Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-02 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING.. TUESDAY, May 2, 2000 7:00 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. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA. (5 mins.) • Item A - Approval of the March 7th and 21St Town Council Meeting Minutes 3. A review of the draft Town of Vail position statement on the proposed Brent Wilson White River National Forest Plan revisions. (45 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the position statement and provide feedback regarding revisions (if applicable). The final position statement will be forwarded to the U.S. Forest Service prior to the May 9th deadline. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Over the past four months, the Town of Vail hosted a series of meetings to solicit input from the public, various agencies and town staff regarding the proposed revisions to the White River National Forest Plan. The draft position statement represents the final product of these meetings - a synopsis of the Town's position on numerous forest planning issues raised during our review process. Staff is requesting council review of this document in anticipation of its transmittal to the U.S. Forest Service later this week. The comment deadline for the forest plan is May 91h, 2000. 4. First reading of Ordinance 9, Series of 2000; an ordinance amending Brent Wilson Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code with specific regard to off-street parking requirements for properties within Vail's commercial core areas and variance procedures for off-street parking and loading. (15 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications or deny Ordinance 9, Series of 2000 on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: During the summer of 1999, the Town hired the firm of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig to conduct an in-depth analysis of parking generation in Vail's commercial core areas. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the influence of external factors (mixed uses, transit/pedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity) on parking generation. Currently, the Town's parking regulations do not account for these factors and assess parking requirements strictly by land use type and square footage. Given the inability of many properties in Vail Village and Lionshead to provide on-site parking and the Town's $17,917 per space parking pay-in-lieu fee, staff realized a need to produce a more realistic assessment of parking generation in these areas. A copy of the consultant's study and findings has been included for reference. On April 18th, the Town Council directed staff to create an ordinance adopting the Planning and Environmental Commission's proposed revisions to the consultant's recommended parking requirements schedule. STAFF/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approve Ordinance 9, Series of 2000 in first reading. 5 Second reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, an ordinance George Ruther repealing Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 and to enact Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, adopting a revised 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. (45 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, on second 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. On April 4, 2000, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, on first reading. In approving the ordinance the Council requested that additional language be added to the ordinance to further clarify the requirements and restrictions of the required employee housing. Specifically, Section 4 of the ordinance was amended and states that the 18 employee housing units include 38 employee beds totaling 9,618 square feet of GRFA. Section 5 was amended to include a condition prohibiting the resale of the Type III employee units and requires that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said ownership shall transfer with the warranty deed to the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, on second reading in accordance with the staff memorandum, dated February 28, 2000. 6. The "Days of Remembrance" Proclamation. (5 mins.) Pam Brandmeyer 7. Town Manager's Report. (5 mins.) Bob McLaurin 8. Adjournment (9:05 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, 5/09/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/16/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/16/00, 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. CAAGENDA.TC c VAIL TOWN COUNCIL - MINUTES TUESDAY, March 7, 2000 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held in the Town Council Chambers on Tuesday, March 7, 2000. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Chuck Ogilby Kevin Foley Diana Donovan Greg Moffet COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas - Mayor Pro-Tem Rod Slifer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Michael Cacioppo appeared before the Council and questioned the appropriateness of a vote, which occurred at the work session authorizing $51,000 of in-kind services for the WestFest 2000 event. Cacioppo maintained the vote was a violation of the Town Charter due to lack of an ordinance. Councilmembers consulted Town Attorney Tom Moorhead who disagreed with Cacioppo's interpretation, noting that all appropriations are annually approved by a budget ordinance. Michael Goodbee, District Attorney for the Fifth Judicial District) and Bev Christiansan of the Resource Center, requested time on a future Council agenda to solicit funds from the town to help support the non-profit organization. The discussion will be scheduled in the coming weeks. Chris Akers and Sue Dugan, local Census 2000 workers, asked the Council how much the Town of Vail was due to lose for each citizen that does not participate in the Census. Pam Brandmeyer said $1800.00 per person per year. Mr. Akers said with this in mind it just reinforces the importance of the Census and taking the time to fill out the questionnaire. Chuck Lipcon said since he was in town, the Vail Plaza Hotel was tabled (the second time that this has happened to him). He said after the VPH project was approved in violation of the master plan and in a way that would cost millions of dollars of losses to the adjacent land owners who did not get proper notice, he started asking himself questions such as why would a group that is sworn to uphold the law violate their own master plan. He sent out a questionnaire to various members of the Town Council and did not receive any answers so then he said be began his own investigation. He pointed out Section 3.7 of the Town Charter that specifically prohibits Council Members from having any direct or indirect financial interest in any contract with the Town. Mr. Lipcon said that Greg Moffet has a contract with the Town of Vail through TIGA Advertising under which he gets paid $64,000 per year or 55% of the gross revenues with respect to the advertising on the buses. Also Mr. Moffet is still advertising on his web site that bus advertising is available. The Town Charter Section 4.11 states that a member of the Town Council is prohibited from voting on matters on which he has a substantial personal financial interest, a common public interest, or on any question concerning his own conduct. Mr. Lipcon pointed out that Vail Resorts is interested in purchasing the Vail Plaza Hotel property. Ludwig Kurz works for Vail Resorts. Rod Slifer is a partner or an Associate of Vail Resorts. Mayor Kurz works directly or indirectly with Vail Resorts. Secondly, if the Master Plan is not followed, Rod Slifer must come up with cash because he was the broker on the sale of unit 3 at the Gateway. Vail Town Council Minutes March 7, 2000 1 Unit 3 has a penalty clause in their contract under which payment must be made to the buyer if the Master Plan is violated. Therefore-Rod Slifer has a direct financial interest in the vote on the master plan, whether it is followed or not. Also he presently represents unit 4 in the Gateway. Mr. Lipcon said either the Council will solve the problem within the next 2 days or it is going to a different venue. Wolf Mueller read from the Real Estate Tax Fund Ordinance under Section 2-6-9, stating that all funds received by the Town pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in a Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, which fund is hereby created. The fund shall be subjected to appropriation for only the following purposes within the Town within one mile of the boundaries of the Town. Item 1. Acquiring, improving repairing and maintaining parks, recreation, open space and similar purposes. Item 2. The construction, maintenance, and repair of buildings, which are incidental to park, recreation and open space, land. Item 3. Landscaping parks and open space. Item 4. The construction, maintenance, repair and landscaping of recreation paths set forth in the Town of Vail recreation trails plan as the Town Council may amend it from time to time. Item 5. The incidental costs and principle of and interest on any funds borrowed for the purposes set forth in this sub section. There is also a definition of building following this, which applies to Item 2. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. Pam Brandmeyer requested that the February 1, and 15 meeting minutes be tabled to March 21, 2000. The third item on the agenda was to amend the first reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series 2000. Foley moved to table the amendment of the first reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series 2000. Ogilby seconded. A vote was taken and it was passed unanimously, 5-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the Employee Guest Service Recognition Award. Vail Town Council joined in congratulating Vail's Employee Guest Service Recognition winners for February and to assist in the prize drawing activities. In November, the Town of Vail and its Community Task Force partners launched a monthly employee recognition program as part of the Vail Renaissance initiative. Each month, nominees employed by one of Vail's business license holders receive $25 in Mountain Money and are entered into a drawing for a free merchant ski pass from Vail Resorts (or a refund made on an existing pass or credit for next season), free season-long use of a gold parking pass from the Town of Vail, $100 certificates from Vail's merchant and restaurant associations and a month's worth of free coffee from the Daily Grind. To date, 59 employees have been recognized for outstanding service with another 31 employees nominated for the February award. The fifth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2000, an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of fee title to the following real property owned by the Town of Vail and located at 770 Potato Patch. On December 1, 1994, the Town of Vail acquired the care taker unit at 770 Potato Patch Drive Condominiums for $76,000. The Town was able to acquire this unit as a result of a law suit filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation against the Town of Vail and 770 Potato Patch Drive Condominium Association to remove a restriction on the unit being utilized as a care taker unit and not to be sold separate from the other common elements of the Association. FDIC had acquired the title to the unit as Receiver of Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan Association upon its failure. The Town of Vail received the property by Quit Claim Deed from Silverado Investment Company without restrictions on resale. The last appraisal on the unit was $225,000. The unit has been rented to a Town of Vail employee for $850 a month. This unit, due to its value and due to the expensive monthly assessments and special assessments, is not ideal as an employee housing rental unit. It is believed that a sale could be consummated which would provide the opportunity to buy one or two additional units that would more appropriately function as housing for employees. Mayor Kurz asked if there had been any changes to this Ordinance since the first reading. Mr. Moorhead said "yes, as directed by Council there has been a change to the second paragraph. The second paragraph states that after the Town Council approves the contract for the sale, the Town Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute such instruments of conveyance as are appropriate to convey fee title from the Town of Vail to the purchaser with the sale of the unit as is true with any contracts to sell or to purchase real estate. There will be a contingency included within that contract that it is required to have Town Council approval." Vail Town Council Minutes March 7, 2000 2 Michael Jewett said in his opinion the Town Council is circumventing the Town Charter. The Town Charter requires all property owned by the Town of Vail to be conveyed by ordinance. The Charter also calls for the opportunity for citizens to rescind or by referendum recall by a public vote any ordinance that the Town Council enacts. Mr. Jewett said by passing an ordinance without a buyer and without a purchase price the Council takes away the rights of the citizens of the Town of Vail to do a referendum. This parcel is insignificant except for it violates citizen's rights. He asked the Council to reconsider the position of the conveyance until Council has a purchaser, a dollar amount and the citizens of the Town of Vail understand and know who the buyer is. Potential open space could be sold into a third party trust and partnership and conveyed without knowing all the numbers and potential uses. Foley said that this was the reason why Council asked for paragraph two to be inserted into the ordinance on second reading so that it would have to come back before the Town Council. Tom Moorhead said the Town of Vail Charter, as does the Colorado Constitution, preserves to the electorate the right of referendum. Referendum extends to all legislative acts. Town Council acts legislatively, in a quasi- judicial capacity; and also in an administrative compacity. He said in his opinion this particular act is administrative in nature because it is dealing administratively in an executive fashion with property that is zoned by the Town of Vail. The Town had a similar question raised in regard to Vail Commons, where there was an attempt to have a referendum on the ordinance that approved that particular project. After full hearing, the Town Council agreed under that circumstance that it was an administrative act. So while the right of referendum is preserved to the people, it does not include administrative acts. Diana Donovan asked why not create an ordinance when the Town has a contract on the property. Tom Moorhead said that Section 4.8 authorizes the sale of real property when approved by ordinance. There is no question that this is not a legislative act. A legislative act is described as a declaration of public policy. This is a decision by the Vail Town Council directing the Town Manager to deal with a particular asset and is administrative and executive in nature. He said this ordinance authorizes a sale, but does not require that it be sold and it will only be sold when Town Council approves the contract selling the property. Mr. Moorhead said the reason for an ordinance at this time is that there is a very good chance that this would be sold to the general public; as opposed to times in the past where we have had situations under land ownership adjustment agreements where there were very particular purchasers and different circumstances. In this particular circumstance, staff thought the best approach, since it was in all likelihood going to be held out for sale as a listed property, was to get the authority of Council to sell the property before we held it out for sale on the open market. Diana Donovan asked if there would be another ordinance created when the Town has a contract on this property. Tom Moorhead said that the contract will be brought to the Town Council and Council will approve or disapprove, deeming what council thinks is appropriate. Carol Hymers asked if it was necessary to do something so far in advance. She asked if this would set a precedent for the rest of the property that the Town of Vail owns. Farrow Hitt said that in his opinion an ordinance is a legislative act. John Fawcett asked if Donovan Park could be sold without a referendum. Tom Moorhead said it could. Kevin Foley moved to approve, Moffet seconded. The motion failed 3-2 with Donovan and Ogilby opposing. (Lack of a majority of the full Council approving, 4 out of 7). The sixth item on the agenda was the Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 10, Series 1998, known as the Common Ground plan. On September 15, 1998, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 10, which identified sites to be recommended and considered for affordable housing, open space, parks and community facilities. The plan had called for adding 130 acres of newly acquired open space for protected designation; four new parks; 11 affordable housing developments; and two sites for community facilities. As a result of the plan, three lawsuits were filed challenging the town's plan to build housing on several parcels purchased with Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) funds. Mayor Ludwig Kurz said the repeal of the resolution represented Council's good faith to attempt to help settle the lawsuits. Plaintiffs Farrow Hitt and Sally Jackle said it would take more than a repeal of Resolution 10 to settle the lawsuits. They, along with several others in the audience, urged Council to add open space protections to RETT-purchased parcels. Mayor Kurz said the Council had already directed staff to convene the Open Space Board of Trustees for a review of candidate parcels. Flo Steinberg questioned the effectiveness of the repeal, saying Council is being held hostage by the lawsuits. She also urged Council to support the proposed conversion of lodge rooms to employee housing units at the West Vail Lodge, saying the need for employee housing outweighs the need for tourist beds. Former Councilman Tom Steinberg reiterated his ideas for several employee-housing opportunities available in Vail Town Council Minutes March 7, 2000 3 the Golf Course neighborhood, while Jerry Sibley expressed support for repeal of Resolution 10, calling it a vote towards the sacredness of open space. Sibley said the community can solve the housing problem without using open lands. The seventh item on the agenda was the Public Hearing on the Community Facilities program for the Lionshead hub site. On March 3, 2000, a public open house was held at the Evergreen Lodge to review the market analysis and spatial opportunities for the hub site uses. The input from that meeting indicated strong support for a conference/learning facility and a 2nd sheet of ice, and minimal support for performing arts. There was also significant discussion on youth recreational activities on the site. Brian Sipes from Zaren and Associates presented Council with an overview of the sites, constraints, and opportunities and briefly reviewed the memo that was distributed to the Council and the public. Jerry Sibley, a West Vail resident, asked whether a phasing program could be pursued for the Hub site project. Project manager Russell Forrest stated that a phased program would be part of the design process. Former Councilman Tom Steinberg asked that a performing arts center with a minimum of 2,000 seats remain under consideration, while John Horan-Kates of the White River Institute asked Council to direct the design team to study the possibility of converting Dobson Arena into a conference/learning center with a bridge connection to the library, while building two sheets of ice on the Hub site. The Vail Recreation District Board will join the Vail Town Council in a discussion on March 14 to prioritize the list of possible uses. The list will then be used to develop alternative site plans by the design team. The eighth item on the agenda was the Lionshead Redevelopment - Tax Increment Financing (TIF), discussion of Tax Increment Financing, Urban Renewal Authorities (URA), Downtown Development Authorities (DDA). In the first of a series of ongoing discussions regarding financing options to fund public improvements for the redevelopment of Lionshead, the council reviewed the concept of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and the differences between an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and a Downtown Development Authority (DDA). There were numerous questions from the Council members, including the impact of the Tabor Amendment, the election process, bonding requirements, market focus and blight requirements. During the public comment period, Jim Miller of the Lodge at Lionshead urged the Council to abandon consideration of an Urban Renewal Authority since it can be established without a vote of the people. The decision would be a unilateral one, he said, and would serve to polarize the community. Jim Lamont, of the East Village Homeowners Association, said his membership also supports an approach that would allow property owners an opportunity to vote on the matter. Staff clarified that a public vote is needed for both TIF methods. The next step would include a technical analysis of the study area to continue researching the merits of Tax Increment Financing in addition to other financing mechanisms. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies approximately $50 million in high priority public improvements, such as a new transportation center on the north day lot; South Frontage Road improvements; reconfiguration of the East Lionshead Circle bus stop area; and pedestrian area improvements. Bob McLaurin said staff looked at a variety of tools and brought back two plan that have been used most successfully. Mr. McLaurin said the other option is to pump 8 million dollars of capital into Lionshead for the next 20 years. Diana Donovan asked why this type of financing was chosen. Dominic Mauriello said because it is a non-controversial and painless type of way to fund public improvements over a twenty year period. He said the Town would be guaranteeing bonds based on a revenue stream. Bob McLaurin said the thought was that the new development in this area would pay for the improvements. Greg Moffet asked if development occurring under Tabor, would the Town get to keep the incremental tax on the assessed value. Mauriello said no, the Town would have to de-Bruce. Ludwig Kurz said he was concerned about the PR that would be associated with this. The ninth item on the agenda was the worksession to discuss Vail Mountain School's long range master plan. In preparation for a conceptual review on March 13 by the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Council reviewed and offered support for a long range master plan for Vail Mountain School. The two-phase plan includes removal of the existing temporary classroom structure, construction of an 8-classroom wing to the north of the existing building, an elevator connection to all existing floors and a reconfiguration of the existing parking area to allow for the addition of a "drop off" lane and 30 additional parking spaces. Also planned is the addition of a 300- seat auditorium, faculty housing, additional classrooms south of the gymnasium and additional parking. The long Vail Town Council Minutes March 7, 2000 4 range master plan was requested by the Council last year after reviewing a conditional use permit for a temporary classroom facility. The tenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob McLaurin said the new street sweeper would arrive the first week of April. He said with the new sweeper the Town would be able to double the amount of sweeping lane miles during the summer. McLaurin noted that the Town has been doing a lot of hand sweeping in the Village. Kevin Foley requested that the little sweeper be sent over the pedestrian bridge. Moffet moved to adjourn. Foley seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Beth Salter Vail Town Council Minutes March 7, 2000 5 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL - MINUTES TUESDAY, March 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held in the Town Council Chambers on Tuesday, March 21, 2000. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Sybil Navas, Pro Tern Kevin Foley Diana Donovan Greg Moffet Rod Slifer COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Chuck Ogilby STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was the Citizen Participation. Kaye Ferry, representing Vail Village Merchants' Association, distributed flyers to the Council relating to businesses in Vail Village that were closing their doors at the end of the season. She suggested staff contact these business owners before they terminated their businesses to determine the reasons for their decision. Bill Jensen, from Vail Resorts, addressed the Council regarding advertising for special lift tickets in Summit County versus Vail and Beaver Creek. Mr. Jensen addressed specific questions posed by Diana Donovan. Diana Donovan stated she would get back with her source of information to clarify her information. The second item on the agenda was the approval of the February 1st and 15th Council Meeting Minutes. Mayor Kurz stated that due to several changes in the minutes for February 1 and 15, 2000, these minutes had not been approved at the March 7th meeting. Kevin Foley made a motion to approve the amended minutes of February 1' and February 15th, and Greg Moffet seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The third item on the agenda was a request for a worksession discussion and at the evening meeting the first reading of Ordinance 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. Rod Slifer, stated due to interests he had in projects relating to this ordinance, he would be recusing ] March 21, 2000 Town Council Meeting Minutes himself from the discussion. Brent Wilson, Town Planner, reviewed the changes made during worksession earlier in the day, stating the changes had been made to the ordinance before the evening meeting. After some discussion, Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #5, Series of 2000, on first reading. Kevin Foley seconded the motion. Sybill Navas raised questions regarding condominium units, stating she felt some of the language was confusing and needed to be clarified. Michael Cacioppo addressed the Council, stating the West Vail Lodge, which is the subject of this ordinance, had been in disrepair for several years, and was assured by Brent Wilson that a walk-through with the Town's building officials had been done to examine the problems found in the past. Diana Donovan and Foley stated they had received calls from Vail citizens stating their approval of this conversion. Sybill Navas stated she would support this ordinance on first reading to move forward with the process but did not feel comfortable with the ordinance as written. Brent Wilson stated he would review the ordinance with Town Attorney Moorhead before second reading. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed 5-0, with Rod Slifer abstaining. Lynn Fritzlen thanked the Council for moving ahead with this ordinance, stating that it had been time consuming and she appreciated working with the staff and council. Bill Jensen then returned to the podium to discuss 4 day vs. 2-day ski passes in Vail. He stated the tickets were being split between resorts and felt the program proved successful over the holidays with people traveling back and forth between ski areas He stated this was a trial marketing effort and Vail Resorts would be taking a look at it again at the end of the ski season. The fourth item on the agenda was the appointment of new Planning and Environmental Commission members. As there were 4 openings for the board and only 3 applicants responded, re-advertising for the positions will be done. Sybill Navas made a motion to re-appoint Galen Aasland, Brian Doyon and Diane Golden to the PEC. Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The Council thanked the applicants for their hard work done previously on the board. The fifth item on the agenda was the discussion with Vail Junior Hockey Club regarding a temporary practice sheet of ice. Glenn Davis, president of Vail Junior Hockey Club, addressed the Council. He introduced Vail hockey coordinators and members of the Vail hockey team. Davis stated that with the continued growth of hockey and other ice related sports, there was a definite need for an additional facility to accommodate the growing need. He stated that the hub site in Lionshead was too distant in the future to serve this need and felt a temporary facility was necessary. Several sites had been looked at, including Booth Creek Park, Donovan Park, and the Lionshead Parking Structure. The most viable site suggestion was the existing ice rink area at the Vail Golf Course. 2 March 21, 2000 Town Council Meeting Minutes Discussion followed regarding growth of hockey and the need for additional ice time and facilities to accommodate the teams as well as the recreational skater. Davis stated that what the Hockey Club was asking for this evening was the Council's approval to assist with identifying a temporary site and to provide guidance in securing the funds and site approval for this need. Discussion was held regarding neighborhood and residents' concerns, as well as the cost to purchase temporary equipment. Davis outlined specifics to the program, including costs of a portable refrigeration system, a tent cover, dressing rooms and a zamboni. Davis stated the life of the portable equipment was approximately 15 years, depending on use. He stated this package could be used by other entities, i.e., Berry Creek 5th. Davis stated the proposal for the tent structure would be approximately 220 by 120 feet wide and would accommodate indoor dressing, equipment, and a spectator area. It would be a temporary structure and would be removed at the end of the season with no harm done to the ground beneath the tent. The approximate cost to purchase the refrigerated unit, the tent, zamboni and boards and glass is $520,000. Council members suggested possibly leasing the equipment as well as soliciting equipment and dollar donations from other users in the area. A suggestion was made by Mayor Kurz to look into the use of the Vail Mountain School as a site possibility. Davis agreed and stated he would check with the authorities there. Davis felt the existing rink at the Vail Golf Course was the best site because of the size and the existing water and electricity there, as well as dressing rooms, a zamboni and parking facilities. He stated the ice mat system would fit on the existing site, which would keep capital outlay costs down. He stated he realized there would be concerns from the neighborhood but felt that with information supplied to them regarding this temporary facility, this concern could be alleviated. Davis then asked that the Town pass a resolution by June 1St 2000 to facilitate the work that needed to be done to have the equipment ordered, delivered and installed for next season. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the benefits to the community and the notices and approvals necessary to move forward with this concept. The consensus of the Council was that the Recreation District seek further input from other entities potentially using the facilities regarding donations of equipment and funds and to continue to work with town staff to refine their proposal and then return to the Council with a formal proposal. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a worksession for 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. Dominic Mauriello, Chief of Planning for the Town of Vail, addressed the Council, stating that the code modifications were the result of PEC recommendations and proposed changes as a result of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes where incentives were created to allow home owners to provide additional employee housing units when updating their properties. Discussion regarding the changes followed. There were concerns from some members of the Council regarding possible "up-zoning" of some homes and the need to change the 3 March 21, 2000 Town Council Meeting Minutes code. Mauriello stated a presentation was made last October to Council and it was decided to wait until the new council was seated to move ahead on the decision. He stated that getting agenda time had also been a problem, as there have been many other items taking precedence over this decision. He stated the Planning and Environmental Commission had recommended approval of these changes. After some discussion, Greg Moffet stated he was ready to see these changes come back as an ordinance on first reading. Kevin Foley agreed. A consensus of the Council agreed to have staff return with an ordinance to be heard on first reading. Tom Moorhead, town attorney, recommended Chris Cares, of RRC be invited to address Council on the issue of employee housing linkage with residential development. Ron Jones, Vail local, thanked the town council for doing something to help employee housing. The seventh item on the agenda was the discussion of the Lionshead Community Facility. Russ Forrest, Community Development Director, addressed the Council, identifying the needs of community facilities, in particular, Donovan Park and the Lionshead hub site. He stated 10 public meetings for Donovan Park and 3 public meetings for the hub site had been held and it was now time to focus on the design phase for the hub site. Discussion followed regarding uses and needs of the hub site. Russ stated the design team of EDAW, Zehren and Associates and HGA would be meeting March 27 for a brainstorming session on what facilities should be included in this site. Elaine Kelton, long time local, addressed the Council stating that whatever is built in Lionshead needs to be something of world-class character that makes a statement about Vail and what a special place it is. She felt the project was moving too fast, and that time needed to be taken to explore exceptional possibilities that would make it different from any other area. Sybill Navas stated she felt that the needs for this area need to be inspired and didn't feel that we were quite there yet. Annie Fox, Town of Vail Librarian, expressed her feelings that the design looked as if everything was going to be built on the charter bus lot and felt it needed to spread around more and made more visible to all user groups. She also read into the record a letter from Greta Assaly, teacher/director of the Children's Theatre School. After much discussion among the Council, it was agreed to move forward with the design planning and with the information provided by the design team at their upcoming meeting next week. The eighth item on the agenda was the Town Managers Report. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer stated she had nothing to add to the report received by Council. Kevin Foley inquired as to how much additional funding would be needed for the Dowd Junction deer crossing. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, stating the town would be screening both sides of the crossing at a nominal cost. As there was no further business, Kevin Foley moved to adjourn. Greg Moffet seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. 4 March 21, 2000 Town Council Meeting Minutes The meeting was'adjourned 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Mary A. Caster 5 March 21, 2000 Town Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT May 2, 2000 Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor White River National Forest PO Box 948 - Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: White River National Forest Plan Revisions Dear Martha: The Town of Vail very much appreciates the opportunity to comment on the forest plan and the willingness of U.S. Forest Service staff to answer the many questions that have been raised by Vail citizens, town staff, and Vail Town Council members. At this time, the Vail Town Council would like to transmit the following comments on the-proposed revisions to the White River National Forest Plan. Our comments are not specific to any individual plan alternative, but represent the various concerns expressed by Vail citizens Ott at numerous public meetings during our review of the proposed plan revisions. - c Aerial Transportation Corridors - The Town of Vail opposes any potential aerial transportation corridors between the Vail ski area and the Town of Minturn or the Gilman property. Vail citizens have contributed substantial funding and infrastructure y towards the operation of the Vail ski area and we believe the creation of an additional CSCC "ski portal' could be severely detrimental to the Town of Vail. Qc' s Water Qualitv / Water Riahts - The Town of Vail urges the U.S. Forest Service to stu y closely the impacts of land and travel management actions on water quality and qua tity in the areas within (and adjacent to) the White River National Forest. Although we \ understand the notion of maintaining minimum in-stream flows for riparian area healt we believe the U.S. Forest Service must recognize legally established water rights and the authority of other state, local and regional agencies within Colorado. Therefore, we support the North West Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality and Quantity Committee position statement on this issue. Road and Trail Access - Forest and travel management plan alternatives should be modified to permit mountain bikes to use the same trails as hikers and equestrian trail users. However, mountain bikes should remain excluded from wilderness areas and 1 r, ,.O DRAFT should not be allowed off-trail. The Town of Vail believes the closure of the following trails to mechanized vehicles under various plan alternatives should be reconsidered due to user demand 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 711W.4 (Minturn to Game Peak), FDR CY719.2E (Eiseman Hut Spur), and FDR 751.1B (Fowler-Hilliard Hut). ~4 Sinaletrack Hikina and Bikina Trails on Vail Mountain - The Forest Plan's inventory of travel routes does not include the singletrack trail system on Vail Mountain. The Town of Vail believes written- clarification of the status of these trails under each plan f alternative is necessary. This should include information on the potential for trail system expansion and special event usage (races, demonstrations, etc.). 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. Compliance with Local Government Plans and the "Intermix" Manaaement Prescription - ~w The Town of Vail urges the U.S. Forest Service to consider the impacts of forest management decisions on adjacent municipalities and counties. Intergovernmental cooperation is critical in managing an area=as large as the White River National Forest and input from other agencies should be given due consideration during planning processes. Regional coordination of management activities within the national forest that impact adjacent towns or counties (timber hauling, for example) should be a key priority. The Town of Vail supports the North West Colorado Council of Governments position statement on this issue. East Vail's "Forest Carnivore" Manaaement Prescription - The Town of Vail is concerned with how a change in management prescription from "Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized" to "Forest Carnivore" under Alternative "D" could impact areas of East Vail. We are not necessarily opposed to this new designation, but believe management direction for this prescription is very ambiguous and that future direction should be clarified prior to plan implementation. The Town would like verification on how the new prescription would impact activities (recreation, prescribed burns, etc.) within affected areas. Recreational use of this area (Commando Run, Two Elk Trail, Bowman's Shortcut) has a significant impact on Vail's winter and summer tourism industry via mountain biking, hiking, ice climbing and backcountry skiing opportunities. Timber Activities - The Town of Vail urges the forest service to consider the impacts of timber activities on recreation and general user experiences within the forest. Timber 71 activities should be restricted to areas previously managed for logging. Timber activities should be permitted in a manner that is compatible with habitat and recreation N management objectives with no new logging roads constructed in the--are auc,1,l lu (J Gh G L ~ lU l ti~w DRAFT, Ski Area Expansions - Staff would like to discuss this issue in detail on May 2"d with the Vail Town Council. Permit Fee Collection and Revenue Distribution - The Town of Vail encourages the U.S. Forest Service to consider the redistribution of at lent NOO f 11 rev es f~ wou collected within White River National Forest back to the irn ;~~dr~a.d also encourage Congress to appropriate enough funding for the White River National Forest to manage the forest effectively. UCIJ PCIISS Ce~nS.~ fib Accessibilitv - The Town of Vail requests that the U.S. Forest Service provide adequate facilities to physically disabled persons wherever fiscally and environmentally feasible. G~ Scenic Bvwavs - The Town of Vail supports a designation of the "Top of the Rockies" `h as a (4.23) scenic byway. Recommended Wilderness - The Town of Vail supports a designation of the "Dome Peak" _and "No Name" areas as (1.2) Recommended Wilderness. _cs Special Interest Areas. Minimal Use and Intrpretation - he Town o Vail supports a designation of Camp Hale and Holy Cross City as (3.1) Special Interest Areas, Minimal p~ Use and Interpretation. C-0 c~c1Y5 < Pte" ~~Cc, CrJrs~~Grazinq Allotments - The Town of Vail recommends the U.S. Forest Service maintain all current and vacant grazing allotments open for use by the ranching community. Vail North of 1-70 - Under alternatives "C" and "D", management of forest lands north \~c Vail (from West Vail east to the Gore Range) would change from "Dispersed odd' Recreation" to "Deer and Elk Winter Range" or "Bighorn Sheep Habitat." The Town of Vail urges the U.S. Forest Service to consider management objectives that bal~n C both biological and recreational needs in these areas. We would a-the opportunity to review and comment on any site-specific management plans or activities for these areas. Game Creek/Couaar Ridge Area - a change in management direction from "Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized" to "Deer and Elk Winter Range" could impact G~ certain uses or activities either seasonally or year-round in this area. The Town of Vail supports the use of seasonal closures as management strategy due to the presence cl of ek4aWing erg... Ct s ~x C DRAFT The Town of Vail would like to acknowledge the U.S. Forest Service Holy Cross District personnel for their exceptional level of assistance and continued cooperation in our evaluation of forest plan alternatives. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns on this issue. Sincerely, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Town of Vail, Colorado 4 REVISED DRAFT B ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12-10 AND SECTION 12-2-2, VAIL TOWN CODE; WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN VAIL'S COMMERCIAL CORE AREAS AND VARIANCE PROCEDURES FOR OFF-,STREET PARKING AND LOADING; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council recognizes a need to re-evaluate parking generated by commercial properties within Vail's commercial core areas in an effort to provide accurate and practical off-street parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council, the.-Town,. of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Town of Vail staff have worked with :consulting experts at public hearings in order to examine the issue of parking in Vail's commercial core areas; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that these amendments will provide additional incentives to the private sector for the redevelopment of properties within Vail's commercial core areas and further the development objectives of the town; and WHEREAS, the Vail 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: P SECTION 1. Section 12-2-2 (Definitions) is hereby amended as follows: (Added text is shown in bold and underlined type; deleted text is shown in sWGken type) \ 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS: ~CQ, r FLOOR AREA. GROSS (Used Only for Parkina Calculations): The total floor area within the enclosina walls of a structure not to include the followina: A. Hallwavs that are common to more than one tenant or business. B. Lobbies that are common to more than one tenant or business . C. Restroooms that are common'to more than one tenant or business. D. Areas desianed and used for narkina. V 9L991,1PE."11, NET /-r~c~cc'~nly-€er 6ats~:lating Parking Req iFem~^ts): Ths-tetaf=flew c:-e& within th 311C sf a E;r the fellowing; A -Afees cpasi43aIIl C. Elms o 9-.Gen-m9n hallways. cbb;9s l 14 G. Areas 2186;gRed and:cad-feF g- 7 H. AF'23~_' des+geed and Ec 'sh d3-Rat rave-d+feet-asGECE `.3 u i d+v+duwl af#}se (--I Gr4ct3il ctgFe, "n+ tG a XGee l five peFGent 110/ \ 3r crv J 1 a, 3a f re3G-F Fetail. Gamr ian a-saE a~ ch all tsrar.ts-iR the ribute tee;.vard the upkeep and m~ci. d Ore-Rat uc9d-feF srnplayee war king araa& C~_ REVISED DRAFT B SECTION 2. Section 12-10-10 (Parking Requirements Schedule) is hereby amended to read as follows: 12-10-10: PARKING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE: Off-street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule: A. Schedule A (below) applies to properties within Vail's "Commercial Core Areas" (as defined on the Town of Vail Core Area Parkina Maps I & II, incorporated by reference). Use Parkina Reauirement Dwellina Unit 1.4 spaces per dwellina unit Accommodation Unit 0.7 spaces per accommodation unit Hotels with Convention Facilities 0.7 spaces per accommodation unit,. plus 1.0 space per 165 sauare feet of seatina floor area Banks and Financial Institutions* 3.7 spaces per 1,000 aross square feet Eatinq and Drinkinq Establishments* 1.0 space per 250 square feet of seatina floor area: minimum of 2 spaces Medical and Dental Offices* 2.7 spaces per 1.000 aross sauare feet Other Professional and Business Offices* 2:7 spaces per 1.000 aross sauare feet Recreational Facilities. Public or Private Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Planninq and Environmental Commission Retail Stores. Personal Services and Repair* Shops 2.3 spaces per 1.000 qross square feet Theaters. Meetina Rooms. Convention Facilities 1.0 space per 165"sauare feet of seatina floor area Anv Use Not Listed Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Plannina and Environmental Commission *Properties zoned Commercial Core I (CCI). Commercial Core II (CCII) and Lionshead Mixed Use I (LHMU-1) shall not be reauired to provide Parkina for these uses. For the purposes of calculatina Parkina reauirements, timeshare units. fractional fee units, and other forms of interval ownership units are considered as "accommodation units." B. Schedule "B" (below) applies to all properties outside Vail's "Commercial Core Areas" (as defined on the Town of Vail Core Area Parkina Maps I & II. incorporated by reference): -2- .JJ REVISED DRAFT B Use Parkina Reauirement IDwellina Unit If Gross residential floor area is 500 square feet 1.5 spaces Per unit or less: ~If Gross residential floor area is over 500 sauare 2 spaces Per dwellina unit: feet uP to 2,000 square feet: If aross residential floor area is 2.000 square 2.5 spaces Per dwellina unit Ifeet or more per dwellina unit: Accommodation Unit 0.4 space Per accommodation unit. Plus r 0.1 space Per each 100 sauare feet of Gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space Per unit (Banks and Financial Institutions 1 space Per 200 aross sauare feet Eatina and Drinkina Establishments I 1 space Per 120 square feet of seating floor area Hospitals 1 space Per Patient bed. Plus 1 space Per 150 sauare feet of aross floor area Medical and Dental Offices 1 space per 200 aross sauare feet 10ther Professional and Business Offices 1 space Per 250 aross sauare feet Quick-Service Food / Convenience Stores 1.0 space per each 200 sauare feet of aross floor area for the first 1.000 sauare feet of aross floor area: 1.0 space Per 300 sauare feet for aross floor area above 1,000 sauare feet Recreational Facilities. Public or Private Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Plannina and Environmental Commission Retail Stores, Personal Services and Repair 1 space per 300 aross sauare feet IShoDs (Theaters, Meetina Rooms. Convention Facilities 1 space per 120 sauare feet "of seating floor area Anv Use Not Listed Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Plannina and Environmental Commission . For the purposes of calculatina Parkina requirements. timeshare units. fractional fee units, and other forms of interval ownership units are considered "accommodation units." SECTION 3. Section 12-10-18 (Variances) is hereby amended to read as follows: 12-10-18: VARIANCES: AR paFkiRg--varia:ase which is granted -by Ghapte 1'-sf th,c T4c chall iRtethe Tewn's Par!4Rg 1`6:44d, ac c9t feFth ir. Saltier: 12 9 16 cf `.h! 4-4). Variances from the provisions of this chanter shall follow the procedures set forth in Title 12, Chapter 17 of this Code. SECTION 4. Section 12-10-19 (Core Areas Identified) is added to read as follows: 12-10-19: CORE AREAS IDENTIFIED: Tables 1 and 2 (Core Area Parkina Maas I & II. respectively) shall used to identifv properties within Vail's commercial core areas for parkins purposes. SECTION 5. Section 12-10-20 (Special Review Provisions) is added to read as follows: -3- REVISED DRAFT B 12-10-20: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS: The Plannina and Environmental Commission may approve a reduction to the number of reauired spaces specified in Section 12-10-10. provided a report documentina the presence of uniaue parkina characteristics is provided by a aualified consultant and the followina findinas are made by the Plannina .and Environmental Commission: A. The parkina demand will be less than the reauirements identified in Section 12-10-10: and B. The probable Iona-term occupancv of the buildina or structure, based on its desian. will not aenerate additional parkina demand: or r C. The use or activity is part of a permanent proaram intended to reduce vehicle trips: or D. Proximitv or availability of alternative transportation modes is sianificant and intearal to the nature of the development or business. In reachina a decision, the Plannina and Environmental Commission shall consider survev data submitted by a aualified consultant. The maximum allowable reduction in the number of reauired spaces shall not exceed 25 percent of the number reauired under Section 12-10-10 of this Chaoter. SECTION 6.._ 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 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 -4- P, REVISED DRAFT B 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 2ND day of May, 2000 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16'h day of May, 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 16th day of May, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk -5- REVISED DRAFT A ORDINANCE NO.9 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12-10 AND SECTION 12-2-2, VAIL TOWN CODE; WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN VAIL'S COMMERCIAL CORE AREAS AND VARIANCE PROCEDURES FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council recognizes a need to re-evaluate parking generated by commercial properties within Vail's commercial core areas in an effort to provide accurate and practical off-street parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Town of Vail staff have worked with consulting experts at public hearings in order to examine the issue of parking in Vail's commercial core areas; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that these amendments will provide additional incentives to the private sector for the redevelopment of properties within Vail's commercial core areas and further the development objectives of the town; and WHEREAS, the Vail 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. Section 12-2-2 (Definitions) is hereby amended as follows: (Added text is shown in bold and underlined type; deleted text is shown in SwGkee.type) 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS: FLOOR AREA. GROSS (Used Only for Parkina Calculations): The total floor area within the enclosina walls of a structure not to include the followina: A. Hallways that are common to more than one tenant or business. B. Lobbies that are common to more than one tenant or business . C. Restroooms that are common to more than one tenant or business. D. Areas desianed and used for r)arkina. FLOOR RE,,'\ NET orl:' ea,# T! e-total flees ar-aa- Withill the eRG196iR9 wall f a Et~ i pM awe-epeFate-t#s "6:+ld i R g . G. €IevateTs B-Ccmrnzm r,a! s. Ge,^,;:iaa-iebbies- G ^Feas de igRed and sed-fer p: Wig- H. Areas deli, Red Rd ..".cad a6 sterage WhiGh de RCt hCve d+Fest asc7Lcc t er4ctail (544) Gf the total PFE)POGGGI Re 3r u; as fey effiss w; .d- R9t to eXGeed--eight, p ° er a~ea feF Fetail. Gammon =2s ars-spases fE)Fich all ' the upkaaep. ar,d r;Ui, g areas. -1- REVISED DRAFT A SECTION 2. Section "12-10-10 (Parking Requirements Schedule) is hereby amended to read as follows: 12-10-10: PARKING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE:' Off-street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule: A. Schedule A (below) aDDlies to properties within Vail's "Commercial Core Areas" (as defined on the Town of Vail Core Area Parkina Maas I & II, incorporated by reference). Use Parkina Reauirement Dwellina Unit 1.4 spaces Der dwellina unit Accommodation Unit 0.7 spaces Der accommodation unit Hotels with Convention Facilities 0.7 spaces Der accommodation unit, plus 1.0 space Der 165 square feet of seatina floor area Banks and Financial Institutions 3.7 spaces Der 1.000 aross sauare feet Eatina and Drinkina Establishments 1.0 space Der 250 sauare feet of seatina floor area: minimum of 2 spaces Medical and Dental Offices 2.7 spaces Der 1.000 aross sauare feet Other Professional and Business Offices 2.7 spaces Der 1.000 aross sauare feet Recreational Facilities. Public or Private Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Plannina and Environmental Commission Retail Stores. Personal Services and Repair Shops 2.3 spaces Der 1.000 aross sauare feet Theaters. Meetina Rooms. Convention Facilities 1.0 space Der 165 sauare feet of seatina floor area Anv Use Not Listed Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Plannina and Environmental Commission For the purposes of calculatina Darkina reauirements. timeshare units, fractional fee units, and other forms of interval ownershio'units are considered as "accommodation units." B. Schedule "B" (below) applies to all DroDerties outside Vail's "Commercial Core Areas" (as defined on the Town of Vail Core Area Parkina MaDs I & II. incorporated by reference): -2- 9 REVISED DRAFT A Use Parkina Reauirement 113wellina Unit If aross residential floor area is 500 square feet 1.5 spaces per unit or less: If aross residential floor area is over 500 square 2 spaces per dwellina unit: feet up to 2,000 square feet: r If aross residential floor area is 2,000 sauare 2.5 spaces per dwellina unit feet or more per dwellina unit: Accommodation Unit. 0.4 space per accommodation unit. plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of aross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit Banks and Financial Institutions I 1 space per 200 aross sauare feet Eating and Drinkina Establishments I 1 space per 120 square feet of seatinq floor area Hospitals 1 space per patient bed, plus 1 space per 150 sauare feet of aross floor area Medical and Dental Offices 1 space per 200 aross sauare feet 10ther Professional and Business Offices 1 1 space per 250 aross sauare feet Quick-Service Food / Convenience Stores 1.0 space per each 200 sauare feet of aross floor area for the first 1.000 sauare feet of aross floor area: 1.0 space per 300 sauare feet for aross floor area above 1,000 square feet Recreational Facilities, Public or Private Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Plannina and Environmental Commission Retail Stores, Personal Services and Repair 1 space per 300 aross sauare feet Shops (Theaters, Meetina Rooms, Convention Facilities 1 space per 120 sauare feet of seatina floor area Anv Use Not Listed Parkina reauirements to be determined by the Plannina and Environmental Commission For the purposes of calculatina parkina requirements, timeshare units, fractional fee units, and other forms of interval ownership units are considered "accommodation units." SECTION 3. Section 12-10-18 (Variances) is hereby amended to read as follows: 12-10-18: VARIANCES: Any-parl:ir.q--varia. cr 1 ef4hic Titlo shall be FegUiFed tG G-_Mtri!4~ +ets the T 'c Par!44g Fund, as setTsrth in Sssticr. 12 19-1 of this -Chapt 44-). Variances from the provisions of this chapter shall follow the procedures set forth in Title 12, Chapter 17 of this Code. SECTION 4. Section 12-10-19 (Core Areas Identified) is added to read as follows: 12-10-19: CORE AREAS IDENTIFIED: Tables 1 and 2 (Core Area Parkina Maps F& Il. respectively) shall used to identify properties within Vail's commercial core areas for parkina purposes. SECTION 5. Section 12-10-20 (Special Review Provisions) is added to read as follows: -3- REVISED DRAFT A 12-10-20: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS: The Plannina and Environmental Commission may approve a reduction to the number of reauired spaces specified in Section 12-10-10, provided a report documentina the presence of uniaue Darkina characteristics is provided by a aualified consultant and the followina findinas are made by the Planninq and Environmental Commission: A. The Darkina demand will be less than the reauirements identified in Section 12-10-10: and B. The Drobable Iona-term occuoancv of the buildina or structure, based on its design, will not aenerate additional Darkina demand: or C. The use or activitv is Dart of a Dermanent Droaram intended to reduce vehicle trips: or D. Proximitv or availabilitv of alternative transportation modes is sianificant and intearal to the nature of the development or business. In reachina a decision. the Plannina and Environmental Commission shall consider survev data submitted by a aualified consultant. The maximum allowable reduction in the number of reauired spaces shall not exceed 25 Dercent of the number reauired under Section 12-10-10 of this Chapter. SECTION 6. 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 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 -4- REVISED DRAFT A 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 2ND day of May, 2000 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16th day of May, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: t Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 16th day of May, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk -5- ORDINANCE NOA SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 2000 AND TO ENACT ORDINANCE NO. 4, SERIES OF 2000, ADOPTING A REVISED 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. WHEREAS, In 1976, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn; and WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations permits major amendments to previously Approved Development Plans for Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, Waldir Prado, dba Daymer Corporation, as owner of the Phase IV property, has submitted an application for a revised major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to repeal Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 and to enact Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, to adopt a revised Approved Development Plan for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District, Phase IV to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and WHEREAS, the revised major amendment to the Special Development District, including the provision of deed-restricted housing for 38 employees and the resulting 2 feet of additional building height, is in the best interest of the town as it meets the Town's development objectives as identified in the oTown of Vail Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning Regulations, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed criteria for a major amendment and has submitted its recommendation of approval and findings to the Vail Town Council; 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 adopt the revised Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel; and 1 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 Whereas, the approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel and the development standards in regard thereto shall not establish precedence or entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Puroose of the Ordinance The purpose of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, is,to adopt a revised Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. The Approved Development Plans for Phases I, III & V remain approved and unchanged for the development of Special Development District No. 6 within the Town of Vail, unless they have otherwise expired. Only the Approved Development Plan for Phase IV, the Vail Plaza Hotel is hereby amended and adopted. Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. Plannina Commission Report The approval procedures described in Section 12-9A of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of the Planning & Environmental Commission for a - major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. Requests for amendments to the Approved Development Plan shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 1`2-9A of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 3. Special Development District No. 6 The Special Development District and the major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Phase IV are established to assure comprehensive development and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 6 is regarded as being complementary to the Town of Vail by the Vail Town Council and the Planning & Environmental Commission, and has been established since there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodation zone district requirements. Section 4. Development Standards - Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel Development Plan-- The Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, 2 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 Vail Plaza Hotel shall include the following plans and materials prepared by Zehren and Associates. Inc., dated April 4, 2000 and-stamped approved by the Town of Vail, dated April 18, 2000: (as may be further revised by the Town of Vail Design Review Board) A. Site Illustrative Plan B. Site Vignettes Key Plan (noted "for illustration purposes only') C. Site Vignettes D. Site Plan (revised) E. Level Minus Two F. Level Minus One G. Level Zero H. Level One 1. Level One & 1 /2 J. Level Two K. Level Three L. Level Four M. Level Five N. Level Six 0. Roof Plan P. Roof Plan (Mechanical Equipment) Q. Street Sections (Vail Road Elevation/North Frontage Road Elevation) R. Plaza Sections (South Plaza Elevation/East Plaza Elevation) S. Building A Elevations T. Building A Sections U. Building B Elevations V. Building B Sections W. Building Height Plan 1 (Absolute Heights/Interpolated Contours) X. Building Height Plan 2 (Maximum Height Above Grade/Interpolated Contours) Y. Pool Study (Pool Sections) Z. Vail Road Setback Study AA. Loading and Delivery plan BB. Street Entry Studies (Vail Road/South Frontage Road) 3 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 CC, Sun Study DD. Landscape Improvements Plan EE. Off-site Improvements Plan Permitted Uses-- The permitted uses in Phase IV of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in Section 12-7 of the Vail Town Code. Conditional Uses— Conditional uses for Phase IV shall be set forth in Section 12-7A-3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. All conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12-16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Density-- Units per Acre - Dwelling Units, Accommodation Units, & Fractional Fee Club Units The number of units permitted in Phase IV shall not exceed the following: Dwelling Units - 1 Accommodation Units - 99 Fractional Fee Club Units - 50 Type III Employee Housing Units - 18 (38 employee beds totaling 9,618 square feet of GRFA) Density-- Floor Area The gross residential floor area (GRFA), common area and commercial square footage permitted for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Setbacks-- Required setbacks for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. The front setback along Vail Road shall be a minimum of 16'. Height— .The maximum building height for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. For the purposes of SDD No. 6, Phase IV, calculations of height, height shall mean the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard roof, or to the highest ridge line of sloping roof unless otherwise specified in Approved Development Plans. Site Coverage-- 4 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 The maximum allowable site coverage for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Landscaping— The minimum landscape area requirement for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Parking and Loading-- The required number of off-street parking spaces and loading/delivery berths for Phase IV shall be provided as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. In no instance shall Vail Road or the South Frontage Road be used for loading/delivery or guest drop-off/pick-up without the prior written approval of the Town of Vail. The required parking spaces shall not be individually sold, transferred, leased, conveyed; rented or restricted to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area. are required to be provided by the Zoning Regulations or ordinances of the Town. The foregoing language shall not prohibit the temporary use of the parking spaces for events or uses outside of the building, subject to the approval of the Town of Vail. Section 5. Approval Aqreements for Special Development District No. 6. Phase IV. Vail Plaza Hotel 1. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, Vail Road landscape median improvements, etc.) as identified on the off-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 2. That the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit. 3. The SDD approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12-9A-12 shall apply to Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000. In addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 4. That the Developer submits the following plans,to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: 5 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan.' 5. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of 18, Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12- 16, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 7. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 8. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to the design concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12/13/99. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 9. That the developer records a public pedestrian easement between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums and between the Phase V Building property lines. The easement shall be prepared by the developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 10. That the Developer record a deed-restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. The restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall-section and complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 6 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 12. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 13. That the Developer submits a roof-top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 14. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the' 125% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 16. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance or a design that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer coordinate efforts with the owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1-9-. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 19. That the Developer, in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department design and construct a left-turn lane on Vail Road and reconfigure the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left-turns from the loading/delivery. The construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 7 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 1 20. That the Developer provides a centralized loading/delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No. 6.- Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loading/delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and/or private loading/delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loading/delivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading/delivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and/or others for the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. 21. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacent properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 22. That the Developer executes a Developer Improvement Agreement to cover the completion of the required off-site improvements, prior to the issuance of a building permit., 23. That the Developer record Type III deed-restrictions of each of the required employee housing units, with the'Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 24. That the required Type III deed-restricted employee housing units not be eligible for resale and that the units be owned and operated by the hotel and that said ownership transfer with the deed to the property. Section 6. 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 7. 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 8 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 c 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 repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 8. 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 185t 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 18st day of April, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 9 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager RE: Town Managers Report DT: May 2, 2000 FY 2001/2002 Budget We are finalizing the schedule for preparation, review and approval of the fiscal year 2001/2002 Budget. The schedule as currently drafted proposes several discussions in May to identify strategic issues and establish a policy direction for the preparation of this document. The schedule leaves June open for the Council to consider other issues (i.e., Hub Site, Donovan Park etc.). We will be discussing the proposed schedule with you on May 91n USFS Letter Attached to this memo is a letter from Lyle Laverty, the Regional Forester for the White River National Forest to Senator Wayne Allered. The letter speaks to several issues regarding the White River National Forest and the current planning effort. Bill Wood asked that I pass this letter on to you as he felt it would be of some assistance in your deliberations regarding the White River National Forest Plan. If you have specific questions regarding the letter please feel to give Bill a call at 827-5150. Lunch with the District 1 Commissioner Tuesday, May 9, I will be having lunch with District 1 County Commissioner, Michael Gallegher. If you are interested in joining us, please let me know and I make the necessary arrangements for lunch reservations. The purpose of this meeting is to have a general conversation about issues of mutual concern. Please let me know if you can join us. Lunch will be at noon on May 9th at a location to be determined. Arosa A-Frame/Arosa Garmisch Housine Proiects As we move forward to complete the Arosa Garmisch and A-frame housing projects we need to formally name them. We are proposing that the Arosa Garmisch project be called North Trail Town Homes. The Arosa A-frame project will be known as the Trail Head Duplex. If there are not objection, these names will be put on the official plates. Vail Chanel Encroachment Attached to this memo is a site plan showing a proposed encroachment at the Vail Chapel. As you may recall, there is currently an encroachment of the existing original building. The current proposal involves the encroachment of approximately 2-feet for two parking spaces. This would allow the circle drop-off to function more effectively, therefore eliminating congestion on Vail Road. It is my recommendation that you authorize this encroachment. If you agree we will bring the necessary documentation to effect this encroachment. In-Town Shuttle Studv Attached to this memo is a document from MK Centennial who is conducting the study for replacement of the in-town shuttle. The document proposes objectives and criteria for the study. This document is for your information, if you have comments or suggestions regarding these objectives and criteria please let me know. Un Comine Meetines 05/09/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Donovan Park Project Employee Anniversary Admin/HR/Com. Rel. Orientation Community Collaboration Council Call up and site visit of Katsos Bike Path Appeal of Illig Resolution. DRB Approval 05/16/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Affordable Housing Opportunities Decision Re: 6-7% Salary Budget & New Revenues Capital/General Funds Split/General Obligation Mill Levy. Annexation of I-70, Ordinance No. Series 2000 VVTCB Update on Lodging PEC Interviews 05/16/00 TC - 7:00 P.M. Resolution re: 2nd Sheet of Ice I" Reading of Model Traffic Code Annexation of I-70, Ordinance No. Series 2000 PEC Interviews 05/23/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Economic Viability or if not needed: Community Collaboration /Leadership Council Direction on Revenue Forecast/Budget Consideration of Resource Center Funding Request. Possible Joint Worksession with VRD at 9:00 A.M. 06/06/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Anniversary for Pam Brandmeyer, Stef Erikson, Susan Ervert Bike and Skate Board Dismount Zones Non-Profit Group Request Funding Criteria Internal (Creekside, Mortgage Assistant) Housing Water Quality (USGS) 06/06/00 TC - 7:00 P.M. Nothing is scheduled at this time. 06/013/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Stream Flow Enhancements Local Marketing District Board of Directors (special management discussion of summer marketing program) Discuss latest changes with the J1 program with VVE board of Directors. 00-24-2000 01:31PM FROM-0 CENTENNIAL 303 948 4785 +3039484785 T-362 P-002/005 F-233 M K CENTENNIAL TEL' 303-948-4001 I 10822 W. TOLLER DRIVE FAX: 303-948-4010 CENTHNNIAL ENGINEERING, INC. LITTLETON, COLORADO 80127 www.mkeentennial.com MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Hall FROM: Craig Gaskiil DATE: 4/24/00 RE: Town of Vail Evaluation of Mass Transit Alternatives for In-Town Shuttle Bus Route MX Centennial Job No. 2284.01 INTRODUCTION As a follow-up to our meeting held April 19'h this memorandum provides a draft list of goals, objectives and criteria for the above mentioned project. Please provide this proposed list to the appropriate people for their review and comments. All review comments would be appreciated by May 5. These evaluation criteria will be used to develop the base list of alternatives identified in Task 2 of the scope of services for this project and to screen and evaluate these alternatives in subsequent tasks. This memorandum also provides a summary of the information gathered at the meeting, This information will be used to generate a set of baseline assumptions such as projected ridership, route or route options, headways or headway options, level of service, hours of operation, and seasonal characteristics. OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA (DRAFT) The objectives of the project are based upon the overall goal of the project. This goal of this project is stated as "to determine the best options, from the full range of possibilities, for providing mass transit for the Town of Vail In-Town shuttle bus route". The following objectives and criteria have been developed from the meeting held 4/19/00, other related studies, and previous conversations with Town of Vail staff. These are not listed in any order of priority. A MORRISON KNUDSEN COMPANY 04=24-2000 01:31PM FROM-MK CENTENNIAL 303 948 4785 +3039484785 T-362 P-003/005 F-233 Town of Vail Evaluation of Mass Transit Alternatives for In-Town Shuttle 424100 Proiect Obiective: Affordabilitv and Economic Viability Develop a system that is financially realistic in construction, operation, and maintenance cost with respect to current and expected funding levels and programs. Criterion 1). Total capital cost -1999 or 2000 dollars Criterion 2). Annual operations and maintenance cost - 1999 or 2000 dollars Criterion 3). Total number of employees needed - For operations, maintenance, and management Proiect Objective: Community Based Svstem Provide a system that fits the character of the Town of Vail and is responsive to local community- based planning efforts. Criterion 1). Compare the acceptability, size, and scale of each system - This includes if the system must be an overhead system, at-grade, or underground and general dimensions. Acceptability is qualitative. Criterion 2). Compare how each system fits with the specific goals and priorities laid out in the town of Vail Transportation Master Plan - Chapter I'V' recommendations Proiect Objective: Environmentallv Sound Develop a system that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates adverse environmental, social, or economic impacts. Criterion 1). Number of relocations - The number of residential, commercial, and other potential relocations. Criterion 2). Noise levels - Noise emission rates in dB from different technology options Criterion 3). Air Quality - Air quality emission rates for different technology options Criterion 4). Right-of-Way - Amount required Proiect Obiective: Flexibility Provide a system that is flexible in operation and in future transportation options and upgrades. Criterion 1). Accessibility - how well it accommodates bikes, skis, wheel chairs (ADA), etc. Criterion 2). Accommodations of future technologies - qualitative Criterion 3). System breakdown response - how well each option responds to breakdowns of vehicles or the travel way. Criterion 4). System reliability - relative likelihood of on time service and vehicle breakdowns Criterion 5). Dependability in adverse weather - qualitative Criterion 6). System size - ability to change size of system to accommodate changes in demand Criterion 7). Maintenance Location - location and timing of maintenance activities and ability for maintenance to be on-line Page 2 of 4 04=24-2000 01:31PM FROM-101K CENTENNIAL 303 948 4785 +3039484785 T-362 P.004/005 F-233 Town of Vail Evaluation of Mass Transit Alternatives for 1'n-Town Shuttle 4124100 Proiect Obiective: Visitor Use Provide a system that enhances the visitor experience. Criterion 1). Number of major development areas served by system Criterion 2). Headways - during peak periods and during off-peak periods Criterion 3). Travel time - measured in average speed of system Criterion 4). Attractiveness - qualitative assessment Criterion 5). Accessibility - number of stops per mile of system Criterion 6). Congestion - ability to accommodate future passenger demand measured in terms of capacity verses demand Proiect Obiective: Safetv Provide a safe transportation system. Criterion 1). Roadway conflict - number of roadways crossed, number of intersections affected, and length of roadway used. Criterion 2). Pedestrian conflict - length of pedestrian areas affected Criterion 3). Accident rates - as available for different technologies BASELINE INFORMATION The following information was collected at the 4/19/00 meeting. 1. Biggest day is New Year's Eve with 49,000 boardings system wide and 18,000 on the in-town shuttle. 2. Vail has 10 low floor buses 40' long with 3 doors 3. During the biggest day, all 10 low floor buses and 2 regular buses operate to accommodate the 18,000 on the in-town shuttle 4. Winter pm usually runs at 4 vehicles with 6 vehicles during peak periods 5. Summer usually runs at 3 vehicles 6. 8 of the low floor buses are older with replacement scheduled for 2008. The otber 2 are new. 7. Current cost of low floor bus is $305,000. Conventional bus cost is $295,000 8. Current contract O&M costs are $0.82 per mile ranging from $1.00 per mile for old to $0.75 per mile for new. This does not include the cost of replacement (ABC maintenance) 9. In-town shuttle is 3.0 mile round trip 10. Current hourly costs for bus system is $45 to $46. This includes outlying routes at $38/hour 11. In-town shuttle buses complete 2 loops per hour during peak periods and 3 loops during off- peak periods 12. 2/3 of drivers are seasonal which cost $12 to $14 per hour plus a $2.20/hour seasonal bonus 13. 1/3 of drivers are full time at an average cost of $28,000 per year plus 28% benefits 14. Overall average cost of drivers is $20 per hour. 15. Low floor vehicles can accommodate 100 people with skis or 120 people without skies (summer) 16. Current two way capacity is --4,000 per hour Page 3 of 4 ,04=24-2000 01:31PM FROM-MK CENTENNIAL 303 948 4785 +3039484785 T-362 P-005/005 F-233 Town of Vail Evaluarion of Mass TransirAlrematives for In-Town Shuttle 4/24/00 17. Typical headways during winter are 12 minutes Gam to Sam; 5 to 7 minutes 8am to loam; 7 to 10 minutes 10am to 2pm; and 10-12 minutes after 2pm 18. In-town shuttle is free and is expected to stay free 19_ Current demand can be 400 to 500 loadings in 10 minutes at each end of system 20. A table of seasonal loadings by routes showing yearly boardings on in-town shuttle of 1.666 million. This has been as high as 2 million in the past (during better snow years) Page 4 of 4 United States Forest Rocky P.O. Box 25127 untain Lakewood, CO 80227 Department of Service AD Mo Agriculture Region Delivery: 740 Simms St. Golden, CO 80401 Voice: (303) 275-5350 TDD: (303) 275-5367 File Code: 1920 Date: March 24, 2000 Honorable Wayne Allard United States Senate SH-513 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510-0606 Dear Senator Allard: Thank you for your February 25 h letter. I appreciate your continuing interest in our nation's National Forests. Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to make a couple of clarifications. First, the proposed revised White River Land and Resource Management Plan ( Draft Plan) is similar to both the original Plans in Colorado, and to other revised Plans regarding the issues of instream and bypass flows and how Plans interpret our legal responsibilities in this area. As such, the White River National Forest is neither setting new policy, nor proposing direction substantially different from the other national forests and grasslands. Second, your February letter references a Forest Service decision to impose by-pass flows as a condition for receiving a permit. I would like to be very clear on the following point. The White River Draft Plan has not made, and cannot make, any such decision. It is important to understand that the Draft and eventual Final Plan is a programmatic document which does not authorize site-specific action. During permit issuance or reissuance, actual by-pass flows, to the extent they are ever deemed necessary, will be addressed and analyzed in site-specific analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act requirements. This point is applicable to all the following responses. In response to your specific questions: 1) 'The draft White River National Forest elan commits to cooperative relationship with neighboring, governmental entities with respect to future management of the forest. How then can the USFS ;ustifv inclusion in the elan of goals and objectives which hermit bvpass flow conditions on a water-related special use permits in abrogation of Colorado's substantive and procedural water law?" Response: As stated in the Draft Plan, the White River National Forest is, and will remain, committed to cooperative relationships with neighboring governments regarding National Forest management. We will continue our interaction and ongoing dialogue with the state concerning instream flows and how to best meet the needs of both water users and the environment. However, our commitment to cooperative relationships with neighboring governments does not mean that the White River, or other National Forests, can abdicate their federal responsibilities. As the United States Supreme Court has articulated, the issues which arise in the context of water-related special use permits on National Forest System lands are controversies not over water rights but rather over rights-of-way through lands of the United States (Utah Power and Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 791 (1916)). In fact, the ability of the federal government to control the occupancy and use of federal lands, to protect these lands from injury, and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights on these lands, is consistent with state water laws and laws governing access across the lands owned by another. Under Colorado water law, the. ability to access the water right is not part of the water right but must be obtained under other laws (Yunker v. Nichols, 1 Colo. 551 (1872), see Snyder v. Colorado Gold Dredging Company, 181 F. 62, 69 (8th Cir. Colo. 1910)). When the holder of a state water right wants to obtain the right of access on National Forest System lands, it is federal property law that controls how this access can be provided. A vested water right is still subject to reasonable Forest Service regulation. Diamond Bar Catttle Company et. al. v. United States of America, (1996). I~ Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled aeve. Honorable Wayne Allard, United States Senate 2' 2) "Will the WRNF commit to removing all references to bvnass flows in the WRNF olan and further commit to following the orocess of Colorado law if and when the forest decides it desires water for consumptive or non-consumptive uses?" Response: The Forest Service position continues to be that by-pass flows are a legitimate function of the Property Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, and the Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. § 551. Therefore, we can not agree that we will never exercise our Property Clause authorities, even if we wished to do so. Moreover, a Colorado water court refused to grant the Forest Service a water right under the state system based, in part, upon the regulatory control the Forest Service retains over water diversion and storage facilities located on National Forest System lands. 3) "Does the WRNF staff understand that if you reouire bvnass flows as a condition of special use permits. that there is no legal mechanism under Colorado law to orotect vour intended use of that water because a permit condition does not create a water right?" Response: We understand that the obligation to impose protective terms and conditions on water diversion and storage facilities located on National Forest System lands does not result in a water right. It is an issue of rights-of- way across federal lands and not of state water rights. As such, the issue is governed by federal laws governing the use of National Forest System lands. 4) "Colorado onerates under a strict Prior Appropriation Doctrine or first-in-time. first-in-right water rights svstem. How then does the USFS iustifv cutting in line with bvnass flow conditions on special use permits? Can you understand why these sorts of tactics encourage the impression of the federal agencv as Big Brother?" Response: National Forests, under federal law, are required to protect and maintain National Forest resources. The Forest Service is not proposing to alter the prior appropriation system, but to fulfill our federal responsibilities. State water users do not obtain land use access when they acquire a water right in state water courts. 5) "Does the USFS recognize a responsibility to assess the total environmental and financial imoacts associated with the development of replacement water supplies for those individuals and entities on which . imoose bvnass flow requirements?" Response: The Forest Service is committed to following both the language and the spirit of the Council of Environmental Quality regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq., and the National Forest Planning Regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 219 et seq. However, our analysis requirements differ depending on whether the planning is programmatic (Plan) or site-specific (project). At the programmatic planning level, it would speculative in the extreme to analyze in detail, the potential need for, and environmental and financial effects of, replacement water. At best, we could acknowledge that our Plan implementation could contribute to, or trigger a need for replacement water in the future. At the project level, during permit issuance or reissuance, environmental and financial effects of development of replacement water (if that would indeed be likely) could and would be analyzed in detail. 6) "Did the WRNF consciouslv decide that the Colorado Water Conservation Board's existing instream flow program is inadeouate to meet the obiectives which the plan outlines. but within Colorado's substantive and orocedural laws?" Response: We agree the Colorado Water Conservation Board's existing instream flow program is important. However, federal land managers also have responsibilities regarding protection of public lands. We view our Plan direction as complemeting this state program and not in opposition to it. In addition, the National Forests will address site-specific by-pass flow needs, as related to the Colorado Water Conservation Board' s (CWCB) efforts, in separate site-specific analyses where these analyses are found necessary. Honorable Wayne Allard, United States Senate 3 7) "The State of Colorado administers the instream flow program that currently includes 1.300 instream flow rights on over 8.000 miles of Colorado streams and rivers. Is it the Forest Service's intent to work with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to acquire these flows. and if so. will the Forest Service rely, on the Water Conservation Board to file and hold these instream flow rights?" Response: As appropriate and when adequate to protect aquatic resources, the National Forests will cooperatively work with the CWCB. 8) "How does the Forest Service nlan on using the special use authorization process to obtain the 10% figure? Is bvpass flow language contained in other forest plans? Is the 10% reauirement al contained in the goals and obiectives sections of these plans?" Response: The White River Draft Plan water quantity Goal 1.10 states, "Provide instream flows that support the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of those federal purposes for NFS lands (i.e., safe drinking and swimming, aquatic life and habitat, recreation and aesthetics, and the natural conveyance of water and sediment) that depend on such flows." While we have not yet considered all public comments on this goal, at this point we are comfortable with the basic thrust of this statement. Objective 1.10 states, "By the end of the plan period, acquire instream flow water rights or establish instream flow protection measures in special-use authorizations which protect 10% of all perennial streams." After considering your questions, and comments from others, we believe Objective 1.10 is unclear. We are working on a clearer version of this Objective for the final Plan. The issue of bypass flows is not new. The White River National Forest is not breaking new ground. The original 1980s Plans (those not yet revised-the Pike San Isabel, Grand Mesa-Uncompaghre-Gunnison, San Juan) in Colorado contain the following direction: • Determine and obtain rights to instream flow volumes to fulfill all National Forest uses and purposes. • Protest water right applications of others when such uses will lower streamflows below levels acceptable for National Forest uses and purposes. • Special Use Permits, easements, rights-of-way, and similar authorizations for use of NFS lands shall contain conditions and stipulations to maintain instream or by-pass flows necessary to fulfill all National Forest uses and purposes. • Make instream flow requirements a part of all new water diversion projects to fulfill current and future National Forest needs. • Maintain acquired water rights that meet National Forest needs. Sell or trade all other acquired water rights. • Maintain instream flows and protect public property and resources. The revised Routt and Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest/Pawnee National Grasslands Plans do have direction which addresses water flows, although they do not contain a numeric goal. In short, our responsibilities to protect the public's resources are not new, nor does the White River National Forest proposal deviate in substance from what has been in Plans in Colorado for almost two decades. We will continue to look for coordinated, cooperative solutions to meet both public and private water needs when we implement the Plan direction, whether the Plans are original, revised, or in the process of revision. 9) Will the Forest Service use the snecial use permitting authorization process to reallocate historical water rights. as well as public and private use? Will the Forest Service offer anv guarantees that senior water rights on the White River National Forest be protected throughout the special-use authorization nermittine process?" Honorable Wayne Allard, United States Senate 4 Response: The Forest Service has no authority to allocate or reallocate water rights. We do not have the is I authority to guarantee protection of state water rights. _ The role and authority of the Forest Service is to manage activities that occur on the National Forests under appropriate federal laws and regulations. 10) It is my understanding that in lieht of a recent Supreme Court case (Ohio Forestru). the Forest Service takes the position that its forest plans are not iudiciallv reviewable?" Response It is indeed the position of the United States, as set forth in Ohio Forestry v. Sierra Club, that Plans are not ripe for judicial review at the Plan level, to the extent said Plans do not implement specific projects or actions. 11) "If the public has no abilitv to seek alterations to these plans in the courts. is this an invitation for the leeislature to take a more direct role in oversieht when these plans fail to reflect public sentiment about how public lands should be manaeed?" Response: The Forest Service listens to all its publics (including water users, elected officials, native american govenments, commodity interests, environmental interests, and many, many others) when developing forest plans, and we listen to all our publics when we implement those plans. Although the public may not have the ability to judicially challenge Plans as a whole, it does have the ability to challenge site-specific projects both administratively and judicially under applicable federal law. The White River, in developing its Draft Plan, has made a concerted effort to contact all those publics that may have an interest in National Forest management. In so doing, I feel the Draft Plan has addressed and analyzed the whole spectrum of public sentiments on National Forest management. Our Plans and portions of the Plans, will always please some people and not others. We try to obtain a balance, under our legal mandates, which provide for a broad spectrum of uses and opportunities. We try to achieve a level of consensus, but the diversity of our publics indicates that no one Plan will ever meet everyone's expectations all of the time. In summary, water use for a variety of consumptive and non-consumptive purposes, has always been and continues to be a legitimate use of National Forest System lands. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of these uses to the people of Colorado and to the United States. We do intend to continue our proactive work with water users on the National Forests to find collaborative and voluntary measures that will both meet the needs for use of water and our responsibility to protect and sustain National Forest System resources. We will continue to be looking first for negotiated solutions to meet both these important needs. /s/Glenda Wilson (for) LYLE LAVERTY Regional Forester o `"w? o Vail Chapel Sign: _ Planting Large Stone with Flat Face Stood Uprig t Colored Troweled Bed fi Accept Lettering and Detail Sandblastin . Concrete - Stone to be Selected by Landscape Archi i -Light with-h7.kX New Entry Steps - 4 .1' UP See Arc. h P s _ 4 k l Bedn i t+ Fill Planting Beds with 18° Approved I y "Vail 1 nd" Precast C c to P er d Soldier Course of "Vail Blend ¦ 6.i~ Pre Cast Concrete Pavers Planting Bed F Snow 48 9 ' `Storage Curb and Gutter Transition acs' ~ A_ e . Slop . Existing Evergreen 48 1 : ; to remain 47, 1 ~ 6 ~K I Sidewalk Pavers will , existing 4 valley pan. ' t o s s " cP s F t: 5 12.1 1 Curb and Gutter Tna Slope now \ y a Limit of Heated Pa ora 1' Snow ts-0 Existing T.O.V. Pa Like' - Stora.. i t t ExisCi s to be Removed (Typical) _4. ' 81,40 0.00Tbance I i i . I 16 u TOWN OF PAIL WORLD Office of the Town Manager CHAMPIONSHIPS 75 South Frontage Road 1999-VAIL-BEAVER CREEK Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT UPPER EAGLE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY VAIL TOWN COUNCIL 04-27-02 Vail Old Town Shops This was one of the final items to be introduced, and unfortunately, because of time constraints and the magnitude of the discussion/subject, it was decided to re-schedule this item for an upcoming TOV work session. 04-27-04 Gore Creek Waterwater Park ERW&SD has asked for the "legals" to be forward to Glenn Porczak. ERW&SD will monitor stream flows throughout the summer to prepare for the installation of the waterwater park fall '00. Although the permits were finally issued just this week, the project will be delayed because the town had previously set "drop dead" start up dates of April 10-15. 04-27-06 CDOT Sand in Black Lakes As a result of a long letter-writing campaign to CDOT, May and June meetings are being set to discuss remediation for highway and general supply sediment in the Black Lakes and Black Gore Creek. The sediment has caused a loss of storage capacity in the lakes, and ERW&SD has a current estimate for sediment yardage that is of great concern. ERW&SD will notify Council of dates/times/places for the Black Lakes tour and discussion. Paul Testwuide also noted the Gore Creek habitat enhancement (required by the enlargement of Black Lakes) has yielded a fishing evaluation showing stream conditions are "great." ERW&SD will provide that report to Council. 04-27-09 Other business Glenn Porczak gave an update on water negotiations w/Aurora and Colorado Spings, stating a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) had been signed by all affected parties, w/Colorado Springs and Aurora agreeing to: 1) Subordinate water rights critical to Eagle Park. 2) Cap future transmountain diversions to a set amount (formerly 60,000 acre feet, now reduced to 20,000 acre feet). C~~ RECYCLEDPAPER 3) Agreement to stay out of Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area and to leave untapped the Camp Hale groundwater, as well as to concentrate on using already established railroad corridors, ROW's, etc., for water diversions. 4) The portion of "yield" dedicated to the western slope has been raised to 30,000 acre feet. 5) 500 acre feet out of the Homestake Reservoir (total + 700+ acre feet will stay on the western slope, the market value of which is $7-8,000 per acre foot. Initially Denver was not interested in participating. Subsequent to the agreement being signed by the other major front range players, Denver has now indicated they, too, would be interested in a joint-use project and entering into an MOA. A BIG THANK YOU was offered to Bob McLaurin, Tom Moorhead, and Greg Hall who attended a meeting w/CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) in relation to the proposed Edwards drinking water facility to be constructed on the former Berry Creek 5th site (the "island"). FHA was unwilling to budge on allowing third party access across their "A" line corridor. The water board will now make a formal application to the FHA which they will deny, and the water board(s) will appeal. Additional steps may include: appealing to CDOT based on their original approval and our reliance upon that prior to conveying the property - AND - applying to the railroad and other surrounding "neighbors" for access to the "island" location. Both water/sanitation boards are asking for a letter from the TOV stating we are aware of the situation and as a matter of public concern are in support of accessing this parcel. Affordable housing and the town's cooperative relationship w/these boards was discussed, w/the water districts stating they wished to continue in partnering w/the TOV. The agenda for this meeting is attached. Some items were not discussed. SPECIAL JOINT LUNCHEON MEETING BOARDS OF DIRECTORS BEAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT UPPER EAGLE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY APRIL 27, 2000 -12:00 PM AGENDA 04-27-01. Welcome Vail Town Council 04-27-02. Vail Old Town Shops 04-27-03. Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion 04-27-04. Gore Creek Whitewater Park 04-27-05. Vail Recreation District 04-27-06. CDOT Sand in Black Lakes 04-27-07. General Manager's Infrastructure Slide Show 04-27-08. Future Consolidation 04-27-09. Other Business as May Come Before the Board 04-27-10. Adjournment F:\ 15WSD\I ADAIIN\UOARD\AGENDAS\WS00-04J.DOC MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead RE: Vail Associates and the Town of Mintum - A memorandum Of Understanding DATE: April 27, 2000 Attached is the latest draft of the Memorandum Of Understanding, which is being considered by VA and Minturn. This document does not constitute a contract and does not bind either party to any specific action in regard to a portal in Minturn. Thank you. Apr, 26. 2000 10:38AM V, A. LEGAL DEPT, No, 8929 P. 2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU" @f&Q w ? 1T2A~ dated April 25, 2000 (the "Effective Date"), is by and between Vail Associates, Inc. ("VA") and the Town of Minturn, Colorado ("Minturn"). RECITALS: A. The United States Forest Service ("USFS") has proposed a new Forest Plan that will govern many aspects of the future use of the White River National Forest. The USFS is in the public comment phase on the proposed plan, which is scheduled to end on May 9, 2000. B. VA owns and operates the maustaip resort facilities known as Vail Mountain on land located in the White River National Forest in Eagle County, Colorado under permit the USFS. Minturn is located near or adjacent to part of Vail Mountain and the White River National Forest. C. Minturn desires to preserve its future flexibility with respect to the long-term possibility of having a portal or portals located in the Minturn valley with direct access to Vail Mountain. D. Minturn intends to provide comments to the USFS on the proposed Forest Plan requesting I that aerial transit corridors located in the Minturn Valley be included as a potential allowable use contained in the final new Forest Plan adopted by the USFS (the "New Forest Plan"). Minturn is entering_this MOU in support of the town of Minturn Resolution No. 2- Series 1993 concerning ski-lift access from Minturn, a copy of which is attached to this MOU. K D. VA also believes it is desirable to preserve future'flexibility with respect to the long-term possibility of having a portals located in the Mintum valley, and VA supports Mintum's desire to preserve such flexibility. Minturn and VA recognize that any future proposal for a potential portals must receive the approval of the USFS. F.E. Neither Minturn nor VA has any existing plans to propose or to evaluate a proposal for a potential portal in the Minturn valley. and-VA does not intend to submit its own comments to the USFS on Oiat-the aerial transit aspect of the proposed Forest Plan. AGREEMENT: In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements stated herein, Minturn and VA state as follows: 1 Apr. 26. 2000 10:38AM V. A. LEGAL DEPT. No. 8929 P. 3 a • 1. Purpose. 'The purpose of this MOU is to memorialize the general understanding and intent of the parties concerning the possibility of future consideration of locating a portal or portals in the Minturn valley with direct access to Vail Mountain. VA agrees that Minturn may provide a copy of this MOU to the USFS as part of Minturn's comments on the proposed Forest Plan. 2. Mutual Approval. Without the written consent of th-etk a Minturn, ate VA agrees not to provide written notice to the USFS or any other person, entity or agency of a proposal for a portal in the Minturn valley with direct access to Vail Mountain. Without the written consent of VA, Minturn grees not to provide written notice to the USFS or any other person, entity, or agency of a proposal for a portal in the Mintum valley with direct access to Vail Mountain.. 3. Mutual Cooperation, Mintur and VA acknowledge that prior to any portal in the Minturn valley being approved or constructed, it wo ld be necessary, among other things, to (i) conduct feasibility, financial and technical studies; (ii) icentify suitable land for the location of a portal; (iii) obtain any required governmental or other approvals iv seek amd-@@awatr. community $ e4 fe; ut on the project; and (W) ~y) provide for acquisition of the land and app...r,:ate annexation of the land into the Town of Minturn. The parties --a" - cooperate with one another and work together in good faith with respect to these and related matters, Isubject to any legal requirements applicable to such party; provided however, nothing in this MOU shall obligate eitbw pa;46Minturn or VA to take or commit to take any particular action or expend or commit to expend any funds, or dedicate or commit to dedicate any resources, without the further written agreement by such party or without the further express consent or voluntary action of such party. 4. Effective Date and Term. This MOU shall be effective on the Effective Date upon execution and delivery of this MOUE by both parties. This MOU shall terminate five . _ -'-tios,upon the expiration of the New Forest Plan. 5. Binding Effec . This MOU is an expression of the general understanding and intent of the parties and does not create shall not be construed to create any legally binding obligation, enforceable agreement, promise or commitment, expressed or implied, except as and only to the extent specifically set forth herein. I 6. Authority. Each of Minturn and VA represents to the other party that the execution, delivery and performance of this MOU it is within its power and has been duly authorized by all necessary action in accordance with any governing documents or other requirements applicable to it. I EXECUTED as of the Effective Date provided above by the duly authorized representatives of the respective parties. VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN OF MINTURN By: By, i Name: Andrew P. Daly Name: Title: President _ Title: Attest: I Attest: 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Thomas R. Moorhead 1. Y Re: Lipcon vs. Town of Vail Date: April 27, 2000 Attached you will find the answer that I have filed on behalf of the Town of Vail, Greg Moffet, TIGA Advertising Inc. and TIGA Vail LLC. I believe that the interest all four defendants at this point in time are identical, as the issue is one of municipal authority. I anticipate filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Vail Town Council has appropriately evaluated the conflicting question pursuant to Section 3.7, of the Town Charter, and there is, therefore, no issue for the court to decide. In the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted there could be a circumstance in which the Town's position is not consistent with TIGA and at that time it may require separate representation. I will keep Council advised of the statues as this matter proceeds. Also attached you will find the most recent law suit filed by Mr. Lipcon in the United States -District Court. This law suit names the same defendants as in the first action filed with the District Court which has never been served upon the Town. I will also keep you advised of the status of this case as it proceeds. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank y/ou. 3 Plaintiff Charles R. Lipcon One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2480 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Colorado Civil Action No. 00-D-779 CHARLES R. LIPCON; Plaintiff, VS. TOWN OF VAIL, a municipal corporation; TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; and DAYMER CORPORATION N.V., a Netherland Antilles corporation, Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. JURISDICTION Plaintiff sues defendants and alleges: 1. This case arises from the deprivation of the Plaintiff, of his property and reasonable use of his property under color of state law, governmental regulations, and policies of the Defendants in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV. This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking redress in compensatory damages totaling in excess of $ 2,000,000, punitive damages in an amount in excess of $ 4,000,000 and an award of counsel fees and costs. This court has jurisdiction - ~v r' based on the alleged denial of the Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution of the United States of America and the request for redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. . An action for declaratory judgment is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. 2. Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of Town of Vail ordinance 12-3-6 C and related ordinances that violates plaintiff's right to notice of proposed actions that would affect plaintiff's real property. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against enforcement of Town of Vail ordinance 1 series of 2000 and ordinance 4 series of 2000 which were passed in reliance on the notice provision contained in the Town of Vail Ordinance 12-3-6 C. and in violation of Plaintiff's right to have a vote taken by Town Council members that did not have conflicts of interest. Further the Town of Vail failed to follow their own master plan and Town of Vail Charter. Defendants' violated plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States -Constitution. In-addition, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that defendants' actions are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as damages, costs, and attorneys fees. In addition, plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the class of all adjacent condominium owners to the Vail Village Inn property. II. The Parties 3. The Plaintiff is one of the owners of condominium Unit 5 Vail Gateway, 12 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado in the Town of 2 Vail. This condominium is directly adjacent to the property where the Vail Plaza Hotel is proposed. 4. That the Town of Vail is a municipal corporation and political subdivision in the state of Colorado. -5. That the Town Council of the Town of Vail the governing body thereof, and control the policies, regulations and administration of the Town. 6. That Rod Slifer, Gregg Moffet and Ludwig Kurz are members of the Town Council of Vail. 7. That Daymer Corporation is a corporation that owns a property known as the Vail Village Inn in Vail, Colorado. Daymer proposed a hotel, spa, time-share condominium project known as the Vail Plaza Hotel on their property. III. Allegation of Facts 8. Plaintiff's condominium is located in a building known as the Vail Gateway Plaza.. 9. The Town of Vail during the approval process for the Vail Gateway, where Plaintiff's condominium is located, required that its proposed height be lowered to preserve the views from the 4 way stop (now the roundabout) at the entrance to Vail Village towards Gold Peak on the Vail Ski mountain. Further a notch was required by the Town of Vail in the Vail Gateway buildings roofline to further increase the view towards Gold Peak. 10. During the approval process, the Town of Vail required that the Vail Gateway put in an entrance facing south towards Vail 3 E. Mountain in order to better connect to future development at the Village Inn Hotel site. 11. Subsequent to the approval of the Vail Gateway, the Town of Vail enacted by ordinance a master plan, which covered the Village Inn Hotel property.- 12. Under the master plan, the Village Inn Hotel site is limited to a height of three, four and five stories depending on the exact location of the building structure. Further the views towards Gold Peak were to be preserved. 13. Plaintiff previously was an owner in Unit 3 of the Vail Gateway. When unit 3 was sold, there was a penalty clause that would take effect if the master plan was violated by any new construction on the Vail Plaza Hotel site, resulting in a loss of views to the new owners of Unit 3. 14. Plaintiff purchased unit 5 in the Vail Gateway relying in part on the following: 1. the zoning in effect, 2. the master plan which had been passed by the Town of Vail, and 3. the prior conduct of the Town of Vail towards the Vail Gateway with regards to its height in order to preserve the views towards Gold Peak. 15. Thereafter, the Town of Vail through its community development division, planning and environmental commission, design review board and other wise had numerous meetings with the owners or representatives of the Village Inn Hotel to negotiate the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. 4 r 16. As part of the review and approval process, Defendant Daymar provided an economic plan that in effect promised the Town of Vail, millions of dollars in increased tax,revenue. This economic plan was not a requirement by ordinance of the Town of Vail, but submitted by Daymar as a thinly disguised carrot to the Town of Vail to violate its own zoning laws and master plan for financial gain. This created a conflict of interest for the entire Town Council under the circumstances. 17. The Town of Vail approved the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal, which would result in a building that was approximately 7 stories tall, with a tower going higher in violation of the master plan. Further it would block the view towards Gold Peak in violation of the master plan and in violation of the requirement imposed on the Vail Gateway. The application by the Vail Plaza Hotel has caused the Vail Gateway, in whole or in part, to lose all but one of the commercial tenants in the building turning it into a ghost town at the present time. According to the commercial owner of the Vail Gateway condominiums the commercial condos are unrentable by reason of the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. The Town of_ Vail realized that the first approval process was flawed due in part to lack of notice to adjacent landowners, under their notice statute, and started a second approval process without voiding the first approval. The first approval is the subject of a State Court appeal by the plaintiff and other effected adjacent landowners. 5 16. At all times material hereto Defendants have violated plaintiff's rights to due process and equal protection of the law based in part on the following: A. The notice ordinance for the Town of Vail, as written, is not designed to provide proper notice to plaintiff- and other condominium owners. If the adjacent landowner is any type of property other than a condominium, the notice of proposed Town of Vail actions goes to the owner. If the adjacent property is a condominium, the notice does not go to each condominium owner. In the Vail Gateway there are eight separate condominium owners. The notice requirement of the Town of Vail does not provide for actual notice to each of them. Plaintiff was not treated equally under the law because of the different methods of providing notice to adjacent owners. The condominium owners in other building adjacent to the Vail Village Inn property did not get proper notice either. B. The Town of Vail required plaintiff's building to be lower to preserve the views towards Gold Peak, but ignored the same requirement for the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. This results in plaintiff's views being blocked and the Vail Gateway put into a large shadow during the winter months. 6 C. The Town of Vail ignored the requirements of a special development district with respect to the effect of the Vail Plaza Hotel on the Vail Gateway. The Vail Plaza Hotel as approved would cut off the sunlight for most of the Vail Gateway, increase traffic, increase pollution, increase the dangers of fires and otherwise damage the Vail Gateway and the plaintiff in particular. This in effect constitutes a taking of plaintiff's property without just compensation. D. The Town of Vail was put on notice that their ordinance procedures for notifying adjacent condominium owners was not working and that the condominium owners were not getting actual notices. The Town of Vail ignored that information and proceeded with the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal in spite of actual knowledge that the adjacent condominium owners were not getting notice. E. Under the Town of Vail notice procedures, Daymar was given the task of providing notice to the condominium owners. This created a conflict since Daymar did not want adjacent condominium owners complaining about their proposal so that the Town of Vail could pass it without significant objection or imput. 7 F. Notices were mailed to the local address of some of the adjacent condominium owners even though Defendants knew or should have known that maby of the owners did not live in Vail, Colorado. The defendants could have used the mailing addresses from the tax rolls to increase the likelihood that adjacent landowners would receive actual notice. G. Many of the Town Council members had personal conflicts of interest, but refused to reveal information about them, refused to abstain from voting and took steps to hide the truth. Further the Town Council as a whole had a conflict of interest in light of the economic impact plan submitted by Daymar. H. Some of the Town Council members had an animosity towards Plaintiff by reason of: 1. Plaintiff requesting conflict of interest information from them, 2. Plaintiff pointing out conflicts of interests of certain Town Council members, 3. Plaintiff suing the Town Council as a whole in state court, and 4. Plaintiff suing Greff Moffet separately in a second suit by reason of violation of the Town Charter of Vail. Gregg Moffet is reported to have referred to the Plaintiff in a vulgar and crude fashion. I. Many of the Town Council members had a financial interest in violating the master plan so as to 8 i increase tax revenue to Vail, which was suffering from a drop off in tax revenues. J. Certain Town Council members either directly or indirectly had a financial interest in the out come of the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. Council members Moffet, Slifer and Kurz refused to answer written questions about conflicts of interest pertaining to the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. K. The defendants manipulated the Town of Vail meetings so as to prevent the plaintiff from attending. The meetings would be cancelled if plaintiff were in the Town of Vail. Plaintiff brought this to the attention of the Town Council, which ignored the situation and refused to schedule their meetings so that Plaintiff could attend. On the other hand meetings were set and reset at the request of Daymar, the developer, so that they could attend. L. Defendants violated their own master plan to approve the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. M. Defendants violated their own town charter with respect to conflicts of interest. 16. That the willful, wanton and arbitrary actions, policies and resolutions of the Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff, have denied him equal protection of the law, and the Defendants, deliberately, have deprived the Plaintiff of his 9 i property without due process of law or just compensation, in violation of amendments V and XIV of the Constitution of the United States of America. 17. That the Defendants have acted under color of state law, policies and resolutions of the Town of Vail, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado and the Plaintiff is entitled to redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18. At all times material hereto defendants have conspired to deprive plaintiff and other adjacent condominium owners of their constitutional rights. COUNT 1 VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 19. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing and in addition alleges the following. 20. At all times material hereto defendants have willfully violated plaintiff's rights to due process and equal protection of the law in order to pass the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. 21. As a result the value of Plaintiff's property has been diminished even before the Vail Plaza Hotel is built since potential buyers would not be interested in the property because of the harmful effect from the Vail Plaza Hotel. 10 Wherefore Plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages as allowed by law as well as attorney's fees and costs. COUNT 2 CONSPIRACY CLAIM 22. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing and in addition alleges the following. 23. At all times material hereto the Defendants willfully conspired to damage the plaintiff. 24. As a result violated plaintiff's United States Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law in order to pass the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. 25. As a result the value of Plaintiff's condominium has been diminished even before the Vail Plaza Hotel is built since potential buyers would not be interested in the property because of the harmful effect from the Vail Plaza Hotel. Wherefore Plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages as allowed by law as well as attorney's fees and costs. COUNT 3 CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 26. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing and in addition alleges the following. 27. Defendants' proposed actions will cause irreparable injury to,plaintiff for he does not have an adequate remedy at law by reason of the following: a. the master plan will have been violated and in effect illegally void the master plan in violation of law. b. The plaintiff's views towards Vail Mountain will have been blocked. These views are unique from Plaintiff's location. C. The roads will have increased traffic and pollution in the area of Plaintiff's condominium building. d. Plaintiff will have lost the opportunity to be involved in the zoning process at each level since notices were not provided to Plaintiff of most meetings. e. Defendants have refused to schedule meetings of the Town Council at a time convenient for Plaintiff to attend. In order to pass the present proposal, Defendants need to have one more meeting of the town council. This should not be done without providing adequate notice to plaintiff and the opportunity to attend in a meaningful manner. f. It is believed that council members Moffet, Slifer, and Kurz have a conflict of interest and as such 12 1 should abstain from voting on the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests: 1. That the Court declare the rights and legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, and that the, Court declare Ordinances 12-3-6 C and related ordinances and Ordinance 1 Series of 2000 and Ordinance 4 series of 2000 of the Town of Vail to be in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 2. That the Court enjoin the defendants and the Town of Vail, its agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with the Town of Vail, during the pendency of this action and permanently, from doing any act which would enforce said ordinances. 3. That the Court enjoin council members Moffet, Slifer and Kurz from voting on the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal due to conflict of interest. 4. That the Court enjoin the Town Council from voting on the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal due to conflict of interest created by the financial impact study submitted by Daymar. 5. That the Court grant such other relief that it deems appropriate. 6. Allow plaintiff his costs and attorneys fees and grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. 13 COUNT 6 CLASS ACTION 28. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing and in addition alleges: 29. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a) and (b). The class is composed of all condominium owners with property adjacent to the Vail Village Inn Hotel property. Plaintiff's claim is representative of the claims of all members of the class. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and they predominate over individual issues. The claims of the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and his claim is typical of the claims of the class. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Wherefore plaintiff and the class respectfully request the following relief. 1. That the Court declare the rights and legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, and that the Court declare ordinances 12-3-6 C and related ordinances and ordinance 1 Series of 2000 and Ordinance 4 series of 2000 of the 14 a Town of Vail to be in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 2. That the Court enjoin the defendants and the Town of Vail, its agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with the Town of Vail, duting.the pendency of this action and permanently, from doing any act which would enforce said Ordinances. 3. That the Court enjoin council members Moffet, Slifer and Kurz from voting on the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal due to conflict of interest. 4. That the Court enjoin the Town Council from voting on the Vail Plaza Hotel proposal due to conflict of interest created by the financial impact study submitted by Daymar. 5. That the Court grant such other relief. that it deems appropriate. 6. Allow plaintiff and the class their costs and attorneys fees and grant, such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. 7. Award damages to each member of the class based on the reduction in the value of their property by reason of the conduct of defendants. 15 i Dated: April 13, 2000 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES R. LIPCON Attorney for Plaintiff One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2480 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-3016. By CHARLES R. LIPCON 16 TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Robert McLaurin Council Members FROM: Judy Popeck DATE: April 27, 2 00 RE: Investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of March 31, 2000. Per Council's request, page 2 has been changed to reflect the prior year-end and quarter-end totals for comparison to the actual amounts at 3/31/00. Please let Steve, Christine, or myself know if this is helpful to you or we should discontinue. The estimated average yield for the pooled cash fund was 6.127%. Currently the yield curve for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year are 5.71%, 5.88%, and 5.90% respectively. Please call me if you have any questions. r Town of Vail, Colorado Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments For the Montl' Ended 3/31/00 (With Comparative Amounts for Last Quarter 1999 and First Quarter 1999) 00 99 Balances Percentage Balances Balances 3/31/00 of Total 12/31/99 3/31/99 Money Market Accounts (see page 3) Commercial Banks $2,221,167 8.83% $2,421,906 $2,296,726 Colorado Investment Pools $15,050,525 59.81% $8,461,502 $11,033,699 Money Market Funds $67,013 0.27% $36,281 $117,289 Total $17,338,706 68.91% $10,919,689 $13,447,714 Commercial Savings Banks & Loans Certificates of Deposit (see page 4) Eagle County Institutions $2,000,000 $2,000,000 7.95% $2,000,000 $1,099,000 Total $2000,000 $2,000,000 7.95% $2,000,000 $1.099,000 Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans 0.00% U.S. Government Securities (see page 5) FEDERAL AGENCY DISCOUNT NOTES & BONDS $4,466,754 17.75% $4,464,190 $1,073,874 FNMA'S, ARM'S & SBA'S $1,356,435 5.39% $1,368,253 $1,164,655 Total $5,823.189 23.14% $5,832,443 $2,238.529 Total Portfolio $25,161,894 100.00% $18,752,132 $16,785,243 Maturing Within 12 Months $21,426,839 85.16% $15,003,039 $14,612,369 Maturing Within 24 Months $2,478,753 9.85% $2,481,645 $1,103,844 Maturing After 24 Months $1,256,302 4.99% $1,267,448 $1,069,030 $25.161.894 100.00% $18,752,132 $16.785,243 03/31/00 Page 2 I MAROO.WK4 f f Money Market Accounts as of 03/31/00 --For the Month of Mar-00 Institution Balances Type of Accounts Hiqh Low Averaqe 03/31/00 COMMERCIAL BANK ACCOUNTS First Bank of Vail - Operating Interest 5.600% 5.440% 5.470% $4,785,337 $2,099,343 $2,823,411 Balance $2,220,482 US Bank Super Now Account Interest 3.000% General Operating Account Balance $685 Total Commercial Bank Accounts $2,221,167 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS Colotrust General Fund Interest 5.500% Balance $15,050,525 Total Local Government Investment Pools Accounts $15,050,525 MONEY MARKET FUNDS Bank One Money Market Fund - Dana Investments Interest 5.320% Balance $67,013 Total Money Market Funds $67,013 Total all accounts $17,338.706 03/31/00 Page 3 MAROO.WK4 Certificates of Deposit as of 03/31/00 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value Weststar Bank, Vail Colorado FDIC 5.850% 6.010% 28-Jan-00 28-Jan-01 366 $1,000,000 Alpine Bank, Vail Colorado FDIC 5.510% 5.650% 31-Dec-99 11-Aug-2000 224 $1,000,000 Avg Yield 5.753% $2.000,000 03/31/00 Page 4 MAROO.WK4 Government Securities as of 03/31/00 ***Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds*** Days/Years Interest Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Book Original Agency Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value Cost FNMA Pooled 6.400% 6.121% 29-Oct-99 02-May-2001 1.5 $996,565 $1,035,427 FFC Pooled 6.000% 6.200% 29-Oct-99 01-Oct-2001 1.9 $1,482,188 $1,500,570 FFC Pooled 5.000% 5.000% 01-Apr-99 03-Apr-2000 1.0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 FNMA Pooled 4.390% 5.270% 19-May-99 13-Oct-2000 1.4 $988,001 $992,616 Average Yield 5.71% $4,466,754 $4,528,613 ***FNMA'S, ARM'S & SBA'S*** Days/Years Interest Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Book Original Agency Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value Cost FNMA Pooled - Dana 9.050% 11-Jun-98 10-Apr-2000 1.8 $100,133 $105,875 SBA Pooled - Dana 9.725% 29-Jun-94 25-Feb-2008 13.7 $19,261 $82,749 SBA Pooled - Dana 9.225% 26-May-94 25-Mar-2008 13.8 $42,460 $109,734 SBA Pooled - Dana 9.725% 18-Aug-94 25-Jul-2008 13.9 $29,076 $109,875 SBA Pooled - Dana 9.270% 18-Aug-98 25-Feb-2011 12.5 $62,539 $94,503 SBA Pooled - Dana 8.375% 31-Oct-96 25-Jan-2013 16.2 $16,894 $65,558 SBA Pooled - Dana 8.975% 29-Jun-94 25-Jun-2019 25.0 $45,421 $108,523 SBA Pooled - Dana 9.225% 12-Jul-94 25-Jun-2019 25.0 $21,959 $108,744 SBA Pooled - Dana 8.975% 08-May-95 25-Dec-2019 24.6 $53,098 $99,391 SBA Pooled - Dana 8.750% 26-Feb-99 25-Feb-2024 25.0 $54,870 $82,542 GNMA Pooled - Dana 7.125% 25-Jan-99 20-Oct-2018 19.7 $64,649 $78,087 GNMA Pooled - Dana 6.750% 12-Aug-97 20-Sep-2025 28.1 $31,135 $76,141 GNMA Pooled - Dana 7.125% 24-Nov-97 20-Oct-2025 27.9 $33,036 $83,701 GNMA Pooled - Dana 6.375% 27-Apr-98 20-Jan-2026 27.8 $26,059 $76,509 FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.721% 21-Nov-96 01-Jan-2021 24.1 $61,022 $91,486 FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.408% 30-Oct-98 01-Apr-2024 25.4 $57,865 $97,048 FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.849% 01-Jul-96 01-May-2026 29.9 $17,999 $55,304 FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.092% 01-Jul-99 01-May-2028 28.9 $41,981 $49,473 FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.605% 23-Mar-00 01-Dec-2029 129.8 $68,320 $68,656 FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.508% 28-Jun-99 01-May-2029 29.9 $85,114 $100,047 FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.832% 27-May-94 01-May-2020 25.9 $40,198 $100,577 FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.876% 24-Jun-99 01-Aug-2022 23.1 $89,946 $102,043 FHLMC Pooled - Dana 7.904% 23-Jun-98 01-Aug-2025 27.1 $34,673 $79,539 FHLMC Pooled - Dana 6.740% 28-Mar-96 01-Mar-2026 29.9 $528 $9,323 FHLMC Pooled - Dana 6.998% 27-Dec-99 01-Aug-2029 29.6 $75,033 $75,942 FHLMC Pooled - Dana 8.563% 28-Aug-94 01-Aug-2018 23.9 $26,898 $74,245 FHLMC Pooled - Dana 8.016% 28-Jun-94 01-Mar-2019 24.7 $19,433 $66,355 FHLMC Pooled - Dana 6.864% 22-May-96 01-Feb-2036 39.7 $19,138 $60,461 FHLMC Pooled - Dana 8.460% 25-Oct-99 01-Jan-2018 18.2 $74,205 $75,967 NAVOT Pooled - Dana 6.750% 06-Apr-98 15-Mar-2002 3.9 $43,492 $101,519 Average Yield 7.95% $1,356,435 $2,489,917 Total $5,823,189 03/31/00 Page 5 MAROO.WK4 ti MEMORANDUM April 28, 2000 To: Vail Town Council Bob McLaurin Pam Brandmeyer Steve Thompson From: Sally Lorton Re: March Sales Tax Collections Attached please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $52,000.00 in March sales tax to bring March collections to $2,524,890.00. If so, we will be down $92,080.00 or 3.52% from budget and UP $109,688.00 or 4.54% from March 1999. March Special Events and Groups Included 1999 2000 Red Bull Mogul Mania DLJdirect American Ski Classic Hot Winter Nights Red Bull Mogul Mania V4 Snowboard Series UnVailed UnVailed Budweiser Street Beat Series Nordic Adventure Series Nordic Adventure Series >t Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 4/27/00 % Change % Change 2000 Budget from from Month 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Budget Collections Variance 1999 Budget January 1,465,870 1,599,123 1,713,091 1,709,654 1,855,364 1,805,707 1,894,597 1,935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,066,459 2,239,087 2,029,145 (209,942) -1.81% -9.38% February 1,561,286 1,695,850 1,737,343 1,780,568 1,828,766 1,814,495 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,021,486 2,190,354 2,211,883 21,529 9.42% 0.98% March 1,939,758 1,897,718 2,051,820 1,977,995 1,988,090 2,250,656 2,139,298 2,240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,415,202 2,616,970 2,472,890 (144,080) 2.39% -5.51% 1'==v...: ~ "•~.~t,fie. C b E'y ~ ,tt:>°S i,~'s,~ i tck T- ^#;°"v 1:. P'u, r . ,,,n. ..z., .eA.~` .r . ..v.' r. x.1..., w.'$, r,•vL.Z.:` k L'•• . z's r§ 1 N'ka`-'• • . t y~:'xi:. „s i•a _'a iw b., F.-,-. u:-; --s ?i`~,ro"m x •i „ 1 a "et:` s - s,. - - :~5-, 3. 4. xP rzY...-:4 . ae5'., i.'..*:. x. Total 4,966,914 5,192,691 5,502,254 5,468,217 5,672,220 5,870,858 5,850,002 6,170,036 6,723,234 6,636,557 6,503,147 7,046,411 6,713,918 -332,493 3.24% -4.72% April 567,684 634,174 616,648 691,163 864,303 794,668 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 1,032,369 May 215,548 236,359 250,809 268,000 257,248 287,315 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 401,763 June 393,470 448,227 468,948 468,598 475,161 548,820 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 750,617 July 649,139 665,094 737,288 742,750 811,538 892,830 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,130,883 1,225,307 August 668,119 678,071 761,992 767,257 825,954 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,050,004 1,137,669 September 469,032 482,328 491,684 485,954 560,535 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 872,920 October 335,740 364,002 324,802 367,578 400,525 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 579,927 November 430,820 438,731 428,086 497,907 553,681 594,491 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 628,518 December 1,615,278 1,625,219 1,691,775 1,846,223 1,974,553 1,992,855 1,994,540 2,068,851 2,254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,024,499 Total 10,311,74410,764,89611,274,28611,603,64712,395,71813,007,01313,030,44813,719,308 14,747,41915,030,38614,509,421 115,700,000 6,713,918 332,493 05/02/2000 10:20 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN • PAGE 02 r Holy Cross Wilderness Defense Fund Board of Directors Warren M. Hem, M.D. Chournan Jadc E- Holmes, Ph.D. Vice-CYrairrnan Roger Fuehrer Cabrado Mouroin Club East Slope Coordinator Marks Moser 1 March 2000 West Skpe Cowcdnator Chuck Ogilby vas Cathy Caspar To: All members, Holy Crass Wilderness Defense Fund ' Colorado waferComenancy Prom: Dr. Warren Hern, Chair, Dr. Jack Holmes, Secretary Vice-Chair, and Cathy Casper, Secretary Marty Sorensen Slerra Club 7leasurer Re : White River National Forest Plan Doug Byron t -ID O m " --very-- fifteen years or so, each -national forest-- prepares a new management plan for the next fifteen years. These plans are approved by regional Advisory Committee foresters after a year of public comment and DanLWecks,Ph.D. review. If the plans reflect a consensus among Errvirpnmente! Defense Fund RobertGolten,J.D. users, they can go into effect soon after approval. Boulder If not, there may be appeals and litigation. Bob Tumor RegM6101reotor The White River National Forest Plan has been NatlonalAuduborrsoclery Derrell KnuNke presented in a draft form and is normally open to RegionalDmcbr public comment for another sixty days unless that me Wilderness Society is extended by- the Forest Service. Open houses are Lee Baker parts of Colorado. The Colorado EnvironmertalCoalr7lon being held in various William BirdMounaey purpose is for the public to be part of this e University of&oWrldernew process, but the Forest Service has the final say. Murk Udall Fx eIa bve Ou ectorBound The new white River Forest plan presents six Cldo. ward Salty Ranney alternatives and presents one of them as the AmerkenWkAwnessAlliance preferred alternative. In this case, the RoaalindMcClellan alternative recommended by the Forest Service is D, Envirorments!Center arecfor which is wildlife-centered, but not as unrYers,gratrardi;? environmentally friendly as alternative I, which concentrates on the overall environment. C1WCorarsel Alternative D is less friendly to, dvvClUpMU.L'LL. t-hall. - Krances M. Green, Esa- the current plan. It has caused some concern among those who are strongly in favor of development and recreation. The final plan usually modifies the preferred alternative to reflect public comment. We are compelled to provide you with some of the details so that you can make informed comments. The original closing date for comments was November 12, but this was changed several times. It is now set for May 9, 2000, as the result of a law passed by Congress and sponsored by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) and Rep. Scott McInniss (R-CO) 1 1130 Alpine Boulder, Colorado 80304 303/447-1361 05/02/2000 10:20 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 03 R i f -3- the Forest Service. It is most helpful if you comment on those situations where you have direct knowledge and concerns. In considering comments On Forest Plans, Forest Service officials usually pay the most attention to remarks by 'those who have the most specific knowledge and to be skeptical of identical letters. Since our members are highly individualistic and have unique knowledge of the. Forest, we are counting on you to use that knowledge to help promote environmentally sound policies. We urge you to review the Forest service web site .___..-.i.n- grmation and send- . your.. comment.s_-.,. dir-ectl)L__to-__the designated Forest Service officials. Copies sent to us would be.helpful in promoting needed interest and sound policies in the wilderness and its surrounding national forest. We will send later a composite reprint of various news articles that are pertinent to this issue because they contain essential infprTation and direct quotes from various officials invo ved_ Although we have had a period of reduced activity and mailings as we have waited for rapidly changing situations to become clear, we once again must ask for your contributions and support in order to.continue our work. We appreciate your previous generosity and have - been reluctant to afflict you with numerous mailings, but now we need help again. We anticipate that the struggle .to obtain a sound forest plan that protects the wilderness we love could be a prolonged one. There are other emerging issues that may require us to communicate with you, but this is the urgent and compelling one that we face now. Thank you for you time, attention, and help. i For the wilderness, Warren M.-Hern, ML D., M. .H., Ph.D. News item: Chuck Ogilb , one of our founding Board members,jand Diana Donovan, one of our original members, have both been recently elected to tk e Vail Town Council. Congratulations! Also, Jim Johnson, an Eagle County Comm'iss:'~oner wh strongly supported the Holy Cross Wilderness and ca a to our events, has resigned from the Board of Commissioners. i 05/02/2000 10:20 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 04 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON KEY ISSUES TO COMMENT ON IN x um, DRAFT PLAN Wilderness and Roadless Areas, Problem- .The F_. Service's draft plan r..,..,..~ less than 16% of roadless lands (just 47,200 acres) by rec....,...,ending them for wilderness protection. (1a contrast, citizens rec.- ..rndcd 300,000 acres of additional wildemen.) -Under the draft plan, we could lose more than half of the existing roadless areas on the WRNF to logging and roadbuildutg over the next 15 SOLUTION: .Urge the Forest Service to recommend all 300,000 eligible acres for wilderness protection.- At a minimum, support Alternative 1, which comes closest by recommending. 214,600 acres. Please mention any specific areas, such as Red Table Mountain, that you want r , , . ctedL .Insist that ALL roadless areas be protected from It,;, J, .g, roading and development _ Travel Mana_ ,~.ent Problem: 9Thc R,..a41 Service should-be cam.... =ded for r. vv_., _g to end off-road travel and limit motorized travel. to designated routes. Unfortunately, the draft plan would still allow motorized use in some roadless areas - such as "Road 425," an eroded 4WD roue that divides Gypsum Creek and Red Table Roadless Areas. -Although the White River draft plan is the first m Colorado to place any limits on snowmobile use, it does not go fir enough to sew tr-96 for mss-country sbers. SOLUTION: -Urge the Forest Service to close ALL roadless areas to both summer and winter motorized rA I i LL -Ask that motorized _ "L:on during the winter be limited to designated routes outside of roadless areas that do not disturb wildlife or other backeountry users. Lgo gilg & Ancient Forest Protection Problem: -The draft plan could result in doubling logging from levels under the guise of health," and fails to protect any lode..,.„lc pine m aspen old-growth eThe draft plan. creates numerous mane ..,..-A; areas for ;W.w. such as lynx and wolverine, but then r s . ~ , _otes logging - not habitat protection - within these areas. SOLu aaON: -D:... "u logging levels and allow natural processes such as fire to oc ar. .Prot : old-,,.., , ,1h aspen and lodgepole plug. In "forest carnivore" areas, eliminate logging and promote more habitat protection Problem: -The draft plea is good in 11...L g all std areas to their r -str permit boundaries (although this would still allow std IiP _.j.b..8ionz within existing bouffdarirs - e.g., at Vail, BreCl... .dge, and Kce 44."e). H. ..w', other alternatives being consider I~d would ...,,,.it huge sb area L.. as well as aerial ......,.Fav collections. that would V V....V V. v llv everir_qjp area in the T-72 corridor. Such c, dons and connections will further destiny wildlife habitat and cwribute to the,,.r.,j. 0 it and congestion already being experienced by mountain residents. SOLUTION:.Insist that there be NO more std am expansions or aerial tra . , , j Conn SM areas. W li d1Ne Problem: -The draft plan fails. to protect critical wildlife r,,, and habitat corrridors to --.....i 1L.w... SOLv juLON:-Urge the Forest Service to survey for rare and declining species to determine their habttat needs, and then ensure that key habitat is not logged, mined, roaded or developed. -Sapport Alternative 1, which would protect :w9dtlfe res... , and connecting eolrtyidors. 05/02/2000 10:20 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 05 i ' -2- The plan itself is about 8 inches thick and the full copies have been distributed. There is a web site at which you can review the plan in full. It's www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/, then just click on land management planning. A request to the Forest Service may produce a summary. The addresses and names of the responsible Forest Service officials are noted on an enclosure. There are some items of special interest to our members The Forest Service is zoning the wilderness as primitive, pristine, and semi-primitive with the greatest acreage in the earlier categories. These are worthy of review and comment. We prefer that there be more pristine areas, but'our strongest recommendation is that you should review this and make your own comments. The exact maps are on the web .site, but the ease with which these can be read varies with your computer equipment. Probably the item of the greatest interest to us is a proposal that the Cross Creek basin be designated as a wild river- Our principal concern, naturally, is protection of the Holy Cross Wilderness within the White River National Forest. Designation of Cross Creek as a "Wild and Scenic River" would advance that objective. we believe that the controversy regarding various alternatives is of interest to our members. Groupr opposed. 'to Alternative D were able to obtain a Congressional deadline extension. This permits them to organize opposition and to promote an alternative allowing greater human intervention in the national forest. The environmental community believes this change will, damage the forest resource, including the Holy Cross Wilderness and its adjacent areas. Unless all concerned y citizens express their opinions, those who have organized to promote development in the national forest could have the most influence on the result, especially if others C are apathetic or are frustrated with the size of the document. Alternative D. is an environmental improvement over current practices i It is as far as the Forest. Service is likely to go given current public opinion. Alternative I gives the greatest priority to environmental considerations, and is supported by the Wilderness Society (see enclosed excerpt of WS CQLIII?.ent) . We strongly supportypoints made in the Wilderness Society bulletin. Our members may disagree on these alternatives, but we do believe that it is essential that HCWDF members express support for their preferred alternative with comments to 6 a.,,,, u<, <uuu iu. <u 1 J / UY ! OG f 07 mUl`mtYWAULJN/ UUNUVAN PAGE 02 Holy Cross Wilderness Defense Fund Board of Directors Warren M. Hem, M.D. Jack E. Holmes. Ph.M vice-Chairmen Roger Fuehrer Cobrado Afoun&W Cklb East Slope Coordinator Marka Moser 1 March 2000 West SJape Coadnator Chuck Ogilby vau To: All members, Holy Cross Wilderness Defense Fund catty Gasper Colorado Water Conservancy From : Dr. Warren Hern, Chair, Dr. Jack Holmes, &Xmiary Vice-Chair, and Cathy Casper, Secretary Malty Sorensen Sierra Club Reasurer Re : White River National Forest Plan Doug Byron t ._•_(D•MemoMm -7Bvery-- fifteen years or so, each -national forest--- - - prepares a new management plan for the next fifteen years. These plans are approved by regional Advisory Committee foresters after a year of public comment and DanLuecke,Ph•D. review. If the plans reflect a consensus among Envimmmntai Deienae Fund users, they can go into effect soon after approval Pwbert GoRen, J.D. Boulder If not, there may be appeals and litigation. Bob Tumor AegronelDirector The White River National Forest Plan has been National AudubonSociely presented in a draft form and is normally open to Darnall KnuHke RegonelDnvchtr public comment for another sixty days unless that TIV vmoemess Society is extended by the Forest Service. Open houses are L.oe Baker being held in various parts of Colorado. The CoioradoEnvironmental CoaN7lm purpose is for the public to be part of this William Bird Mourmey University ottheWrldernesa process, but the Forest Service has the final say. Mark UdaU &WcuftvaDirector The new White River Forest plan presents six Crloradoa,tWerdBound alternatives and presents one of them as the sally Ranney American WadernessAlkance preferred alternative. In this case, the RoealindMcLlellan alternative recommended by the Forest Service is D, ErwronmanmtCenter Elmector which is wildlife-centered, but not as "~`°`COID~d° environmentally friendly as alternative I, which concentrates on the overall environment. t:WCounsel Alternative D is less friendly to do vtr.LtjLj t%=j4 . 1-11all FfancesU,Green,Esq. the current plan. It has caused some concern among those who are strongly in favor of development and recreation. The final plan usually modifies the preferred alternative to reflect public comment. We are compelled to provide you with some of the details so that you can make informed comments. The original closing date for comments was November 12, but this was changed several times. It is now set for May 9, 2000, as the result of a law passed by Congress and sponsored by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell ('R-CO) and Rep. Scott McInniss (R-CO). I 1130 Alpine Boulder, Colorado 80304 343/447-1361 n u.. ac.cuuu 10. Lo 17l174lbLltl~ HONEYWAGONIDONOVAN PAGE 03 -3- the Forest service. It is most helpful if you comment on those situations where you have direct knowledge and concBrns. In considering comments on Forest Plans, Forest Service officials usually pay the most attention to remarks by 'those who have the most specific knowledge and to be skeptical of identical-letters. Since our members are highly individualistic and have unique-knowledge of,the> Forest, we are counting on you to use that knowledge to help promote environmentally sound policies. We urge you to review the Forest Service web site i.n-gr~mation and send- your.: comments_-... directly the designated Forest Service officials. Copies sent to us would be.helpful in promoting needed interest and sound policies in the wilderness and its surrounding national forest. We will send later a composite reprint of various news articles that are pertinent to this issue because they contain essential inf rmation and direct quotes from various officials invo~ved. Although we have had a period of reduced activity and mailings as we have waited for rapidly changing situations to become clear, we once again must ask for your contributions and support in order to continue our work. We appreciate your previous generosity and have been reluctant to afflict you with numerous mailings, but now we need help again. We anticipate that the struggle to obtain a sound forest plan that protects the wilderness we love could be a prolonged one. There are other emerging issues that may require us to communicate with you, but this is the urgent and compelling one that we face now. Thank you for your time, attention, and help. For the wilderness, Warren M. Hern, M,.D., M. .H., Ph.D. News item. Chuck Ogilb one of our founding Board members,iand Diana Donovan, one of our original members, have both been recently elected to the Vail Town Council. Congratulations! Also, Jim Johnson, an Eagle County Cvu991.jSS:,oner wh strongly supported the Holy Cross Wilderness and ca e to our events, has resigned from the Board of Commissioners. 157115L/ L151515 115: Lt7 1711541bL 1by HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 04 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON KEY ISSUES TO COMAIENT ON IN i=E DRAFT PLAN Wflderness and Roadless Ares Problem- .The Service's draft plan Y..~..,..., less than 169/a of roadless lands (just 47,200 acres) by rcc....»..cnding them for wilderness protection. (la conuvA citizens rec.......anded 300,000 acres of additional wilderness.) .Under the draft plan, we could lose more than half of the existing roadless areas on the WRNF to logging and roadbuildurg over the next 15 years. SOLUTION: .Urge the Forest Service to recommend all 300,000 eligible acres for wilderness p... ,b,-.nn.. At a minimum, support Alternative I, which comes closest by recommending.2I4,600'zcres Please mention any specific areas, such as Red Table Mountain, that you want r , xeted. eInsist that ALL roadless areas be protected from logging, roading and development. T,61 ManaeeMent Problem: .The F.. ..O. Service should. be c , -ded for,, -r, osing to end off-road travel and limit motorized travel to designated Unfmt mately, the drat; plea would still allow m,....:zcd use in some roadiess mans - such as "Road 425," an eroded 4WD rorrtc that divides Gypsum Creels and Red Table Roadless Areas. .Although the White River draft plan is the first in Colorado to place any 1i...on snowmobile use, it does not go far enough to semuv t4s for erns-country skiers. SOLUTION: .Urge the Forest Service to close ALL roadless areas to both summer and winter motorized .Ask that motorized recreation during the winter be limited to designated routes outside of roadless areas that do not disturb wildlife or other backeou.. j useme. LLo Z.., & Ancient F Protection Problem: .The draft plan could result in doubling logging S-W .......,..t levels under the guise of health," and Earls to protect any lodgepole pane or air,... old growth f.. eThe draft plan. W .......s numerous manageatcnt,L. -s for f.,...,~ such as lynx and wolverine, but then r...:..otes logging - not habitat - within these areas. SOLu i aON: eD,:. :..se logging levels and allow natural processes such as fire to occur. .Protect old-6.. 1,:h aspen and lodgepole pine. In "fared carnivore" areas, eliminate logging and promote more habitat protection. Problem: -The draft plan is good in H-,:tL g all sld areas to tix~ I~aristmg p_....:. boundaries (although this would still allow sl:i hfi w.r,-. ions within existing bou Ilca - c.g., at VaaiL Brecl...:dge, and However, other alternatives being consrde would l r ski a=.w.,,~ , as well as aerial L =..~av coflgections. that would ....,...eat vi ualiv eveM? area in the ~ corridor. Such -.,...lions and connections will further ci. j wildlife habitat and 1. ,...bye to the ,.A~ I A and congestion ahcady being esperic=ed by m, ~ .,.I m residcum SOLUTION: eInda that there be NO more ski area expansions or aerial tramways eoan..:. ski areas. Wildlife Problem: -lbe draft plan 62U.to critical wildlife ..b» -w and habitat corridors to them. f SOLUTION:-Urge the Forme Service to survey for rare and declining species to determine their habitat j needs, and then ensure that key habitat is not logged, mined, roaded or developed. asupport alternative I, which would protect core-winme res.:, and connecting eorridots. I 05/02/2000 10:20 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 05 4 • -2- The plan itself is about 8 inches thick and the full copies have been distributed. There is a web site at which you can review the plan in full. It's www.fs,,fed.us/r2/whiteriver/, then just click on land management planning. A request to the Forest Service may produce a summary. The addresses and names of .the responsible Forest Service officials are noted on an enclosure. There are some items of special interest to our members. The Forest Service is zoning the wilderness as primitive, pristine, and semi-primitive with the greatest acreage in the earlier categories. These are worthy of review and comment. We prefer that there be more pristine areas, but our strongest recommendation is that you should review this and make your own comments. The exact maps are on the web.site, but the ease with which these can be read varies with your computer equipment. Probably the item of the greatest interest to us is a proposal that the Cross Creek basin be designated as a wild river. Our principal concern, naturally, is protection of the Holy Cross Wilderness within the White River National Forest. Designation of Cross Creek as a "Wild and Scenic River" would advance that objective. we believe that the controversy regarding various alternatives is of interest to our members. Groups opposed. to Alternative D were able to obtain a Congressional deadline extension. This permits them to organize opposition and to promote an alternative allowing greater human intervention in the national forest. The environmental community believes this change i will damage the forest resource, including the Holy Cross Wilderness and its adjacent areas. Unless all concerned citizens express their opinions, those who have organized i to promote development in the national forest could have the most influence on the-result, especially if others are apathetic or are frustrated with the size of the document- Alternative D. is an environmental improvement over current practices. It is as far as the Forest Service is likely to go given current public opinion. Alternative I gives the greatest priority to environmental considerations, and is supported by the Wilderness Society (see enclosed excerpt of WS cv11««ent) . We strongly support points made in the Wilderness Society bulletin. / Our members may disagree on these alternatives, but we do f believe that it is essential that HCWDF members express support for their preferred alternative with comments to f~ 1 w. uu cuuu i u. cu i ua r oc o~ HUNtYWAUUNf DUNUVAN PAGE 02 Holy Cross Wilderness Defense Fund Board of Directors Warren M. Hem, M.D. Chadman Jack E. Holmes, Ph.D. Vice-Chaumen Roger Fuehrer Colorado Mounteln Club Eew Slope Coordinator Marko Moser 1 March 2000 West Slope Coordmior Chuck Ogilby vau Cathy Caspar To: All members, Holy Cross Wilderness Defense Fund Colorado waterConservanCY From: Dr. Warren Hern, Chair, Dr. Jack Holmes, Secretary Vice-Chair, and Cathy Casper, Secretary Marty Sorensen Slerm Club 7Yewurer Re : White River National Forest Plan Doug Byron t --Bve7ry-- fifteen years -or so, each -national forest--- - - prepares a new management plan for the next fifteen years. These plans are approved by regional AdvisoryComMttee foresters after a year of public comment and Dan{_uecke,Ph.D. review. If the plans reflect a consensus among Ernrirorunentai De%se Fund users, they can go into effect soon after approval. . d.D. Robert saran molder If not, there may be appeals and litigation. Bob Tumor Regional Director The White River National Forest Plan has been NatlonalAudubon Society presented in a draft form and is normally open to Darrell KnuNke Regional Director public comment for another sixty days unless that The wlloemessSouety is extended by the Forest Service. Open houses are Lee Baker being held in various parts of Colorado. The Colorado Env6onmentalCoaMon purpose is for the public to be part of this William Bird Mounsey . UniverartyofftWeldanrese process, but the Forest Service has the final say. Mark Udau ,ExecuriveDirector The new White River Forest plan presents six Colorado Outward Bound alternatives and presents one of them as the Salty Ranney American wildamessAlBance preferred alternative. In this case, the RoaalindMcCiallan alternative recommended by the Forest Service is D, Environmental Center Director which is wildlife-centered, but not as umvermiyo'corerade environmentally friendly as alternative I, which concentrates on the overall environment. Cl uet C..ou.rr....sei Alternative D is less friendly to develupMe_iit_ 41ial' France U, Green,Ew. the current plan. It has caused some concern among those who are strongly in favor of development and recreation. The final plan usually modifies the preferred alternative to reflect public comment. We are compelled to provide you with some of the details so that you can make informed comments. The original closing date for comments was November 12, but this was changed several times. It is now set for May 9, 2000, as the result of a law passed by Congress and sponsored by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) and Rep. Scott McInniss (R-CO) 1130 Alpine Boulder, Colorado 80304 303/447-1361 tl5ftl2/"L16tl16 116:216 19704752789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 03 t -3- the Forest Service. It is most helpful if you comment on those situations where you have direct knowledge and concerns. In considering comments on Forest Plans, Forest Service officials usually pay the most attention to remarks by 'those who have the most specific knowledge and to be skeptical of identical- letters. Since our members are highly individualistic and have unique- knowledge of. the'. Forest, we are counting on you to use that knowledge to help promote environmentally sound policies. We urge you to review, the Forest Service Web site in_£grmation and send_ .your-: comments_-,.. directly designated Forest Service officials. Copies sent to us would be.helpful in promoting needed interest and sound policies in the wilderness and its surrounding national forest. We will send later a composite reprint of various news articles that are pertinent to this issue because they contain essential inf rmation and direct quotes from various officials invo~ved. Although we have had a period of reduced activity and mailings as we have waited for rapidly changing situations to become clear, we once again must ask for your contributions and support in order to continue our work. We appreciate your previous generosity and have been reluctant to afflict you with numerous mailings, but now we need help again. We anticipate that the struggle to obtain a sound forest plan that protects the wilderness we love could be a prolonged one. There are other emerging issues that may require us to communicate with you, but this is the urgent and compelling one that we face now. Thank you for your time, attention, and help. For the wilderness, Warren M. Hern, K.D., M. .H., Ph.D. News item: Chuck Ogilb one of our founding Board members,j and Diana Donovan, one of our original members, have both been recently elected to the Vail Town Council. Congratulations! Also, Jim Johnson, an Eagle County Commissioner wh strongly supported the Holy Cross Wilderness and ca (e to our events, has resigned from the Board of Commissioners. Cut ULI 4C1C)C! 1t7. LC, 1'J M4 /bL /bJ HUNEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 04 r ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON KEY ISSUES TO COMMENT ON IN jL njt~ DRAFT PLAN Wilderness and Road;ess Areas Problem. aTbe Service's draft plan protects less than 160/0 of roadless }ands (just 47200 acres) by them for wilderness protection. (la contrast, citizens rec.,......cnded 300,000 acres of additional wilderness.) .Under the draft plan, we could lose more than half of the existing roadless ~...~-a on the WRNF to logging and roadbtulding over the neat 15 years. SOLUTION:- .Urge the Forest Service to recommend all 300,000 eligible acres for wilderness protection.- At a minimum, support Alternative I, which cornea closest by. mmending,114,600 stim please mention any specific areas, such as Red Table Mountain, that you want r . -:rtc& .Insist that MX roadless areas be protected from logging, roading and development T.,. , J ,em _ Problem: vlbc F....,: Service should be c -ended for r,.,.r.,.~...g to end off-road travel and limit motorized travel to designated , , , .~s. Unfortunately, the draft plan would still allow m. __'zed ' use in some roadless areas - such as "Road 425," an eroded 4WD roirte that divides Crypsum C rcek and Red Table Roadless Areas. .Although the White River draft plan is the first in Colorado to place any 1:...:: on snowmobile use, it does not go far enough to ate. r ?tags for ...,-c.....,:. f slats. SOLUTION: -Urge the Forest Service to close ALL roadless areas to both summer and. • , er motorized -1, 1'L .Ask that m , . ; • , o ed r _ t,tion during the winter be limited to designated routes outside of roadless areas that do not disturb wildlife or other backcon , j uses . L.. -2- Ancient Forest Protection problem: -The draft plan could result in doubling logging E............,..t levels under the guise of health," and fails to pmtte any lodc,..k Jc: pine or -The draft plan.,..,d.- manerous manae...~....= areas for ,.......t , such as lynx and wolverine, but then r. -:--otes logging - not habitat Y. - within these areas. SOLu s jLON: -De- _.se logging levels and allow natural processes snch as fire to occur. .Prot.'. old-,y . th aspen and lodgepole pine. in -forest carnivore" areas, eliminate logging and promote more habitat protection. T~]d.Ats~ Problem: -The draft plan is good in all ski areas to them F=stimg p--.,t boundaries (although this would still allow ski lift.,, ,,,....ic ms within existing boundaries - e.g., at Vail, Breckenridge, and IGey y~ However, other alternatives being considered woAd „ +...it boat sla a= 7A as aerial ........~av connectioms. that would .,.,....act vt p1V eves area in the 1-72 corridor. Such and connections will huffier d..ip"- _j wildlife habitat and .,,...;.:ln>te to the.,r.,, A and congestion abra* being experienced by m,,.,..G; is residents. SOLu rYON:.Insist that there be NO more ski area expansions or aerial tramways comectiog ski areas. Wilme problem: -The draft plan. fails.to r ..,.t critical wildlife and habitat corridass to .....,-zt them. SOLUTION: .Urge the I Service to survey for rare and declining species to determine their habbst news, and then ensure that key habitat is not logged, mined, roaded or developed. -Support Alternative I, which would protect core-wMM ns" Ili- and connecting corridors. I 05/02/2000 10:20 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 05 -2- The plan itself is about 8 inches thick and the full copies have been distributed. There is a web site at which you can review the plan in full. It's www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/, then just click on land management planning. A request to the Forest Service may produce a summary. The addresses and names of the responsible Forest Service officials are noted on an enclosure. There are some items of special interest to our members: The Forest Service is zoning the wilderness as primitive, pristine, and semi-primitive with the greatest acreage in the earlier categories. These are worthy of review and comment. We prefer that there be more pristine areas, but our strongest recommendation is that you should review this and make your own comments. The exact maps are on the web.site, but the ease with which these can be read varies with your computer equipment. Probably the item of the greatest interest to us is a proposal that the Crone Creek basin be designated as a wild river. Our principal concern, naturally, is protection of the Holy Cross Wilderness within the White River National Forest. Designation of Cross Creek as a "Wild and Scenic River" would advance that objective. we believe that the controversy regarding various alternatives is of interest to our members. Groups opposed, to Alternative D were able to obtain a Congressional deadline extension. This permits them to organize opposition and to promote an alternative allowing greater human intervention in the national forest. The environmental community believes this change i will damage the forest resource, including the Holy Cross Wilderness and its adjacent areas. Unless all concerned citizens express their opinions, those who have organized to promote development in the national forest could have the most influence on the result, especially if others are apathetic or are frustrated with the size of the document. Alternative D. is an environmental improvement over current practices.- It is as far as the Forest Service is likely to go given current public opinion. Alternative l gives the greatest priority to environmental considerations, and is supported by the Wilderness Society (see enclosed excerpt of WS comment) . we strongly support points made in the Wilderness Society bulletin. Our members may disagree on these alternatives, but we do believe that it is essential that HCWI?F members express support for their preferred alternative with comments to i