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