrease by as much as 30% in the WRN
Forest.
According to the DEIS, 878 trails and ways throughout the WRN Forest that were open
to mountain bike travel under Altemative B will be closed to this form of travel under
Alternative D. This is a 33% reduction in trails open to this type of recreation. These
trails will be either close permanently (31%) or close on a seasonal basis (2%). The
closure of trails and ways to mountain bikes under Alternative D could reduce this
recreational activity as follows. The Forest Service has indicated that conflicts between
mountain bikers and other recreators is increasing. Alternative D calls for the closing of
many trail and ways to mountain biking and other types of travel. This will further
concentrate recreational use on the remaining trails and ways. Further congestion on
remaining open trails will discourage mountain bikers from recreating in the WRN Forest
and limit the Forest Service's ability to meet future demand. Thus, it was estimated that
implementation of Alternative D will cause a 30% reduction in mountain bike use
throughout the WRN Forest.
The impact of reducing the practical capacity of ski areas in the WRN Forest under
Alternative D could reduce the ski operators' ability to meet increasing demand for ski
area activities in the future. Assuming skier visits will continue to increase at the current
annual growth rate of 2.6% indicates that all existing ski areas within the WRN Forest
would exceed practical capacity during the twenty-year study period. The Forest
Service indicated in the DEIS that when ski resorts sustain use levels near 50%
capacity they are considered highly utilized and frequently overcrowded during peak
periods including weekends and holidays. Ski area operators often manage
overcrowding by discouraging skier use during these peak periods.
Given these management actions and the behaviors of skiers, it is likely that ski areas
within the WRN Forest will accommodate additional skier demand up to the point that
practical capacity is exceeded. Once practical capacity is exceeded, ski areas will
discourage additional skier visits. Therefore, it was assumed that each resort would not
meet additional skier demand beyond practical capacity under each alternative.
Because Alternative B would allow more ski area expansion to occur, increases in skier
demand would be accommodated more years during the study period under Alternative
B than under Alternative D.
Given the above information, Hazen and Sawyer estimated that motorized recreation
would decrease by 25 to 30 percent, mechanized travel would decrease by as much as
COL: Exec sum- fin ES-7 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
30 percent and downhill skiing could realize a loss of as much as 700,000 annual skier
visits by the end of the study period.
Total economic impacts include changes in direct, indirect and induced sales, income
and employment from a change in direct sales of the target industry. In the case of
recreational expenditures, a reduction in the number of RVDs by individuals using the
WRN Forest will lead to a reduction in sales to the local service industries including
hotels, restaurants, service stations and grocery stores. Hazen and Sawyer used
estimates of itemized expenditures by recreators and economic multipliers estimated
with the professionally accepted economic model called the IMPLAN model to estimate
changes in direct, indirect and induced sales, employment and income in the study area
due to a reduction in RVDs.
Hazen and Sawyer estimated that a reduction in RVDs under Alternative D relative to
Alternative B could reduce the present value of sales and income by as much as $1.66
billion and $1.0 billion, respectively over the study period. In addition the regional area
could realize a reduction in employment by as much 4,500 jobs by the end of the study
period. In comparing these results to those provided in the DEIS, it appears that the
negative economic impacts estimated here are larger than those estimated by the
Forest Service.
The DEIS indicated that in 2020, employment would decrease by 2,457 jobs under
Alternative D relative to Alternative B. Additionally the Forest Service reported a $52.8
million loss in labor income under Alternative D relative to Alternative B. In comparison,
Hazen and Sawyer estimated a reduction in income and employment in 2020 of $128
million and 4,500 jobs, respectively. The impacts reported by the Forest Service include
the income and employment losses from a reduction in timber production, which are not
included in the economic impacts estimated by Hazen and Sawyer. Therefore, the
economic impacts associated with Alternative D and reported by the Forest Service are
considerably less than those estimated by Hazen and Sawyer.
The difference in economic impacts estimated by Hazen and Sawyer and the Forest
Service are partially due to the difference in the expected impact of reducing acreage
open for recreation on recreational use in the WRN Forest. Particularly, the Forest
Service assumed very little change in recreational use in the WRN Forest under the
various alternatives. For instance, the Forest Service assumed "that a minimum of 20%
of the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum setting had to be affected in order to change
demand". Additionally, the Forest Service assumed that the quality of recreational
experience would not change under any alternative. It is the opinion of Hazen and
Sawyer that these assumptions underestimate the potential impact to future recreational
opportunities. Therefore, the analysis summarized here indicates a larger negative
economic impact than the impact reported by the Forest Service.
COL Exec-sum-fin ES-8 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Economic Impacts of Alternative D on Grazing
Fifty-four percent of the WRN Forest is currently located within active grazing
allotments. These allotments support approximately 136,000 Animal Unit Months
(AUMs). Under Alternative D, the Forest Service would close or partially close 51 vacant
allotments in the WRN Forest. This action will not decrease the current permitted
animal unit months. However, closing these vacant allotments will decrease the
flexibility of the Forest Service in resolving conflicts between grazing operations and
other resource users. This could be a detriment to ranchers and could cause a
decrease in grazing in WRN Forest as conflicts between grazing and other resource use
increases. At this time it is difficult to quantitatively estimate the economic impacts of
this management action.
Possibly a larger issue associated with all the alternatives, including Alternative B and
Alternative D, regarding impacts to grazing is the management of noxious weeds. The
Forest Service states that budgetary constraints have and will continue to limit their
ability to control noxious weeds under all alternatives. According to the Forest Service:4
Many resource scientists and land managers consider noxious weeds to
be the biggest threat to ecological integrity facing National Forest Service
lands. With the loss of plant diversity, wildlife habitat, and forage values
comes a host of impacts to such resources as hunting, wildlife and
wildflower viewing, wilderness values and livestock grazing. With the loss
of these uses and values come the economic losses to communities
surrounding the Forest. One only has to visit other areas of the country
that have already experienced this decline to understand the cumulative
impact of noxious weeds out of control.
Current management includes very little treatment of noxious weeds and limited
emphasis on the prevention of noxious week outbreaks. Statements in the DEIS imply
that it is likely that noxious weeds will continue to be a problem in the WRN Forest. This
could potentially cause negative impacts to grazing as well as other resource uses. To
date the Forest Service has not considered the potential negative economic impact
associated with not properly managing noxious weeds in any of the alternatives
presented in the DEIS including Alternative B and Alternative D.
Economic Impacts of Alternative D on Timber Production
Hazen and Sawyer has reviewed the analysis of timber production in the DEIS. At this
time there is no disagreement with the analysis. However timber production will be
further evaluated for the Final Report.
4 Ibid., p.-3-151.
COL: Exec_sum_ fin ES-9 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Budgetary Considerations
It is the opinion of Hazen and Sawyer, that the Forest Service has not fully considered
the budgetary implications of each alternative. For instance, how will the budgetary
constraints of the WRN Forest affect the agency's ability to manage areas for dispersed
and developed recreation? Currently there is a backlog of deferred maintenance of
roads, trailheads and campsites. Additionally, some alternatives call for increased trail
construction and maintenance given the directive to concentrate recreational uses on
fewer trails and roads. The Forest Service provided examples in the DEIS of the
backlog in facility and resource maintenance including the following.
¦ The current backlog in facility maintenance for developed recreational sites is
estimated to be $65.5 million.
¦ The current backlog in trail maintenance is estimated at $6.6 million.
¦ The WRN Forest has 3,500 dispersed campsites. At most 3% of these campsites
could be rehabilitated or reconstructed annually under current budget levels.
¦ The Forest Service has been maintaining less than 25% of the road system to
agency standards.
Additionally, each alternative emphasizes different objectives that are reflected in the
budget. For instance, Alternative D will almost triple the budgetary resources allocated
for wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Also,
Alternative D will decrease the budget for infrastructure management, which will further
add to the backlog in facilities maintenance mentioned above. While the Forest Service
did show different outputs associated with budgetary levels it is not apparent that the
budgetary considerations were taken into account in the economic analysis. For
example, the Forest Service has indicated that recreational expenditures by individuals
using the WRN Forest will not change with different budgetary levels. This conclusion is
made regardless if changes in budgetary resources would allow the Forest Service to
improve facilities and the recreational experience for recreators.
Present Net Value Analysis
The Forest Service completed a Present Net Value (PNV) analysis to determine the
economic efficiency of each alternative. The Forest Service indicated that "the PNV is
defined as the value of discounted benefits minus discounted costs" to society.5 In their
analysis, the Forest Service assigned monetary values (market and non-market) to
recreation, grazing and timber outputs to estimate the benefits of each alternative. The
discussion goes on to point out:6
5 Ibid., p. 4494.
6 Ibid., p. 3-494.
COL: Exec_sum- fin ES-10 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Some outputs or effects, such as biological diversity, visual amenities, and
some social impacts have no monetary value or cost. These non-valued
effects cannot and should not be incorporated into an efficiency analysis.
The agency cost of achieving these non-monetary outputs is included in
the economic and cost-efficiency analysis.
This statement indicates that the Forest Service did not to try to quantify or assess
many of the outcomes associated with specific objectives of each alternative including
biological diversity, increased wildlife habitat, changes in watershed management,
changes in air quality, improvements in visual amenities, and some social impacts. By
ignoring these important aspects of each alternative the PNV analysis offers little insight
into which altemative provides the maximum net benefits to society or the opportunity
costs of implementing one alternative over another. Given these limitations, the
analysis provided by the Forest Service indicates that Alternative D has the second
lowest PNV of any of the altematives. Additionally, the financial analysis shows the
Forest Service has a negative return on their investment for Alternative D. These
results beg the question "Why is Alternative D the preferred alternative°?
Hazen and Sawyer acknowledges the difficulty in valuing nonmarket aspects of land
management actions. However, there are methods that can be employed to provide
relative measures. The Forest Service has also indicated that other methods can be
used to incorporate non-monetary benefits and costs into the analysis. For instance, the
Forest Service states: 7
The economic and financial PNVs coupled with indicators for such goals
and objectives as supporting the economies of local communities,
maintaining biological diversity, and providing pleasing visual qualities,
can be used to estimate net public benefits, compare alternatives and
assist in choosing a preferred alternative.
Hazen and Sawyer agrees with this statement. However, the Forest Service has not
demonstrated how the results of this analysis are relevant in identifying Alternative D as
the Preferred Alternative.
7 Ibid., p. 3-496.
COL:Earec_sum-fin ES-11 Economic Impact Of WRNF Plan
Executive Summary
My name is Tom Page and I am a ten year resident of West Vail. 1 would like to talk
about how the various alternatives deal with wildlife issues around the Town of Vail and
also within the larger contexts of Eagle County and the White River National Forest.
The first topic that I would like to address is the continuing rapid disappearance of big
game winter range, especially prime, low-elevation agricultural lands. To give you some
idea, in Eagle County from 1989 to 1998 over 8000 acres of ag land was converted to
other uses. This loss has led to increased wildlife conflicts with people, unleashed dogs,
cars, fences, etc. at the same time that it has been a primary contributing factor in the
decline of our deer herds over the last two decades. Another effect of this conversion is
that it has placed tremendous added stress on remaining ranges on public and private land.
Personally, I believe that the amount of private land converted to housing in this area is
going to greatly increase over the next twenty years, which means that these problems are
not going to go away.
Therefore, we must ask the question: if we value wildlife where we live, what can we do
to mitigate these problems?, If we look at Alternatives B, C, and D we see the following:
• Alternative B, the no change option, currently provides for no additional winter range
management.
• Alternative C, the primary alternative supported by those opposed to Alternative D,
allocates an increase of less than 1%. As with Alternative B, winter range conflicts,
like those that occur at Arrowhead every winter, will only become more common with
this option.
• Alternative D, on the other hand, designates an increase of 45% in* the amount of
public land managed for big game winter range. This will help to reduce conflicts with
people on private land, lower the pressure on existing ranges, and attempt to make up
for some of the range that has been converted into second, third or even fourth homes.
b~
A second issue that deserves attention is the influence of habitat securitt Shuman
disturbance. Having spent a good part of my life in the woods as a hunter, fisherman,
outfitter-guide and wildlife watcher, it is my firm conviction that current recreational uses
are having a tremendous impact on local animal behavior. To give you just one example
out of many: prior to construction of the Eiseman Hut in the mid-1990's the Middle
Creek drainage saw virtually no traffic. On any given morning, you could walk the ridge
north from Bald Mountain and see elk grazing on either side of you, while big mule deer
bucks and groups of mountain goats fed on the open ridges. In the last three years, I have
observed the goats reluctance to leave the security of the east-facing cliffs, the total
displacement of the solitude-loving bucks, and the elk herd's refusal to wander above
timberline in daylight. I do not believe it is a coincidence that a well-worn trail from the
Hut to Lake Helen has developed at the same time.
These observations are backed up by the results of a recently completed, fifteen year
Colorado Division of Wildlife elk study in the Vail-Beaver Creek area that clearly
demonstrated a substantial negative relationship between human disturbance and elk calf
niviialityl Furth-
v11/li/1 ,mil ~'V4 \\~~1~~%1 VIV ( 1~1 ~/I,11.11111111 LI(/.VA \11 13131. \IVCI 171IV 3.9l. \/1 11111 VV III 11113 1111V 111.1111 111
L>aglc i,;mulf y. re 1UA 1000S Wid tails in every dramage, maic e11k have aIm,ost no chance to
reach maturity.
Again, we. must ask: what do the various alternatives within the forest plan d1o to solve
these problems? Obviously, the status quo, Alternative B, is not going to work. ff we
compare Alternatives C and D, we find that Alternative D designates more acreage as
research natural areas, reduces the number of trails open to motorized vehicles, does not
allow any off-trail motorized or mechanized travel, thus limiting the number of new social
trails that will be created, and most importantly for wildlife, it designates less than a third
as much acreage for dispersed recreation.
From my perspective, I strongly believe that over the last five or six years in the upper
portions of the Eagle River watershed, we have tipped the scales too far in favor of all
forms of recreation, at the expense of wildlife. If you care about the long-term survival of
our local elk, deer, bighorn sheep and other wildlife populations, I urge you to support
the travel management and wildlife habitat measures presented in Alternative D, the plan
that was enthusiastically supported by state and local wildlife officials prior to review by
political appointees. Thank You.
Tom Page - Buffehr Creek resident
PO Box 5837, Vail, CO 81658
U)5 q- q. oo Wm-#P
y'.
,j .
VISITOR CENTERS
Operated By
VAIL VALLEY TOURISM & CONVENTION BUREAU
Operations Recommendation
Referral Policy:
We are in the business of meeting the needs of the customer.
We will make every attempt to refer a Vail business first. If for any reason the
customer's need cannot be met with a Vail business, we will look to meet their
needs with a VVTCB partner business, which has paid for the right to be
represented in the visitor centers.
The customer's needs can be defined by budgetary constraints, amenities,
availability, and/or accessibility.
Brochure Display:
The bottom row of the visitor center racks may be utilized by down-valley
businesses that have paid for the right to display through their VVTCB
membership
Courtesy Phone:
The VVTCB and the Vail Chamber have worked together to place a 24-hour
courtesy phone in Vail Village and Lionshead Visitor Center. Vail lodges receive
a business-card advertisement free of charge with direct call access. The Village
kiosk is already in place.
a
a
F
SOURCES OF INCOME--2000 BUDGET ! Nail Town Govt. ]Vail Partners iArea Partners
i 1% of %of I I% of
lincome ! ttlAtem ttl. Item
i
Commission Revenue i $857,835'1 32.4% $591,085168.9%! $266,750' 31.1%
{Individual I $392,000! 14.8%I tl_ $250,0001 63.8%1 $142,000; 36.2%
IPkg Com/Srvc.Fees ; $152,555; 5.8% ii :rti, I $65,395'1 42.9%i $87,160; 57.1%
LGroup 1 $313,280• 11.8%1 ; $275,690188.0%1 $37,590i 12.0%
Town of Vail Contract $559,8001 21.10%1 e r $559,800
Lodging Quality j $75,000;
(Visitor Services 1 $155,8001,
j Special Events { $329,0001 Co-operative Marketing Programs j $402,2501 15.2% j $257,440 64.0%1 $144,8101 36.0%
I i ~ i I 1
Corporate Sponsorships •I $224,000; 8.5% „
I 1 ! i I i 1
Partner Dues & Programs] $218,0001 8.2 OX, $123,280156.6% $94,720'1 43.4%
(Lodging $122,0001 $82,960168.0%j $39,040132.0%
]Business j $96,000; I j $40,320142.0%1 $55,680; 58.0%
Visitor Services Programs $143,000'1 5.4°r°
I I I
Special Event Revenues $93,8001 3.50/co
VA Support--LQI I $45,0971 1.7% ; j
I I j r~?: I ! i I
JBCRC Support-1-01 $34,2891 1.30%, j I $34,289; 100%
~ I ! i, i j I j I I
Communications Contracts $23,000 0.9%..-
LQI--Inspection Fees $20,0001 0.8% .:N
i I i I 1 L~ I
I I
t
Town of Avon--LQI j ! $15,0001 0.6% ; j $15,0001 100%
j ! ! ~ I I I I I
Misc. 1 j f $14,750'1 o °i° I j j 1
j $2,650,821! ' $559,8001 21.1%1 $971,8051 36.7% $555,5691 21.0%
VISITOR CENTERS
Operated By
VAIL VALLEY TOURISM & CONVENTION BUREAU
The numbers:
• 2.213 reservations were made in Vail Village and Lionshead Visitor
Centers in 1999. 2.104 (95%) of those were made in Vail properties.
• Total gross bookings for Vail properties out of the Visitor Centers were
$338,665. If the marketing district's research holds true that for every $1
spent in lodging another $3 is spent in activities, shopping and food
beverage and other. This means the visitor centers can be directly tied to
$1,354,660 for Vail.
• There are 199 brochure slots in the Vail Village Visitor Center. 171 of
those are Vail businesses. Seven are down-valley lodges (four are which
are managed by a Vail business license holder). Twelve spots are Valley-
wide magazines like the Dining Guide, Vail Art etc.
• We surveyed fifteen Visitor Centers throughout the State of Colorado and
no one restricts the display of brochures to geographic boundaries. Some
will limit participation to membership, but membership was not
geographically limited. This includes similar situations such as Aspen -
Snowmass, Frisco-Breckenridge, and Boulder-Denver.