HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-20 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004
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. ITEM/TOPIC: ,Citizen Input. (10 min.).
2. Rod Slifer ITEMITOPIC: Proclamation 3, Series 2004, In Recognition of
Polly Letofsky.(5 min.)
3. Lorelei Donaldson ITEM/TOPIC: AIPP Appointment. One vacancy to be filled
completing the term vacated by Millie Aldrich, term ending
03.031.05 (5 min.) .
• Kay Cherry
• Tom Gorman
4. Lorelei Donaldson ITEM/TOPIC: DRB Appointment. One Vacancy to be
filled to complete the term vacated by Scott Proper, term ending
03.31.06. (5 min.)
• Charles Baker
• Betsy Bradley
• Kay Cherry
• Peter Dunning
• Kathy Langenwalter
5. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda /minutes from 06.01, 06.15, 07.06
meeting. (5 min.)
6. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Chamonix Property Master Site Planning
Suzanne Silverthorn Authorization. (15 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with the
recommended planning team for an amount not to exceed
$45,070 / $50,000 to facilitate preparation of a master land use
plan for the Chamonix property at 2310 Chamonix Rd.
BACKGROUND:
On June 18, the Town of Vail initiated a request for proposals
(RFP) process to facilitate a master land use plan for the town-
owned Chamonix property at 2310 Chamonix Rd. The property
was purchased by the town in 2002. At the time, a fire station,
affordable housing and land banking were identified as possible
future uses. On July 9, the town received six responses to the
RFP. On July 15 and again on July 19, an RFP review team met
to evaluate the proposals, interview the finalists and forward its
recommendation to the Town Council. Members of the RFP
review team include Bob Armour, Tricia Hutchinson and Bruce
Norring from the neighborhood; Dick Cleveland and Kim Ruotolo
from the Town Council; and Stan Zemler, Kraige Kinney, John
Gulick, Pam Brandmeyer, Judy Camp, Greg Hall, Russ Forrest,
Nina Timm and Suzanne Silverthorn from the staff. Once the
hiring of a firm is authorized by the Town Council, the planning
team will help facilitate a process that will include a series of
neighborhood meetings and Town Council discussions to
accommodate previous decisions to site a fire station on the
property and to identify and evaluate additional uses that will
maximize community benefit while complementing the
surrounding neighborhood. Approximately $177,000 remains in
the 2004 Capital Projects Fund Budget for fire station planning
and design work.
7. ITEM/TOPIC: Conference Center Update. (10 min.)
See attached memo.
~~
8. Greg Barrie Renovation of Pirate Ship Park. (15 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Please see attached for details of the following:
1. Approve a total budget amount for the Renovation Project
2. Approve construction contract between the Town of Vail and
J.L. Viele Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Pirate
ship Park Renovation Project.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
Please see the attached for details
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the above Requested Actions
I 9. ITEMROPIC: Approve Shaw Construction /Paving Red
Sandstone. At the time packets were assembled, backup
documentation was unavailable. It will be emailed prior to
Tuesday's evening meeting or tabled to 08.03.04. (10 min.)
10. Bill Gibson ITEMITOPIC: An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review
Board's denial of a design review application pursuant to Section
12-11, Design Review Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor
alteration (repaint) to an existing residence, located at 2568 Arosa
,~
r~
Drive/Lot 4, Block C, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (20 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Uphold, overturn, or modify the Design Review Board's approval
of a design review application pursuant to Section 12-11, Design
Review, Vail Town Code.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On June 16, 2004, the Design Review Board denied a design
review application pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail
Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration (repaint) to an existing
residence, located at 2568 Arosa Drive. The appellant, Mary E.
Perkins, resident at 2568 Arosa Drive, has appealed the Design
Review Board's denial. Please refer to the staff memorandum
dated July 20, 2004, for additional information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council upholds the Design
Review Board's denial pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review,
Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor alteration (repaint) to an
existing residence, located at 2568 Arosa Drive/Lot 4, Block C,
Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1.
.'"~
1. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series 2004, An
Ordinance authorizing Retail Liquor Stores or licensed drug stores
in the Town of Vail to conduct on site alcoholic beverage tastings;
'and setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
amendments or deny Ordinance.18, Series 2004, on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Pursuant to certain amendments
made to Chapter 47 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes,
retail liquor store licensees and liquor-licensed drug stores may be
authorized to conduct alcoholic beverage tastings subject to
specific limitations set forth in the aforesaid amendments.
According to the new law, as well as the Town Charter, the Town
must adopt an ordinance allowing for said tastings to occur.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance 18, Series
2004, on first reading.
2. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004, an ordinance
amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to
amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in
the Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R),
and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending Title
12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside
Residential (HR), Single-Family Residential (SfR), Two-Family
Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS),
Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF),
Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-
Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (30 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 10,
Series of 2004, on second reading. Approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, on
second reading. .
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
The Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 10,
Series of 2004, on June 1, 2004, by a vote of 6-1 (Donovan
opposed). The second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of
2004, was tabled at the Town Council's June 15 and July 6, 2004,
meetings.
The Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 2004, on July 6, 2004, with a modification to the
language of Section 15 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, by a
vote of 6-1 (Moffet opposed).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends that the
Town Council approves Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, on
second reading to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family
Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC),
Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple-
Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF), and
Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Should the Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 2004, on second reading, the Community Development
Department recommends the Town Council makes the following
findings:
1. That the amendment is consistent with, the applicable
elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined
in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the Town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated
and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that
conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of
the highest quality.
The Community Development Department recommends that
the Town Council denies Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004,
on second reading to amend the Gross Residential Floor
Area (GRFA) regulations in the Single-Family Residential
(SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), and setting forth details
in regard thereto.
13. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Second Readin of ordinance 12 Series 2004 an
9 ,
ordinance amending Title 6, Chapter 3, of the Municipal code of
the Town of Vail; Providing for certain housekeeping amendments
to the Town of Vail Police Regulations; and setting forth details in
regards thereto. (5 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Amend/Deny
Ordinance 12, Series 2004
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: After consultation with the Town
Prosecutor, several housekeeping amendments are proposed to
bring the Town's Police Regulations up to date and in further
compliance with State Statute.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve
14. George Ruher ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series
of 2004, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 12, Series of
1997, removing a condition of approval that prohibits the
operation of restaurants within the special development district,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 15,
Series of 2004, on second reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
At its June 28, 2004, public hearing, the Planning & Environmental
Commission reviewed a request to remove an existing condition of
approval which prohibits the operation of "restaurants or similar
food service operations" on the Austria Haus property. Upon
review of .the request, the Planning & Environmental Commission
voted 5-1 (Dewitt opposed) to forward a recommendation of
approval, with conditions, to the Town Council for the proposed.
major amendment to Special Development District No. 35. The
Planning & Environmental Commission's findings and
recommendation are identified in the June 28, 2004, staff
memorandum to the Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends that the
Town Council approves Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2004, on the
second reading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve
15. George Ruher ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of
2004, an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001,
and adopting an amended 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. (10 min.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approve, approve with modifications, _ or deny Ordinance No. 16,
Series of 2004.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On June 14 and 28, 2004, the Town of Vail Planning &
Environmental Commission held public hearings to consider a
request for a major amendment to a special development district
(SDD) pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures,
Vail Town Code; to allow for a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 6, Vail Plaza Hotel East, located at 100
East Meadow /Lot M, N, O; Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. Upon consideration of the
request, the Commission voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation
of approval of the request to the Town Council. In forwarding their
recommendation, however, the Commission proposed, several
revisions to the conditions of approval. A copy of the staff
memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission,
dated June 28, 2004, with revised conditions have has been
attached for reference.
On July 6, 2004, the Vail Town Council reviewed Ordinance No.
16, Series of 2004, on first reading. Upon review of the ordinance
the Council directed staff to prepare a change to the ordinance
that further obligated the developer to provide additional off site
improvements in light of the proposed reduction in the number of
hotel room keys provided with the project. Ordinance No. 16 was
approved by the Town Council on first reading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department is recommending that
the Town Council approves Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2004,
upon second reading.
16. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC; Town Managers Report (10 min.)
~~'- Dobson Arena Smoke Mitigation Update
r~Q
1"`
~~ s
U~'J~
l~
d~ ~,~~ s
The scope of the smoke management system at the Dobson Ice
Arena has changed, since Odell Architects made it known in April
that potential project costs may exceed $500k. After this
revelation, the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal conducted
code research and determined adding additional exits on the north
side of the facility would allow for an increase in occupant load.
Staff has since proceeded to obtain further code engineering and
structural engineering analysis to determine the feasibility of north
exit door scenario. This change in the project will result in
considerable savings. Roughly estimated project costs could be
closer to $150k, and there would be little lost ice time over the
summer, during construction. Completion is expected to be by
November 2004. Anew proposal has been submitted to the DRB
and town staff is expecting approval. The new submittal will
increase capacity to close to 3000 persons. The new design-
increases the center isles in the bleachers from 44" to 72",
replaces sprinkler heads to reduce the hazard of the wood roof,
and recommends the installation of two pairs of three foot doors
and stairs on -the north outside wall. This project is currently
unbudgeted. Once we have contractor pricing we will ask for the
project to be added to the next supplemental appropriation.
- agle County Capit I
Please see a ac ments from Dick Cleveland and Mike Roper.
ITEMITOPIC: Adjournment (8:45)
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2004, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please
call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
-
i:~ ~'~
~~ ~ " ,~~•
.;~ r I ~,.
sj ~
i„"irk\~. ~ i ~~;..
~\ ~ ~ ~~
~'y r~ I
~.i ~
:., ~'
~ ~~
. ~~ ~
a~
~\ ~~ O ' t
~_ "`'' PROCLAMATION #3, SERIES OF 2004
+ •~~e<,;
~: ~ ,
.~~'`~ ~ - - :Polly Letofsky Recognition
~}
~ • •,~~;
- ,~ ~
"` July 20, 2004 - ~~'
". ! Whereas, most people prefer to take a bus, train or ride a ferry, one woman has ~ ~~`
~' ''• embarked upon a walk around.the world...one with a difference; and
1 ~~: ~ -
' ~ !`'` Whereas, the walk is not to sightsee but to raise awareness and much needed ~_ ~ "`f
,~v
:~~ ~~` ~ funds for breast cancer awareness and education; and ~_ t.<
`~`: ,, ~~
-~
•. - "' Whereas, Polly Letofsky, a 42-year-old American woman and long time local to
~._~,~`~ =:v Vail, began her adventurous walking expedition around the world on August 1, ~~~
1999; and ~5"
• • ~~• , '
r~ .>
_ >~ ~.:
r:.,. Whereas, she is now only miles away from becoming the first American woman ~ :?~
~~~ ~`~„ to walk around the world; and ,;yf~ a
:,~", _>a,,.~u
~~ "~' `Whereas, after 14,300 miles in her self-described Global Walk for Breast Cancer. <~ •
,.'~`' - Including treks through the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, ~ ~~.
'~ } Mala sia Thailand India Turke and in continental Euro a from Greece to 'tt "'
<- ~ Belgium, the United~Kingdom and Ireland; and ~ ;, ~;:. ,.
~~ ~ z .
Whereas, she has stopped only long enough to spread the word of the importance ~ ~'>~,.~t ~
,~•.-„~~~~ - ~ ' of early breast cancer detection s ~~'•
Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Vail Town Council officially recognize Polly ~,;•
a~~~ '
~~` Letofsky for her tremendous accomplishment, as an inspiration to her friends,
~` _ ~ o-~
.•;~ >~~ 4 coworkelr5, fellow residents, and women around the globe. ~ -
y'//h!: ~p~
~~' ~ .Fi
i~\~ / "::
~ ' ; ~s'.
p' ' Signed this 20th day of July, 2004. ~ ,, ~~~;. .
i~ 1~~( ~
,, 4 ~:
~4~~ C ~:
o 7 \ / ' '^
.ij ~ !:
~;.
~:~ Rod Slifer, Mayor - ,• y.
s~,. ^
'`
~ c `~ rr ` r .
`~~ ~,i
~ s~ \::
~ .,,. ``~ ATTEST: ~ ~ ~~;'
E "` \ ~ ,~ .
`,~ ,, r
~f,.~ ~' . Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ~~ ~i
~~• u 71
- . - -~ ~
1.
J
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2004
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was. called to order at approximately 6:00
by Mayor Rod Slifer.
Council members present:
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem
Kim Ruotolo
Kent Logan
Diana Donovan
Farrow Hitt
Greg Moffet
Staff members present:
Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was the I-70 Sinkhole: One year Anniversary, Update and
Review. In remembrance of the hard work exhibited by multiple Vail Valley, Eagle
County and State emergency and maintenance crews, a presentation outlining the 2003
incident was given. The incident caused over $2 million in damage to public and private
property as emergency responders worked more than 18 hours to contain the flooding.
The one-year anniversary proved an opportunity to commemorate the community's
response, review lessons learned, and to thank the community and participating
agencies for their outpouring of support and cooperation.
The second item on the agenda was citizen participation. There was none.
The third item on the agenda was the consent agenda. Dick Cleveland moved, Moffet
seconded to accept minutes from the 05.04.04 and 05.18.04 meetings. Cleveland did
amend item 9, 05.18.04, clarifying that Donovan and Cleveland approved of the use of
water features, however, did not like deviation from original plan. Motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was an update on the Vail Conference Center and a
request to move forward with the following requests, ''
Authorization to engage Piper Jaffray as the town's Investment Banker on the
conference center:
2. Authorization to issue a Request for Qualifications for design team assistance on
the conference Center
3. Request to move forward with a negotiated guaranteed maximum price process
• for engaging design and a general contractor. This essentially means that both
the architect and general contractor will work for the Town of Vail.
4. Request for the Vail Town Council to approve the next phase of an owner's
representative contract. The preconstruction phase of the contract would cost up
to $155,774. However, the Conference Center Advisory Committee is only
requesting $93,212 (Includes fees and reimbursables) to fund this function until a
decision is made by the Council on whether to issue bonds, which is anticipated
in the November/December 2004 time frame.
Logan moved, Moffet seconded, motion passed, 6-1, with Donovan opposed.
The fifth item on the agenda was a streetscape construction update. Scott Bluhm,
streetscape Project Coordinator, announced:
- Most of Lower Bridge street had been paved;
- Wall Street deck, and restroom deck was poured and was in place;
- formation of the fountain pools has begun;
- pavers and snowmelt will go on restroom deck by the end of the week;
- the construction contractor will cease work on noon on Friday in order to facilitate
the TEVA games. Gore road will be smoothed out, although not pave;
- lash day of heavy construction will be June 19, 2004;
- construction costs were as anticipated with minor exceptions.
Mayor Rod Slifer, continued that he believed that the construction progressed as
smoothly as anyone could have anticipated.
The sixth item on the agenda was out of cycle council funding requests
- Red Sandstone multi-use recreation facility
Zemler, reported that that through intergovernmental cooperation and shared vision,
funding has been secured for an indoor multi-purpose recreational facility. Project
funding partners:
$380, 000
$150, 000
$100,000
$250, 000
$150,000
$65, 000
Total $1,095,000
Eagle Valley Water & Sewer
Town of Vail
Town of Vail (convert to cash)
Vail Resorts
Eagle County School District
Eagle County School District (Parking Lot
Improvements)
Moffet moved, and Ruotolo seconded the motion. The Town Council subsequently
approved the following with a 6-1 vote, with Logan dissenting.
- Authorize the Town Manager to execute a promissory note with the VRD for
$400,000 to be repaid at a rate of $40,000 per year over aten-year period. An
additional payment of $6,000 annually will be committed to a major maintenance
fund.
- Authorize the Town Manger to enter into a contract with Viele Construction for an
amount not to exceed $1,221,000 for construction of the facility.
~i
- Authorize a total budget of $1,475,000 to be added to the Capital Projects Fund.
$500,000 will be transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund
with the remainder coming from other project contributors.
- Authorize the commitment of up to $100,000 cash from the Capital Fund as a
substitute for the originally proposed TOV in kind support.
Lynn Fritlen, Fritzlen Architects, Rick Sackbauer, Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation, Tom
Fry, Linda Haverson, Ellen Foster, Gay Stanke, Mary Ann Baker, Nancy Stevens,
Connie Kincaid Strong, Eagle County School District Board Member, Mike Ortiz, Vail
Recreation District spoke in favor of approving and continuing the project.
The seventh item on the agenda was consideration of approval of Viele construction as
low bidder for the Red sandstone multi-purpose recreation facility. Moffet moved,
Ruotolo seconded, motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The eighth item on the agenda was a request authorizing the Town Manager to execute
an easement with Vail Resorts to allow for the construction of new bridge on a portion of
Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision and the unplatted parcel of land located directly to the
east of Tract K. Jay Peters, Vail Resorts, spoke in support of the project. David
Strahmsborg, requested that the town or Vail Resorts provide and overlay to provide a
clearer visual representation of the impact of the project. George Ruher, TOV
Community Development and Peters verified that they would accommodate the request.
Cleveland moved, Logan seconded, motion passed 6-1, with Hitt dissenting.
The ninth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004, an ordinance
amending Title. 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family
Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary
Residential (PS). The amendments to these three zone districts represent the first
phase of the Council's plan to amend the GRFA regulations in all of the town's
residential zone districts. The most significant changes to the Town's GRFA regulations
in these zone districts include: converting the GRFA calculations methods to simple ratio
type formulas, measuring GRFA from the outside of an exterior building wall, repealing
the "250" and "interior conversion" GRFA bonus provisions, counting vaulted spaces as
GRFA, deducting basements from the GRFA calculations, and adjusting the residential
parking requirements. Lyn Fritlen, Fritzlen Architects, spoke in support of not including
all homes, and further encouraging Council to more closely adhere to Universal Building
Code standards. Vicki Pearson, Larry Esquith, John Wilson, Steve Riden, John
Schofield, spoke in support of the ordinance. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners,
also encouraged Council to move forward. Moffet moved, .Logan seconded. Motion
passed 6-1, with Donovan dissenting.
The tenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Zemler provided the
following correspondence to Council.
- Verbatim Book Sign Code
It was reported that town staff had met with interested parties and continues to work
toward a resolution.
- Expenditure explanation for Pro-Cycling Tour event.
Council reviewed an outline of scheduling and funding history for the now cancelled Pro-
Cycling Tour Event.
- Berry Creek Sports Complex Feasibility update
It was reported that at the direction of Eagle County Board of Commissioners, Ballard,
King and Associates, Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants, Denver
Colorado, have undertaken a feasibility study for an indoor recreation center to be
located in the Berry Creek area of Edwards. The study, expected to be completed in
the fall of 2004, will include an inventory and needs assessment of recreational facilities
located within Eagle County. The firm has also begun collecting input from various
taxing jurisdictions that are recreation providers located within the Vail Valley. Open
forums for the public to add input are also planned. In a meeting with the consultant on
May 21, staff stated the town would not be interested in seeing any duplication of
services currently provided by other recreation providers, e.g., Town of Vail, Town of
Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Vail Recreation District, or Western Eagle
County Metropolitan District, to name a few, nor would the town want facilities
constructed that actually eroded, compromised, or otherwise competed with facilities
these communities have used their own town-specific revenues to construct, maintain
and staff. As an observation, staff added the addition of the athletic fields seemed an
appropriate recreational use in that the other communities did not have the acreage
available to add more fields to their current inventories. County dollars should be used
toward facilities that do not currently exist in the county.
- Intergovernmental agreement with the State of Colorado
Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Emergency Management
Services. The IGA formalizes the existing mutual aid and regional mobilization systems
to send or receive aid in the event of a disaster .or critical incident. The State has
indicated that future Homeland Security grants- may require that this document be signed
and filed with the State before funds can be approved for a jurisdiction It was reported
that over seventy-five Colorado jurisdictions had already signed the agreement. Moffet
moved, Ruotolo seconded, motion passed unanimously 7-0.
- 2004 Vail Valley Athlete Commission
It was reported that on May 14th, 2004, the Vail Valley Athlete Commission met to
discussion funding requests for the spring/summer/fall of this year. This commission
has been operational for the last ten years, with the joint funding partners of Vail
Resorts, Inc. (VRI); Beaver Creek Resort Company (BCRC); Vail Valley Foundation
(WF); and the Town of Vail (TOV). The partners have tried unsuccessfully over the
past years to include the Town of Avon and Eagle County. Because of economic
factors, contributions from both VRI and WF have been reduced from $10,000 annually
to meet the contributions from BCRC and the town. In script, you will find the funding
allocations as agreed to by the partners for the summer program. In budget cuts from
two years ago, the town's contribution was pared down five percent to follow other
allocations across the board.
- Information Signs at Village Information Center
Council was reminded of aCouncil-generated request to make improvements to the
signs at this information center at a meeting last in the fall of 2003. WCTB, the current
contractor for services, set about getting bids to upgrade the signs on the exterior of the
building. The final bid came in around $8,000, but also required a several thousand
dollar electrical upgrade for its back-lighting, at which time Council directed staff to get
involved due to the complications and funding issues. Staff ended up making the signs
currently installed, and altogether, was able to accomplish this for approximately $600,
both labor and materials. In a meeting earlier in the week, the staff at the center
commented they were very pleased with the outcome.
- Update on private contributions streetscape development
Zemler reported that private development continued in the downtown area. At the
request of Council, Zemler, stated that he could return to Council with more specific
detail.
The eleventh item on the agenda was adjournment. Moffet moved, Hitt seconded,
motion passed unanimously, 7-0, at approximately 9:00 p.m.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2004
6:00 P.M.
TOV Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council convened at approximately 6:00 p.m.
on Tuesday, June 15, 2004.
Council Members Present: Kent Logan, Rod Slifer, Dick Cleveland, Kim Ruotolo,
Diana Donovan, Greg Moffet
Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Royce Cook, a visitor from
Wichita, Kansas, described an incident that had happened to him while visiting the Vail
Library in which a police officer was ultimately dispatched to escort Cook outside. The
disagreement occurred when Cook attempted to retrieve a disk that-had gotten stuck in a
library computer, ignoring the staff's request to wait for a technician to handle the problem.
Cook went on to ask the Council to reverse the library director's decision to expel him from
the building during the remainder of his stay.
Representing the Meadow Drive merchants group, Rick Scalpello expressed concerns
about the town's responsiveness to suggested design modifications as well as the timing
of the Meadow Drive streetscape project. Scalpello asked that the Council-based Vail
Village streetscape Design Committee be reconvened to come up with a plan that would
give the Meadow Drive project as much equity and attention as the Village streetscape
project.
Paul Rondeau expressed concerns about the decision-making process for the Vail
Conference Center, cautioning the Council to take the time it needs to make informed
decisions.
The second item on the agenda was a streetscape Update. Greg Hall reported that the
Town is entering the final two weeks of the streetscape project. Hall also stated that the
deck for Vendetta's was complete, except for railings. Hall reported that the town would
continue to work through 06.25.04. Hall finished by reporting that additional work on
smaller, non-disruptive projects may continue throughout the summer.
The third item of the evening was a request from the Conference Center Oversight
Committee to:
- Approve the proposed process for engaging the public in the design team
selection process.
- Selection criteria for request for proposals.
- Consideration of proposed process constraints.
- Review of updated project budget and interrelated parking costs.
- Consideration and review of the major points of the proposed scope of
service in a request for proposals for design services (to be given to the
top 3-4 teams selected in the qualification competition.
Prior to a vote being taken, Community Development Director Russ Forrest announced
that over 60 design firms had expressed interest in responding to the town's request for
qualifications. Forrest also explained a project flowchart, outlining project progress and
future expectations and necessities. In response to several inquiries from Council,
Forrest announced that special attention would be paid to the analysis of the parking
requirements of the project. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, complemented
council on their management of the conference center project. Lamont went on to
encourage Council to err toward creativity when making a final project design selection.
Moffet moved, with Logan seconding. Council voted 6-1 (Donovan opposed), to approve
a motion to take the next steps associated with development of a conference center as
recommended by the Conference Center Oversight Committee. Those steps include: 1)
a process for engaging the public in the design team selection process; 2) selection
criteria for request for proposals for design; and 3) process givens.
The fourth item on the agenda was an appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review
Board's (DRB) approval of a design review application pursuant to Section 12-11,
Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for site improvements to an existing residence,
located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estate Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. ' On May 5, 2004, the DRB had approved a design
review application pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow
for site improvements to an existing residence, located at 4269 Nugget Lane. The
appellant, Robert L. Kandell, MD, resident at 4259 Nugget Lane, appealed the DRB
approval. Staff recommended that the Town Council uphold the DRB approval pursuant
to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for site improvements to an
existing residence, located at 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estate Resubdivision of
Lots 10 and 11, subject to the findings in Section VI of the staff memorandum dated
June 15, 2004. Cleveland moved to uphold the DRB Approval, Moffet seconded, motion
passed unanimously (7-0).
The fifth item on the agenda was an appeal of the May 19, 2004 DRB denial of an
application to build a new primary/secondary, two-family residence located at 2830
Basingdale Blvd. /Lot 5, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. On March 17, 2004, the DRB went
on a site visit and performed a conceptual review of the applicant's proposal for a new
primary/secondary residence on the subject property. At the time of the conceptual
review, the DRB gave the applicant positive comments on the design of the proposed
structure, but did not mention. anything else having to do with the site or the applicant's
proposal. On April 12, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
conditionally approved a request by the applicant for variances from the front and side
setbacks, and to have required parking in the front setback. On May 5, 2004, the DRB
performed a final review of the applicant's proposal, which included another site visit,
and informed the applicant they would not approve his application as proposed because
it would cause the removal of several large, mature spruce trees on the site. The DRB
stated the applicant would need to redesign his proposal in a manner that avoids the
necessitated removal of the large trees in order to receive their approval. Mr. Cope
protested, stating that he already tried to do so but could not, and reluctantly requested a
tabling. On May 19, 2004, the DRB denied the applicant's proposal as originally
submitted. Moffet moved to overturn the Design Review Board's denial, Hitt seconded,
the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Cleveland, Donovan, Hitt and Logan expressed an
interest to save the tree, however due to the property frontage layout; they stated that
they understood why the tree needed to be removed.
The sixth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2004 -
An Ordinance Amending Section 5-1-6, "Undesirable Plants," of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail providing for certain amendments to comply with the Colorado Noxious
Weed Act and setting forth details in regard thereto. The Council voted to approve first
reading of an ordinance amending the town code to comply with the Colorado Noxious
Weed Act. The ordinance identifies a list of plants that have been deemed detrimental to
the town's environment. Donovan expressed concern that she believed several of the
plants deemed "undesirable" in the ordinance, were not. Moffet moved, Ruotolo
seconded. Motion passed 6-1, with Donovan opposed.
The seventh item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of
2004, an ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend
the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Single-Family Residential
(SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS)
zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Community .Development staff recommended Council make the following
findings:
That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted
goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning
Regulations; and
That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a
manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established
character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality.
Cleveland, Donovan, Moffet and Logan all agreed that any ordinance that was passed
should include all residential property: Ruotolo emphasized that the ordinance should
be equitable and more easily understood. Slifer disagreed, stating that he believed that
recent efforts to pass the ordinance have convoluted the matter, and argued that no
percentage of basements should apply to the GRFA determination formulas. Erickson
Shirley spoke to Council, communicating the he believed PEC proposals haven't been
properly or responsibly represented by town staff. Shirley went on to request that the
PEC bring their own proposals to Council. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner's Association,
emphasized that Council make a decision that is equitable, and encouraged Council to
diligently continue on with the arduous process. Lamont finished by stating GRFA
modifications would only encourage further reinvestment in town. After several other
technical, and scenario based questions were posed by Council, Bill Gibson, Staff
Planner, recommended that GRFA be tabled to the next regularly scheduled Council
meeting. Council agreed, and directed staff to modify the ordinance to include a
proportional measurement calculation for basements and tighter definitions for crawl
spaces in an attempt to apply the modifications to all residential zone districts. Moffet
introductorily moved to approve Ordinance 10 on the Second reading, with Logan
seconding. Motion failed 3-4, with Hitt, Cleveland; Donovan and Ruotolo opposed.
Subsequently, Hitt moved to table the item to July 6, Logan seconded. The motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
The, eighth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
- Channel 5 Update
In separate conversations with Larry Brooks, Avon's town manager, and
Brian Hall, with Channel 5, staff understands the following: Avon pays three
percent of its five percent franchise fee, or $13,000 directly to Channel 5.
Additionally, Comcast, in a "pass through" arrangement with the Town of
Avon, pays $10,000 annually for equipment replacement. Brian understands
Vail will pay its $10,000 contribution after an additional $10,000 has been
fund-raised. .
.Community Host Program Request for additional, Parking Passes.
The Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau (WCTB) provided a request
for two additional parking passes for hosting one staff member, Friday
through Sunday, September 10 through October 17, eight hours daily. This
will provide the construction back up and directions that have proven so
successful this spring in the Village Streetscape Program. Council agreed to
authorize staff to distribute two (2) additional blue parking passes to support
this ongoing program.
- Three Neighborhood Picnics Scheduled
Dates were announced for the town's annual neighborhood picnics.
--Friday, June 25, Vail Village (Wall Street)
--Thursday, July 22, Donovan Park
--Thursday, Aug. 5, Bighorn Park
The picnics will take place from 11:30 a:m. to 1:30 p.m. In the past, these
gatherings have been a great opportunity to socialize with the neighborhood and
to solicit comments and suggestions. Now that we have initiated a biennial
process for the community survey (the next one scheduled for March 2005), the
picnics will serve as an important feedback loop in lieu of the survey this year.
- Request For Proposal (RFP) Distributed
Stan Zemler distributed a draft document requesting proposals from design
teams to help the town master plan atown-owned parcel in West Vail. The
property was acquired by the town in 2002, with a fire station, affordable housing,
and land-banking noted as possible uses.
The ninth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet made the motion to adjourn
while Cleveland seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0, at approximately 9:30p.m.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004
6:00 P.M.
TOV COUNCIL CHAMBER
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council convened at approximately 6:05 p.m.
on Tuesday, May 18, 2004.
Council Members Present: Kent Logan, Rod Slifer, Dick Cleveland, Kim Ruotolo,
Diana Donovan, Greg Moffet
Staff members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. There was none.
The second item on the agenda was the Quarterly I-70 Noise Mitigation Update. On
December 2, 2003 the Vail Town Council directed town staff to pursue four areas of
focus to mitigate I-70 impacts on a short-term and long-term basis with updates to be
reported on a quarterly basis. The last quarterly update occurred on March 16, 2004 with
reports on the four focus areas of education, enforcement, engineering and legislation.
In this report, staff presented a summary of additional actions, including traffic
enforcement, education, noise and speed measurements, as well as an analysis of
temporary noise wall demonstration options.
Staff requested Council to consider the following three items:
1) Direct staff to continue to pursue. a temporary noise wall demonstration project
with additional analysis on two possible approaches: a trailer alternative; and a
noise wall panel alternative. Council ultimately directed staff to continue to
pursue the temporary installation of noise wall panels along a test location in
West Vail. The four-week test would be used to measure the effectiveness of
permanent noise walls. The Council was presented with a second .option
involving the use of tractor trailers parked alongside I-70 similar to temporary
sound walls used on the T-REX project on I-25. However, the Council majority
said the noise wall panels would better replicate the impact of a permanent
solution. Next steps involve meeting with the West Vail neighborhood to explain
the concept more fully and to request support; receiving approvals from the
Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration;
as well as seeking participation from the' Colorado Motor Carriers Association to
help reduce the cost of the pilot project, currently estimated at $262,000, which
includes an offer by Empire Acoustics of Trinidad, Colo., to donate 2,000 lineal
feet of panels. Public Works Director Greg Hall said the noise test would be most
-,
effective if it could be implemented during afour-week period in August or
September. .
2) Authorize, an expenditure of up to $60,000 from the Capital Projects Fund to
purchase and install two speed control radar signs for installation on I-70.
Council agreed not to pursue this option.
3) Authorize the Town Manager to continue with the alternative actions outlined in
the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Vail and the Colorado
Motor Carriers Association. Council directed the Town Manager to continue to
pursue these options.
In addition, other ideas offered during the discussion included a suggestion by
Councilman Greg Moffet to conduct a site visit to learn more about enforcement of
highway noise violations and to put more teeth in the town's existing noise ordinance.
Councilman Dick Cleveland suggested setting aside a pool of money to be used by
private property owners to mitigate noise on their property. The I-70 update also
included a report from Police Chief Dwight Henninger on the status of the department's
traffic safety enforcement program, known as 65 Max.
The third item. on the agenda was a discussion of percentage guidelines for the General
Fund Balance. Finance Director, Judy Camp, recommended that the town maintain~as a
target over the next five years, 35% of general fund revenue in the general fund balance.
Camp reported that the town's General Fund balance has grown from $3.7 million or
21 % of revenue in 1999 to $10 million or 46% of revenue by year-end 2004. The budget
guideline for the General Fund balance was 10% in 1999 and was increased to 25% for
the 2001 budget. The guideline was established to assure that the fund balance is
adequate to cover short-term fluctuations in revenues, emergencies, and planned future
expenditures. Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) "recommends, at a
minimum, that general-purpose governments, regardless of size, maintain unreserved
fund balance in their general fund of no less than five to 15 percent of regular general
fund operating revenues, or of no less than one to two months of regular general fund
operating expenditures." This recommendation, of course, should be considered in the
context of the particular government's own circumstances. The Town of Vail is heavily
dependent upon a single source of revenue -sales tax, which contributes about 45% of
all town revenue. Two other revenue sources, the ski areas admissions tax and the
public accommodations tax, which add another 10%, are similar to the sales tax in that
their revenue is concentrated in the five winter months and they are vulnerable to
outside factors. such as snow conditions, tourism, and the general economy. Another
source of revenue that is generally considered more stable is property tax. Because of
the Gallagher Amendment, however, the town has seen a reduction in property tax
revenue and is likely to see additional reductions in the future. As the town enters into a
period of intense redevelopment, near-term expenditures are expected to increase.
Utilizing these considerations as a base for analysis, Camp emphasized that it would be
prudent to carry a fund balance that is higher than the GFOA recommended minimum.
Camp then suggested that an appropriate General Fund Reserve Balance target for the
2005 budget and five-year plan be established at 35%. Council approved of Camp's
recommendation.
The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing on the Ice Dome. The ice dome
facility is owned by the Town of Vail and has been operated by the Vail Recreation
District for the past three seasons. However, recreation officials have indicated the
district will not operate the facility for the 2004-05 season due to projected losses in the
bubble's operations. In the past, the dome has received a conditional use permit to
operate in a location just east of the golf course clubhouse from November to April. The
facility is then placed in storage during the off-season. The bubble was acquired by the
town in 2000 at the request of Vail Junior Hockey and other skating groups to offset
scheduling conflicts at Dobson Ice Arena. In its infancy the bubble endured a lawsuit by
neighboring homeowners who feared its presence would attract late-night noise and
increased traffic. Following the recreation district's latest decision to forego operation of
the bubble, the Vail Town Council was presented with three possible options for
consideration. (1) Sell the bubble to the highest bidder. (2) Keep the bubble in storage
for the next year to allow time for a demand evaluation for a second sheet of ice within
the town limits. (30) Solicit a third party operator for the 2004-05 season. Craig Detton,
John Tetstrum, Vail Junior Hockey Association, Merv lapin, Louise Funk, and Kate Gray
all spoke in support of the bubble, or some fashion of a second sheet of ice in Vail.
Many believed adequate practice times for junior hockey programs would be
unavailable, and that non ice related events would interrupt Dobson Arena's value as a
reliable winter sports facility. Scott Proper and Peter Cook, Vail Recreation District
(VRD) Board members and East Vail residents, stated that now is not the time to put a
second sheet of ice in Vail, and that another year of demand analysis is in order. Jerry
Sibley stated that he believed the actual operation of the bubble in the past, was
sabotaged by the VRD, and encouraged increased cooperation between the VRD and
TOV. Christina Wyatt inquired as to who is responsible for promotion of the bubble and
skating programs. Many council members responded that answers to Ms. Wyatt's
questions were uncertain. Councilman Moffet questioned the need for a second sheet of
ice and added that no empirical evidence existed to support such a notion. Councilmen
Logan and Cleveeand encouraged those in favor of more ice in Vail to continue with
strategic planning and organization. Councilwoman Donovan suggested that the town
should continue to store the bubble and supported further "ice demand" analysis. Mayor
Slifer voiced that he would encourage the bubble being re-erected in Vail, and that
interested parties should return, preferably no later than September, with a viable
operating plan for the facility. Cleveland moved to continue to store the bubble, with
Logan seconding. Motion passed 6-1, with Moffet opposed
The fifth item on the agenda was a request by The Vail Conference Center Advisory
Committee to approve the following:
1) Review the recommendation from the Committee on short-listing the design
team candidates and to issue the Request for Proposals to the six
recommended design teams.
2) Review and approve suggested changes to the design team selection
process from the Committee.
3) Request permission to issue an RFP for a surveyor to survey the Lionshead
parking structure site and surrounding area.
The request was in accordance with the continuation of the following steps approved on
June 15:
1. Approval of the proposed process for engaging the public in the design team
selection process.
2. Selection criteria for request for proposals.
3. Consideration of proposed process givens.
4. Review of updated project budget and interrelated parking costs, and
5. Consideration and review of the major points of the proposed scope of
service request for proposals for design services (to be given to the top three-
fourteams selected in the qualification competition).
The Conference Oversight Committee (sub-committee) unanimously recommended that
Council approve the above mentioned requests. Paul Rondeau asked that the Council
continue to support public involvement, make written requirements for the project
publicly available, and follow specifically outlined milestones and checkpoints. Moffet
moved, Cleveland, seconded. The motion passed 6-1, with Donovan opposed.
The sixth item on the agenda was a Piney Lake /Forest Service Cut Update. Cal
Wettstein, U. S. Forest Service (USES), announced that the USES is proposing a timber
harvest using a commercial thinning prescription, of lodge pole pine in an area four miles
northwest of Vail, near Freeman Creek. The primary access to this timber stand is via
FSR700 Red Sandstone Road, the road to Piney Lake. Approximately 1,900 acres of
timber will be harvested during an eight year period, between 2005 and 2012. Log trucks
will be utilizing Red Sandstone Rd. and North Frontage Rd. for access to I-70, between
June 1 and October 31. No hauling would occur on weekends or holidays. Flaggers and
other safety measures will be in place during harvesting operations. Wettstein also
publicized that if any interested parties, would want observe the affected areas, the
USES would help facilitate information and access.
The seventh item on the agenda was a request for funding of Vail Classic Bicycle Ride
on Labor Day Weekend. Arn Menconi approached the town to act as a sponsor for a
Labor Day bicycle ride to cover the route locally referred to as the Leadville Loop. At a
meeting on June 30, Kelli McDonald and Ian Anderson, of the Vail Local Marketing
District Advisory Council (VLMDAC) agreed that if approved, the event would be
incorporated into the marketing efforts for the timeframe of August 15 through
September 15, which efforts were endorsed by Council at an earlier meeting forgiving a
$50,000 working capital loan to -the Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD). It was
reported that the event would be expected to draw between 300 to 500 riders. It was
subsequently reported that many event participants would spend at least one night in the
Town of Vail. Sybill Navas and Ian Anderson, on behalf of the Commission on Special
Events, indicated another bicycle ride honoring Brent Malin had been funded by CSE for
$3,000 and that the producer of this event had agreed to combine his event with
Menconi's proposed Labor Day ride. Navas and Anderson stated the CSE had $7,000
remaining in their '03 budget and indicated that other CSE board members were willing
to earmark those funds for the Labor Day event. Navas also stated that she had
canvassed the CSE, and that the board unanimously supported a total contribution of
$10,000 to the event Scott Proper, Vail Recreation District Board member stated that the
VRD would be willing to assist in event coordination. " Moffet moved, Logan seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 7-0 to approve up to $15,000 for the now cancelled Pro
Cycling Tour (PCTO in September '04.
The eighth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of
2004, and an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, removing a
condition of approval that prohibits the operation of restaurants within the special
development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. At its June 28; 2004,
public hearing, the Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed a request to
remove an existing condition of approval which prohibits the operation of "restaurants or
similar food service operations" on the Austria Haus property. Upon review of the
request, the Planning & Environmental Commission voted 5-1 (Dewitt opposed) to
forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Town Council for the
proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 35. The PEC findings
and recommendation are identified in the June 28, 2004, staff memorandum to the
Commission. The Community Development Department recommended that Council
approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2004, on first reading. Johannes Faessler
addressed the Council and explained the history of the area and why the prohibition of
restaurants was originally enacted. Moffet moved to approve Ord. 15, Hitt seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The ninth item on the agenda was the First reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of
2004, an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001, and adopting an
amended 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. On June 14 and 28, 2004, the Town of Vail PEC held
public hearings to consider a request for a major amendment to a special development
district (SDD) pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code,
to allow for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Plaza Hotel
East, located at 100 East Meadow /Lot M, N, O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. Upon consideration of the request, the
Commission voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to the
Town Council. In forwarding their recommendation, however, the Commission proposed
several revisions to the conditions of approval. Community Development staff
recommended approval of the Ordinance. Waldir Prado, property owner, and Tim Losa,
project architect, addressed Council to help elucidate the scope and specifics of the
project. Moffet moved, Ruotolo seconded. Motion passed unanimously,. 7-0.
The tenth item on the agenda was the First reading of Ordinance 12, Series 2004, An
Ordinance amending Title 6, Chapter 3, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail;
providing for certain housekeeping amendments to the Town of Vail Police Regulations:
and setting forth details in regard thereto. After consultation with the Town Prosecutor,
several housekeeping amendments were proposed to bring the Town's Police
Regulations up to date and in further compliance with State Statutes. Cleveland moved
to approve as read, but including changes suggested by Matt Mire, with Moffet
seconding. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The eleventh item on the agenda was (a) Second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series
of 2004, an ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to
amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Single-Family
Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary/Secondary
Residential (PS) Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (b) First reading of
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations,
Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the
Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family Residential .(SFR), Two-Family Residential (R),
Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density
Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density
Multiple-Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association Representative, spoke in support of
adoption on first reading, and encouraged town staff to work with the local press to
explain in detail what the changes clearly represent. John Schofield, former PEC Chair,
encouraged Council to consider a variance procedure. Council chose to table the
second reading of Ordinance No. 10; and then reviewed and approved Ordinance No.
14 on first reading. Both Ordinance No. 10 and Ordinance No. 14 were scheduled for
further review and second reading at the Town Council's July 20, 2004, meeting.
Cleveland moved to approve with the addition of of Section 15, para. C, Hitt seconded.
Motion passed 6-1, with Moffet opposed.
The twelth item on the agenda was the Second reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2004 - An Ordinance Amending Section 5-1-6, "Undesirable Plants," of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail providing for certain amendments to comply with the Colorado
Noxious Weed Act and setting forth details in regard thereto. Pursuant to CRS § 35-5.5-
101 et seq., ~ the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, town staff developed a Weed
Management Plan for those plants declared to be noxious weeds by state statute. The
Ordinance also provides for other minor amendments to the Town Code to further
comply with state statute. Moffet moved, and Ruotolo seconded. Motion passed 6-1,
with Donovan opposed.
The thirteenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
• ADA Compliance
Zemler reported: that the town is ready to enter into a settlement agreement with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) that allows for town facility modifications to be completed.
As a part of the town's report, improvements to the Ford Amphitheater (owned and
operated by the Vail Valley Foundation, WF) will, coincide with the town's repairs. Town
staff also re-scheduled maintenance projects in '04 to free up funding to complete
approximately half of these repairs and will include line items in the '05 budget to
complete the remaining work. Staff stated that they believe this will be completed on.
time, and with some refinements and negotiations along the way, under budget. Staff
reported they had met with Dennis Stein, Jim Collins and Linda Alexander (attorneys for
the Vail Recreation District, VRD) on Thursday, July 1, to discuss the separate report
that was issued to the VRD. Negotiations on cost-share will continue. The DOJ,
recognizing the VRD's issues are substantially more complicated and expensive to
resolve, has expressed a willingness to enter into a much longer time negotiation with
the VRD as long as both parties (the town and VRD) continue to hammer out the details
and move forward in asolution-oriented manner. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded,
to authorize the Town Manager to continue negotiations and enter~into an agreement to
remedy the ADA compliance issues as well as to move forward with a construction
contract.. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
• Eagle County Capital Projects Committee
Zemler stated that following the fall election in '03 and during Council's committee and
task force appointments discussion, Rod Slifer was appointed to the County Capital
Projects Committee to fill Ludwig Kurz's former position. Since that time, Slifer has
indicated that because of other commitments, tie would be comfortable with the Mayor
Pro-Tem, Dick Cleveland, ,serve on the committee in his stead. Moffet moved, to
approve this action, with Ruotolo seconding. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
• Update on Chamonix Property Master Planning
Zemler ~ reported that the Town has issued a request for proposals for the master
planning process for the Chamonix property. Proposals are due to the town at noon on
July 9. Zemler stated that. he would like to form a subgroup to review the proposals. As
envisioned, this. subgroup would be comprised of two Council members, several
neighborhood representatives and staff. It was decided that Cleveland and Ruotolo
would be the Council representatives on the subgroup. ,
• Donovan Pavilion
Staff provided Council with a letter from Donovan Pavilion Management, Inc., outlining a
change in internal structure as well as a set of promotional and marketing materials that
had been produced by this company for the pavilion.
• Transportation
Zemler announced that the Rural Resort Region will convene its first meeting to discuss
the IGA for the establishment of an I-70 Central MountainTransportation Corridor
Coalition. The meeting will be held on Friday, July 16 in the Fremont Room of the
Summit County Community and Senior Center, with Moffet attending.
• Request to use Council Days at Dobson
Zemler and Brandmeyer reported that the National Brotherhood of Skiers (NBS) will be
bringing a group of 3-5,000 skiers to Vail from February 5-12, 2005 and that Dobson
Arena will be used by the NBS as their registration headquarters for concerts and
banquets. Vail Resorts has requested use of eight Town Council use days at the facility.
The town's management agreement with the VRD allows for up to 10 days use from 'the
time period of December 15 to March 14. The daily standard rental rate for the facility is
$3,500/day. Day use given by the Council still requires hard costs be reimbursed to
VRD that can run as high as $1,700/day (to include utilities, set up, tear down, staging,
etc.). In the past, Council has not given more than one or two days of free use during
this timeframe. In speaking with the VRD, the district has already displaced regular
programming to accommodate this group. The NBS has been offered a contract but had
not yet signed it. In the VRD's negotiations with the group, the district had offered a
discounted rate of $3,500 for day 1, with the remaining 7 days at $2,500/day (with no
additional costs for services, which because of the various set ups, will be extensive).
Staff stated that they would continue to research solutions other than the one presented,
that would more effectively serve as an incentive but would not undermine VRD's ability
to generate revenue. Staff also indicated that they would continue to pursue
mechanisms to offset certain costs with obtaining the facility. Council agreed that the
town should continue to court the organization.
• Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD) Working Capital Loan
Zemler reiterated that the Board of the VLMD met on June 15th and authorized the
redirection of $50,000 originally budgeted for marketing the Pro Cycling Tour toward a
Front Range direct marketing campaign. Town Council had previously agreed that the
Town would forgive $50,000 of VLMD's loan from the Town so that VLMD could fund the
Pro Cycling Tour. Staff requested a motion confirming that the $50,000 in loan
forgiveness, continue to apply with the change in use of the funds. Moffet moved to
approve to compensate for the loss of the PCT event, Logan seconded. Motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
• Easement /Red Sandstone multi-purpose recreation facility
The Town Manager was authorized to sign a trench agreement followed by a permanent
easement agreement with Holy Cross Electric at the Red Sandstone multi-purpose
recreation facility. The easement will provide power to the building by tying into the holy
Cross Electric Vault in the road to the new transformer to be set east of the new building.
Moffet moved, Ruotolo seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
• Easement /Booth Creek Culvert under)-70
The Town Manager was authorized to sign a temporary construction easement to
replace the Booth Creek Culvert under I-70. This is asub-standard culvert and is
needed to expedite the process to avoid another sink hole incident. Moffet moved,
Ruotolo seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The fourteenth item on the agenda was adjournment. Moffet moved, Ruotolo
seconded. Motion passed unanimously 7-0, at 11:02 p.m.
TO: Town Council
• FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Suzanne Silverthorn, Community Information Officer
DATE: July 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Chamonix Property Master Site Planning
BACKGROUND
On June 18, the Town of Vail initiated a request for proposals (RFP) process (see
attached) to facilitate a master land use plan for the town-owned Chamonix property at
2310 Chamonix Rd. (formerly known as the Hud Wirth site). The property was
purchased by the town in 2002. At the time, a fire station, affordable housing and land
banking were identified as possible future uses. On July 9, the town received six
responses to the RFP. On July 15, an RFP review team met to evaluate the proposals.
Members of the RFP review team are: Bob Armour, Tricia Hutchinson, and Bruce
Norring from the neighborhood; Dick Cleveland and Kim Ruotolo from the Town Council;
and Stan Zemler, Kraige Kinney, John Gulick, Pam Brandmeyer, Judy Camp, Greg Hall,
Russ Forrest, Nina Timm, and Suzanne Silverthorn from the staff.
EVAUATION OF MASTER PLANNING PROPOSALS
Proposals were received from the following teams:
• C4i Design Group, Inc., Wheat Ridge, Colo. $49,700
• Davis Partnership/Michael Hazard Associates, Edwards $50,000
• DPA Architectural Group, Glenwood Springs $64,000
• Fritzlen Pierce Architects/MPG, Vail $45,070
• VAg Inc. Architects & Planners, Avon $44,000
• Wenk Associates, Denver $47,669
The proposals were evaluated based on cost, relevant master planning and public
process experience, community knowledge, team composition, scope of work, and
timetable. As a result, two finalists were identified for interviews to be held on July 19
with a recommendation forwarded to the Town Council later in the day for consideration
at the July 20 meeting. The two finalists are, in alphabetical order:
Davis Partnership Architects/Michael Hazard Associates
Fritzlen Pierce Architects/MPG
The proposals from the two finalists are attached.
TEAM RECOMMENDATION
The review team recommendation will be presented to the Town Council via email on
July 19 in preparation for the evening meeting on July 20. At that time, the group will ask
for authorization for the Town Manager to enter into a contract with the recommended
planning team for a not to exceed amount to facilitate preparation of a master land use
plan for the Chamonix property. The project will be assigned to a line item in the 2004
Capital Projects Fund which includes $177,000 for fire station planning and design work.
Once authorized by the Town Council, the planning team will help facilitate a process
that will include a series of neighborhood meetings and Town Council discussions to
accommodate previous decisions to site a fire station on the property and to identify and
evaluate additional uses that will maximize community benefit while complementing the
• surrounding neighborhood.
i
•
2
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
TOWN OF VAIL
DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER LAND USE PLAN
CHAMONIX PROPERTY
VAIL DAS SCHONE, TRACT D, FILING 1
•
REQUESTED BY
TOWN OF VAIL
OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER
75 S. FRONTAGE RD.
VAIL, CO 81657
June 18, 2004
•
r~
~~
Background-
In October 2002, the Town of Vail acquired a 3.6-acre parcel of land in West Vail for
$2.6 million. The site, once known as the Hud Wirth property, and now called the
Chamonix property, is located at 2310 Chamonix Road. The site is zoned
primary/secondary residential and is the largest remaining town-owned developable
parcel in Vait. In approving acquisition of the land, the Vail Town Council identified a "fire
station, affordable housing and land-banking° as future public uses contemplated by the
town. The next step is to master plan the property, which is the purpose of this RFP.
The Town of Vail desires to hire the services of a planning team to work with the Town of
Vail and its constituencies to develop a master plan for the Chamonix property with
design work to be completed during 2004.The design team should be highly qualified to
include expertise in the areas of land planning, site analysis and layout, architectural
massing, space programming, construction cost estimating, and public process.
Soils tests are being conducted simultaneously and will be provided to the planning
team, as well as survey information and initial site planning studies.
Purpose
The purpose of developing a master plan for the Chamonix property is to accommodate
the Town Council's desire to site a fire station on the property and to identify and
evaluate additional uses that will maximize community benefit while complementing
characteristics of the existing area. In addition to the fire station, the analysis should be
inclusive to include the possibility of residential, commercial, mixed-use and additional
public facilities and/or amenities. The plan should also address opportunities for public •
and private partnerships for development viability and efficiency. Phasing could also be
a component of the plan.
Scope of Work
The planning team's submitted proposal should include a detailed breakdown of all
general and specific tasks and products required to complete the work. The following is
a brief outline of the desired minimum tasks requested with the anticipated products and
services expected: ,
1. Identify and evaluate 2 to 3 site configurations for the West Vail Fire Station
(approximately 8,000 sq. ft.) using design specifications provided by the Town of
Vail following a scoping meeting with representatives from the Vail Fire &
Emergency Services Department. One of the configurations should maximize the
ability for additional development on the remainder of the site. The designs
should explore possible options for drive-in/drive-out accessibility by emergency
vehicles.
2. Determine range of potential for additional development on the property.
3. Work in conjunction with the town staff to conduct a public scoping process,
using no more than 2 neighborhood/community meetings, to present current
work and identify community wants, needs, benefits, expectations, concerns, etc.
4. Develop project parameters using key themes identified during the public
meetings.
5. Assist town staff in presenting project parameters to Vail Town Council for
approval and/or modification.
6. Using project parameters, develop 3 alternatives for master planning entire site
with associated visuals. One of the approaches, assuming it meets the project
•
C7
parameters, should include apublic-private partnership scenario that attempts to
fund construction of the fire station with minimal to no public funding.
7. Work in conjunction with town staff to conduct a neighborhood meeting to
present the 3 altematives, collect and document public comments, and identify a
preferred option.
8. Assist town staff in conducting a public hearing to present the 3 altematives to
Vail Town Council, plus a summary of comments and preferences from the
neighborhood meeting. Receive direction from Town Council on a preferred
alternative.
9. Develop a master plan document to include specific recommendations on zoning,
and development parameters, such as maximum height, floor area, site coverage
and circulation. In addition, the consultant should provide a preliminary cost
estimate and proforma in cooperation with town staff for each alternative
examined in master plan.
10. Coordinate hand-off to designated planner in Town'of Vail Community
Development Department who will assume project management for submittal to
the Planning and Environmental Commission.
Schedule
The following is a general schedule for the project:
June 18, 2004 Issuance of RFP
Noon, July 9, 2004 Proposals due to Town of Vail
July 19, 2004 Interviews
July 22, 2004 Award of contract
July 26, 2004 Begin work
• TBD Neighborhood meetings
Aug. 17, 2004 Council consideration of project parameters
TBD Neighborhood preferences meeting
Oct. 19, 2004 Council selection of preferred alternative
Oct. 26, 2004 Design work complete
Submittal Requirements
Respondents are requested to submit the following information:
Cover Letter
Identify team members and backgrounds
State roles of each member and provide a team organization chart
Highlight strengths of team
Qualifications and Exoerience
Describe team's expertise as it pertains to the delivery of a land use master plan
Provide examples of previous experience with verification contact information
Schedule
Acknowledge ability to meet or exceed the schedule identified above and provide a
specific timetable for each step identified in the scope of work
Project Budget
Provide hourly billing rate for each team member
Provide a detailed fee proposal for the work broken down by tasks described above
The team shall also provide any additional services deemed necessary for achieving the
goal of this work
• 3
Provide adetailed-reimbursable schedule
Submittal of Qualifications
Address all questions and submittals (12 sets) to the attention of:
Suzanne Silverthorn
Community Information Office
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Phone: (970) 479-2115
Fax: (970) 479-2451
Email: ssilver(a~vail.net
The deadline for submittals is 12 Noon July 9, 2004. Respondents should be available
for interview on July 19, 2004.
•
General Conditions
Limitations and Award
This RFP does not commit the Town of Vail to award or contract, nor to pay any costs
incurred, in the preparation and submission of proposals in anticipation of a contract.
The Town of Vail reserves the right to reject all or any submittal received as a result of
this request, to negotiate with all qualified sources, or to cancel all or part of the RFP.
After a priority listing of the final firms is established, the Town of Vail will negotiate a
contract with the first priority firm. If negotiations cannot be successfully completed with
the first priority firm, negotiations will be formally terminated and will be initiated with the •
second most qualified firm and, likewise, with the remaining firms.
Selection
Initial evaluation will be based upon the qualifications of the applicant. The Town of Vail
reserves the right to_ not interview, and to make final consultant selection based upon the
qualification statements and cost estimate.
Eoual Emolovment Ooaortunity
The selected consultant team will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Contact Phasing
Proposed tasks within this RFP may be eliminated by the Town of Vail at any time due to'
the progression and sequencing of the scope of work.
4 •
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Conference Center Advisory Committee
DATE: July 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Update on the Vail Conference Center
Planner: Russell Forrest
1. PURPOSE
The Vail Conference Center Advisory Committee (Committee) is requesting the
following from the Vail Town Council:
Review the recommendation from the Committee on short-listing the
design team candidates from six to four teams that would be interviewed
on Monday, July 26th.
2. BACKGROUND
• The Vail Town Council on April 20, 2004 authorized a series of next steps which
included interviewing owner's representative firms for the Conference Center. On
April 29, 2004, the Committee met to interview five owner's representative firms.
On May 18, 2004 the Vail Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute
a contract with ARC to be the Town's owner's representative and funding for the
first phase of this contract or $8,510. The Vail Town Council also authorized the
Committee to negotiate with both Piper Jaffray and Kirtpatrick Pettis to be the
Town's investment banker on this project.
On June 1, 2004 the Vail Town Council voted to approve the following requests
from the Committee:
• Authorization to engage Piper Jaffray as the Town's investment banker for the
Conference Center.
• Authorization to issue a Request for Qualification (RFQ) for design team
assistance on the Conference Center.
• Request to move forward with a negotiated guaranteed maximum price (GMP)
process for engaging a design team and a general contractor (as opposed to a
design build process). This essentially means that both the architect and
general contractor will work for the Town of Vail.
• Request for the Vail Town Council to approve the next phase of an owner's
representative contract. The preconstruction phase of the contract would cost
up to $155,774. However, the Committee is only requesting $93,212 (includes
fees and reimbursables) to fund this function until a decision is made by the
• Vail Town Council to issue bonds which is anticipated in the
i
Y
November/December 2004 time frame
On June 15, 2004 the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the following next
steps:
• Approval of the proposed process for engaging the public in the design team
selection process.
• Selection criteria for request for proposals.
• Consideration of proposed process givens.
• Review of updated project budget and interrelated parking costs, and
• Consideration and review of the major points of the proposed scope of service
request for proposals for design services (to be given to the top 3-4 teams
selected in the qualification competition).
On July 6th the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the following next steps:
• Review the recommendation from the Committee on short-listing the design
team candidates and to issue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to the six
recommended design teams.
• Review and approve suggested changes to the design team selection process
from the Committee.
• Request permission to issue a RFP for a surveyor to survey the Lionshead
parking structure site and surrounding area.
On July 7 there was a public meeting. Attachment A summaries the input received
at that meeting. Over 70 people attended the meeting. •
3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS
A. Selection Update.
On July 14th the Conference Center Advisory Committee met to review fee
proposals and references from the following six design firms:
• Antoine Predock Architects
• Fentress Bradburn Architects Ltd
• Horberger & Worstell
• Klipp & Morter
• LMN Architects 8~ Zehren
• Thompson Ventulett, Stainback & Associates & VAG
The Committee anticipates interviewing 4 firms on July 26th. Two of the
firms presented fees that exceeded the $3.1 million budget for design
services. The Committee is following up with all the firms to determine if
additional economies in their budget can be obtained. Staff anticipates
follow-up responses from the design firms on Friday July 16th. Staff plans
to email the Vail Town Council the final recommendation on Friday, July
16th and present that publicly on July 20th to the Vail Town Council. This is
an extremely competitive process at this point and the Committee needs •
until the close of business on July 16th to ensure the Town obtains the most
competitive price. If Council members would like to review the submitted
costs, please contact Russell Forrest at 479-2146.
• 4. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS
The major next steps include:
1. Town Council meeting on July 20tH
2. Oral Interview with candidate teams on July 26th and 27th
Attachment A: Summary of input from the July 7th public meeting
F:\Users\cdev\COUNCIL\MEMOS\04\conference center072004.doc
•
r~
C
Attachment A:
Input from Public Meeting
•
•
Conference Center
July 7, 2004 Meeting
• Does 42.5 million include access roads and other off-site improvements, etc?
Yes it includes A-cell and D-Cell lanes along with other improvements to
the parking structure.
• Does it include Food prep facility? Yes
o Full commercial kitchen
o Similar to hotel amenities
• Will the architecture be of such quality as to be a tourist attraction regardless of
the program inside?
o Yes however, we still have a budget to work within.
• Could their be naming rights of the facility or a Sponsor? Still apossibility-It
would be a Town Council decision to sell naming rights.
• When do we have a GMP, etc?
o Initial GMP: December 2004
o Construction start: 2005/2006
o Construction finished: 2006/2007
• Will you evaluate projects built vs. projects designed at it relates ?
o Yes. Taken into account with reference checks.
• Interest rates can still kill project. Yes it could-we are wathing it very carefully.
• What drives decision on quantity of parking spaces?
0 125 needed for conference center. However we are looking at
opportunities to create more public parking. Bid as alternate. Need
to be further analyzed.
• Is a Transit facility included?
o It is being Bid as an alternate. May go forward but not from
conference center funds.
• LEEDS certification required"
o We are looking at the additional cost for LEEDs, We are budgeting
money for environmental design.
• Recommend not going a design competition.
o The committee is interested in a design competition but if there is an
obvious winner it may be obvious who to select.
• Capacities? 2500 - 4000
o Meet and eat 1000 - 1200 people (split spaces typically)
o Accommodate larger groups than ever
• Sufficient lodging?
o Can accommodate. May need to split between facilities.
o More hotels coming
• Meeting Planners with good transit wilt-stay in multiple properties.
Past controversial stage?
o $$ there, not necessarily done with controversey
• Is the VR commitment for money contingent on anything - Is it a firm
commitment
0 4.3 million not netted against conference center can be used for 400
spaces. VR will commit money regardless of conference center
• Will the structure comply with design guidelines? Will it be exciting and dynamic
but consistent with quality of community.
• o Consistent with local facilities
• Guidelines for design teams
o Work with context of location
o Further discussion with public input
F:\Users\cdev\conference_center\Conf Ctr mtg notes 7-7-04.doc _
• How will operational needs be addressed. When is an operator on board
o Possible operator/planner on board early on
o Have discussed and will continue to discuss with planners •
o Peer review
• Design process? How is GMP reached so early?
o Preliminary GMP off reasonably inferable. (with references to local
property)
o Change management process
• July 26 & 27 Oral Interviews
7
•
F:\Users\cdev\conference_center\Conf Ctr mtg notes 7-7-04.doc
,~ Conference Center Update Meeting
July 7, 2004
sues Design Team Should Consider Questions to ask the Design Team
regional context -the outdoors, the spaces around Do they know the local needs extremely
the buildin well?
What is the most important aspect of
traffic/ arkin - sustainabilit desi n for this ro'ect?
scale of buildin - ener efficienc What is the most challen in ?
visual im act on communit How would ou handle this?
local firms should be involved because of the large
amount of mone sent
Vail is famous already, no landmark needed, quality
critical
Local know how
Design from the inside out in other words put the
functions first.
Track record with contractors and GMP's -
Agree that there should be some.sort of tourist
traction as well as conference facility to add to
r ose.
Ima a of buidin as a owerful draw for tourism
Are any of these firms/teams industry leader in
desi n? Convention centers?
What firms can produce a design that will be
evocative and a proud symbol for Vail?•Publishable
desi n?
Who has experience with design in alpine
environment?
Does TOV have good/poor experiences with these
local firms?
Travel time/cost wasted because team is out of
town?
Construction period very important. Who will be
local to observe site regularly? On emergency
basis?
Who has ex erts in house?
Lets not reinvent the wheel.
•
F:\Users\cdev\conference_center\Conf Ctr 7-7-04 questionary
_,
- i•
3
Department of Public Works & Transportation
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21 S8
Fax: 970-479-2166
www. vailgou com
To: Vail Town Council
From: Gregg Barrie
Date: July 20, 2004
RE: Pirateship Park Renovation Project
Dear Council Members, '
After many months of work and several different design concepts, Staff is pleased to present the following
overview of the Pirateship Park Renovation Project. Working with an artist on the design and detailing of
the project has provided us with a distinctive and exciting proposal which will be an exciting addition to
Vail's park system, and will hopefully be a landmark in Vail Village for many years to come.
The overall cost of the project is slightly above the original projected cost, however, please keep in mind
that the original budget was based on a wooden post and platform type play structure and did not foresee
• the extensive steel and wooden structure currently proposed. In addition, steel prices have risen
significantly during 2004 adding several thousand dollars to the overall cost of the project.
Please review the following summary and Staff Recommendations.
Project Scope
In accordance with the desires of the Town Council, "the boat is the art". Ty Gillespie will present his
Pirateship design at the evening Town Council meeting. In addition, the site plan remains essentially the
same as the design approved by the Town Council in April of 2004. The play area is approximately the
same size as the existing park, the landscaping plan is simple, and the access to Mill Creek will be
repaired. The approved plan was modified to save the existing retaining wall along the bike path, and a
picnic table was added.
The proposed plan includes the construction of a Tot Swing Area. Staff recommends that the swings
remain as part of the project for two reasons. First, they provide a valuable play component for the 2-5
year old age group. And second, the A.D.A. requires a certain quantity of ground-level components. If
the swings are removed, it will still be necessary to include an additional ground level play piece in order
to satisfy~this requirement.
Schedule ~
J.L. Veile Construction is prepared to begin work on the steel frame upon award of the project. Actual
site work would begin the day after Labor Day, in conjunction with work on the Village Streetscape
Project. Weather permitting, the play structure and majority of site work would be completed this fall, with
final landscaping and finishing touches in the spring as needed.
a RECYCLEDPgPER - ,
~ '
~ i ..
The number provided by J.L. Viele includes the construction of the Tot Swing Area, all site work, ., .
landscaping, stream bank stabilization work along Mill Creek, and the construction of the Pirateship.
Additional costs to the project include the purchase or construction of play components (slides, nets, etc), ~ ,
engineering work, and a contingency fund. Staff and J.L. Viele have identified several thousand dollars of
savings through "value engineering" which will reduce the overall project cost. We are currently
evaluating additional items and will be able to provide a total savings at the Council Meeting. Please
review the following:
Expenses
Viele Base Bid:
Swing Set Alternate
Play Equip by TOV:
Engineering Fees:
5% Continoencv:
Tota! Expenses:
$ 299,669.22
$12, 553.45
$ 11,211
$ 5,000
$ 16.421.68
$ 344,855.35
Potential Savin4s
Value Engineering: $ 12,404.00 (to date)
Contingency Reduction: $ 620.20 (5% of value engineering)
Total Project Cost $331,831.15
Original Budget: $ 300,000
Budget Overage: $ 31,831.15
Staff Recommendations
Staff is requesting two actions. First, a budget approval, and second, a contract approval.
1. Approve a total project budget of $ 331,800 for the Pirateship Park Renovation Project including
utilization of $ 31,800 from the existing Playground Safety Improvements budget to cover the
additional construction costs
•
2. Approve a construction contract between the Town of Vail and J.L. Veile Construction, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $ 299,818.67 for the Pirateship Park Renovation Project to include
Add/Alternate 1 for the construction of the Tot Swing. This amount is the total Viele bid ($312,222.67)
minus value engineering to date.
''`
~~ `~
ti:~a~ "Area '~ Tot Swing
.-
.. ~ ~
-;~H .
:
~
,
r ' # ~ ~~
~ ~ 4.1...
• \
.~
tr \
'~
y ~
y
A ~: j
~
~'r V
/ '`~ : ` N~ral
~ .~ .` ~ '. Y . •.t '..~
... J :•. .
:. ... '
't ~ ,r~~l'.' W~~:.: ,
{' ~7'
~~~~ Natural •~'..~«~.±a.
~~; / / I ~ \
` .. ` ,
~`~; ~ ..
o,$
~0 .
!/ ~0
G
Goc 5~0~
e~
~~d ~
Wooden
.,__~.
~~/I\\\ ~
e n ,~
Q~ o1p0 .
0~
~~ ~ ~ ~.
~ art
P~r~~ ~ ~ ;
~yac~ JaB
JOB
.TRO
cow
8121/04
RPI007
. VARIES
• ORDINANCE NO. 18
Series of 2004
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING RETAIL LIQUOR STORES OR LIQUOR-LICENSED DRUG
STORES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL TO CONDUCT ON SITE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
TASTINGS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to certain amendments made to Chapter 47 of Title 12 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes, retail liquor store licensees and liquor-licensed drug stores may be
authorized to conduct alcoholic beverage tastings subject to specific limitations set forth in the
aforesaid amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety,
and welfare to adopt this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 12-47-301(10)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes, the Town of
• Vail hereby authorizes alcoholic beverage tastings for licensed retail liquor stores and liquor-
licensed drug stores within the Town subject to the limitations contained in Section 12-47-
301(10), C.R.S., and subject to the approval by the Local Licensing Authority of a Liquor
Tastings Permit Application in a form approved by the Town Clerk.
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance,
and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact
that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
• Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2004
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof. .
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after publication following final
passage.
Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance
shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior
to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless
expressly stated herein.
Section 6. 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 20th day of July, 2004 and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of August, 2004, at 6:00 P.M. in
the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Rodney Slifer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
•
•
Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2004 2 •
BEVERAGE ANALYST ARTICLE Page 1 of 4
<<
2004 Liquor Enforcement Legislative Summary
• July 2004
To download copies of below Senate bills or House bills please see the Legislative web
address at www.leg.state.co.us. If you have any questions please contact our office at
303-205-2306.
HB 1021 Conceming the consumption of alcohol, and making an appropriation
therefore.
Reduced DUI standard from .10 to .08
Allows tasting of alcohol beverages in liquor stores and liquor licensed drug stores if the
local government adopts an ordinance or resolution authorizing tastings.
May limit the number authorized per year
May establish own application and procedure
May charge reasonable fee
May only be conducted by persons who have completed aseller/server training
• program established by the Liquor Enforcement Division.
Alcohol must be purchased through a licensed source at not less than cost
Only 5 hours per day (need not be consecutive)
Only during lawful hours
May serve not more than 4 samples per patron free of charge
May only occur on no more than 4 of the 6 days per week, not to exceed 104 days per
year.
Does NOT allow tastings to be conducted on a licensed premises by a Limited winery
licensee. (May be done outside or adjacent to premises).
Authorizes H/R Licenses to purchase $1000.00 of alcohol beverage from a retail liquor
store.
Allows a customer of a licensed H/R to reseal and remove one opened container of
partially consumed vinous liquor as long as the original container did not contain mare
than 750 ml.
SB 254 Concerning the clarification of the regulatory relationship between special
• events and wine festivals, and, in connection therewith, authorizing joint fines.
Authorizes a Special. Events permit to be issued on an Arts, Club, Limited Winery, or at a
http://www.revenue.state.co.us/liquor dir/20041egissummary.htm 7/14/04
`~
THE TOWN OF VAIL
RETAIL LIQUOR TASTINGS
PERMIT APPLICATION
T10wN OF YAIL
Town Clerk
Licensee Name:
DBA:
Address:
City, State, Zip: _
Mailing Address
(if different)
State License Number:
Business Phone Number:
At all times during all Tastings, the Licensee shall post and keep visible to the public
in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises the Tastings Permit issued by the
Town Clerk, and a MinorWarning sign [C.R.S. 12-47-901(5)(h)].
CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT
I hereby certify that the information in this application is true, correct, and complete
to the best of my knowledge. I certify that it is my responsibility to be sure that all
current and future employees complete a servers training program and submit to the
Town Clerk's office. I certify that it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my
agents and employees to comply with all applicable laws, including all applicable
provisions of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code
Regulations which affect my license.
Authorized Signature:
Title:
Date:
Permit Fee: $50.00 per year
TOWN OF VAIL
APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY
Dave Chapin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Date
Date
75 South Frontage Road • Uai~ Colorado 81657.970-479-2136/FAJC970-479-2320 • www.vailgov.com
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk and Secretary to the
Local Licensing Authority
•
•
RECYCLED PAPER
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 20, 2004
SUBJECT: An appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a design review
application pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow
for a minor alteration (repaint) to an existing residence, located at 2568 Arosa
Drive/Lot 4, Block C, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
Appellant: Mary E. Perkins
Planner: George Ruther
I. SUBJECT PROPERTY
The subject property is located at 2568 Arosa Drive/Lot 4, Block C, Vail Das Schone Filing
No. 1.
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
• The appellant, Mary E. Perkins, has standing to file an appeal as the property owner.
III. REQUIRED ACTION
The Town Council shall uphold, overturn, or modify the Design Review Board denial of
a design review application pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code,
to allow for a minor alteration (repaint) to an existing residence, located at 2568 Arosa
Drive/Lot 4, Block C, Vail Das Schone Filing No.1, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-C5, Vail Town Code, the Town Council is required to make
findings of fact in accordance with the Vail Town Code:
"The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly
on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support
conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this
title (Zoning Regulations, Title 12) have orhave not been met."
IV. BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2004, the appellant, Mary E. Perkins submitted a Minor Exterior Alterations
Application for Design Review to the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Pursuant to the Town's established Design Review Board submittal and meeting schedule,
the application was scheduled for review by the Design Review Board on June 2, 2004.
•
On May 19, 2004, the Design Review Board first reviewed and denied a design review
application (DRB04-0157), pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to •
allow for a minor alteration (repaint) to an existing residence, located at 2568 Arosa Drive by
a vote of 2-3. The minor alteration included a request to repaint an existing residence a
different color then presently exists on the home. Upon review of the request, the Board
denied the application as the proposed color change failed to comply with the design
guidelines. In denying the application the Board placed the following condition on their
motion:
"The applicant shall submit a new application for Design Review to the Community
Development Department proposing a revised color scheme by no later than May
24, 2004. The applicant shall then appear before the Town of Vail Design Review
Board on Wednesday, June 76, 2004 for consideration ofthe amended application.
Depending upon the outcome of the review on June 16th, the applicant shall be
required to paint fhe residence the colors approved on June 16th or repaint the
residence the original colors as they existed prior to illegally painting the residence
without approval."
On June 2, 2004, the Design Review Board again reviewed and denied a design review
application (DR604-0189), pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to
allow for a minor alteration (repaint) to an existing residence, located at 2568 Arosa Drive by
a vote of 1-2. The minor alteration included a request to repaint an existing residence a
different color then presently exists on the home. Upon review of the request, the Board
voted 1-2 to deny the requested color change for failure to comply with the design
guidelines.
On June 14, 2004, the applicant submitted an Appeals Form (ADM04-0005) to the Town of •
Vail Community Development Department appealing the Design Review Board denials.
V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN CODE
Section 12-3 Administration and Enforcement (in part)
Section 12-3-3: Appeals (in part)
C. Appeal Of Planning And Environmental Commission Decisions And Design Review
Board Decisions:
1. Authority: The Town Council shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals
from any decision, determination or interpretation by the Planning and
Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board with respect to the
provisions of this Title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth.
2. Initiation: An appeal may be initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or
any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision,
determination or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission or
the Design Review Board with respect to this Title. "Aggrieved or adversely
affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an
interest protected or furthered by this Title. The alleged adverse interest may be •
shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall
exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
2
The Administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant. If the appellant
objects to the Administrator's determination of standing, the Town Council shall,
• at a meeting prior to hearing evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to
the standing of the appellant. If the Town Council determines that the appellant
does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not be heard and the
original action or determination stands. The Town Council may also call up a
decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review
Board by a majority vote of those Council members present.
3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator within
twenty (20) calendar days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's
decision or the Design Review Board's decision becoming final. If the last day for
filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or aTown-observed holiday, the last
day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. Such notice
shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and
property's physical) of the appellant, applicant, property owner, grid adjacent
property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be
satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors
of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons forthe
appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filing of such notice of appeal will
require the Planning and Environmental Commission orthe Design Review Board
to forward to the Town Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting a
summary of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send
written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property
owners (notification within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying
the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at
• least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled
to be heard before the Town Council on the appeal within forty (40) calendar days
of the appeal being filed. The Town Council may grant a continuance to allow the
parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for
a period not to exceed an additional thirty (30) calendar days. Failure to file such
appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Chapter to appeal any
interpretation or determination made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission or the Design Review Board.
4. Effect Of Filing An Appeal: The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay all permit
activity and any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed unless the
administrative official rendering such decision, determination or interpretation
certifies in writing to the Town Council and the appellant that a stay poses an
imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further
permit activity and any proceedings. The Town Council shall review such
certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. Such determination shall
be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Town Council.
5. Findings: The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact
based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact
must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the
requirements of this Title have or have not been met.
Section 12-11 Design Review (in part) ~ `,
• 12-11-1: INTENT:
3
A. Attractive Attributes Recognized: Vail is a Town with a unique natural setting, •
internationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility
of manmade structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a
significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming
permanent residents participating in community life.
B. Area Character Protection: These factors constitute an important economic base for
the Town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the Town
as a precious physical possession. The Town Council finds that new development
and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in
which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be
prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of
development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation
without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general
form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures
and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the Town, and the appearance
of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed
and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgment in the public
interest in the evaluation of the design of new development and redevelopment, the
Town Council has created a Design Review Board (DRB) and design criteria.
C. Design Review: Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the Town and
its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in
the community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the promotion of
health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set •
out in this Section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all
new development, and all modifications to existing development shall be subject to
design review as specified in this Chapter.
D. Guidelines: It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as
possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable
natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement
both their individual sites and surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be
as follows:
1. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to
provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its
citizens and visitors.
2. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony
with the desired character of the Town as defined by the guidelines herein
provided.
3. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape.
4. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors,
and overall treatment of built-up and open spaces have been designed so that
they relate harmoniously to they natural landforms and native vegetation, the
Town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially •
approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are
proposed to be located.
4
• 5. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable
provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air,
and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which
may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council upholds
the Design Review Board's denial pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a minor alteration (repaint) of an existing residence, located at 2568
Arosa .Drive/Lot 4, Block C, Vail Das Schone subject to the following finding:
The Vail Town Council finds that upon review of the evidence and testimony
presented at this public hearing that the standards and conditions imposed
by the requirements of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) have been implemented
and enforced correctly by the Design Review Board. In making this finding,
the Council has relied upon the interpretation of the Town's adopted design
guidelines by the appointed members of the Design Review Board.
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council makes the
following condition part of a motion to uphold the Design Review Board denial:
1. "The appellant shall submit a new application for Design Review to the
• Community Development Department proposing a revised colorscheme by
no later than August 1, 2004. The applicant shall then appear before the
Town of Vail Design Review Board on Wednesday, August 4, 2004 for
consideration of the amended application. Depending upon the outcome of
the review on August 4"', the applicant shall be required to paint the
residence the colors approved on August 4th by no laterthan September 15,
2004, or repaint the residence the original colors as they existed prior to
illegally painting the residence without approval by no later than September
15, 2004. "
VII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Appellant's appeal form
B. Letter from the appellant dated June 10, 2004
C. Public notice and list of notified properties sent July 2, 2004
•
5
Attachment: A
Appeals .Form ~ 2~
!~~~r C' la Department of Community Development TC
1 V1I'lY ~F ft1dL 75 South Frontage Road., Vail, Colorado 81657
te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452
web: www.vailaov.com
General Information:
This form is required for filing an appeal of a Staff, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmental
Commission action/decision. A complete form and associated requirements must be submitted to the
Community Development Department within twenty (20) calendar days of the disputed action/decision.
Action/Decision beipg appealed: _
Dateof Action/Decision: ~ ~~ ~t7y ~ ~ f2 j ~-I-'
Board or Staff person rendering action/decision: C~l~
Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (yes) (no)
/Y
If yes, are you an adjacent property owner? (yes ~
Name of Appellant(s):
Mailing Address:
Physical Address in Vail:
Legal Description of Appellant(s)
Appellant(s) Signature(s): ~ "~
Cl
Subdivision~~ai.c_ ~ ~X~ic,~-n,C~
-.--~ -
(Attach a list of signatures if more space is required).
Submittal Requirements:
1. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an
"aggrieved or adversely affected person".
2. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal.. Please
cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed.
3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of
property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners
whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, stream, or other
intervening barrier).
4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.).
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS T0:
TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657.
For Office Use Only:
Date Received: ` _~~~~ Activity No.: ~~~'C f~OdS
Planner:_~? ~ Project No.: " `~ d (3
Phone: ~ ~CC~~ a"~~_
•
F:\Users\cdev\FORMS\APPLIC\Appeals.doc
~tntrh ~~!'~in~ ~ Attachment: B
2568 Arosa Dr.
Daii, 00 8858
• 910-416-2272
~!~-2~~4D8.3 ~!
bperKinsdesi8ns@aol.com
4~/ 14!04
Dept. of Community Development
75 South i rontage Rd.
Vail CO $lti~7
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my appeal. T_ have been denied twice by the Vail
DRB on my selection of exterior paint colors.
Earlier this .spring, myself and co-owner, Date Rider, made the. decision to paint the
exterior of our house on 2568 Arosa Drive. We felt the need to begin as soon as possible,
.since. the. wood siding _h_ad begun to deteriorate. We then _rParhed a joint decision on
color selection. I submitted my application form to Joe Suther at the Town of Vail. I
was r_old that I would be receiving a call from L3ill Gibson within three. days, as to
whether I could begin painting, or else appear before the Vail DRB.
After three days, I hadn't received a phone call. I_ then made several calls. myself, to end
out what was happening. One week later, I received a call from Bill Gibson. He told me
to appear at the DRB meeting on the 19th of May, to which I agreed.
Meanwhile, I had been collecting bids from several local painters. Being on a btadget, I
selected what I felt was the best bid, which was Mario's Painting by Mario Caneila. Mr
Canella is extremely busy and had a very smal_1 window for oltr paint job. Since. I ha in't
been contacted in the three days promised by the TOV, I had Mr. Canella begin painting.
The condition of the wood .siding was worseni_n_g rapidly and becoming a worry to Ms.
Rider and myself. I figured that if we started out with primer in our selected colors, that
all would be well.
On May 19th, the DRB committee paid a visit ro olar home to discover the painting had
commenced. This was the day of my first meeting. I was then denied permission to
proceed, based on my choice of colors.
I considered what uuas said to me. and made. a adjustment that I thought was appropriate..
I resubmitted my application to the TOV. They scheduled me for the subsequent meeting
wlZ~ich was June 2, 2444. I was then promptly denied a second time. I had been hoping
that with my adjustment that all would be well once again. Apparently not, which is w~y
I am now appealing to the Vail Town Council.
•
!~-~ perking
2568 Arose Dr.
910-416-2212
~n~_240.~0~ rP~l
bperKinsdesignsG~aol.com
_II. Nat~~re of the. appeal
I feel that. there is absolutely nothing ina~propriate_ about the colors I have selected. Ms.
Garvey remarked that the colors "don't go in the environment." However, this is not
tune: The colors I have chosen axe.. e=arth tones, in -fact they are. the colors of camc_uaflage:
This is exceedingly unfair, especially since on my street alone, one will see the colors of
mauve; turc}a.~oise; coral and blue: However, these ure ?ny neighbeirs and I don't dare
complain about their choices. I do understand that the DRB is a viable committee.
There are- certain colors that wcu~ld not be appropriate for the town of Vail. I do agree.
that there are standards to uphold. However, in my case I fail to see where I have
violated the aesthetic sensibiliries of the. community.
•
Please let me ad~l that I have made any livi_n_g as an interior designer for the past fo~.~rteen
years in the Vail Valley. I am well respected and compensated by my clients for color
consaaltat_ionsend .selections. I think it is important that the Town Council knows this. •
In closing, please. let me add that. I have been a Vail local .since. my family moved here. in
June of 1978. My younger sister and brother both graduated from Battle Mountain High
Cchool. My late mother, Lynn lc_ived this-r..cnn~nu~?ity snore that unyosn€.I've ever known.
I strive daily to emulate her graciousness as a neighbor and member of the community.
Sincerely,
~~~~ .2~
Beth Perkins
•
•
Attachment: C
~nwNO
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Council of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing
in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on Tuesday, July
20, 2004, at 6:00 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of:
ITEM/TOPIC:
n appeal of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's denial of a design review application
rsuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minor exterior
alteration (repaint) of an existing residence, located at 2568 Arosa Drive/Lot 4, Block C, Vail das
Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Appellant: Mary E. Perkins
Planner: George Ruther
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
• Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114
voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
~~,,,,-
/~+~
U
Beth Perkins
=~~"a8-firosa gar,
Vail, CO 81658
9~U-4'1~!-LEiLL
bperkinsdesigns~aol.com
III. List of property owners: Physical Address
William P., Barbara & Micheal P. Schaetze12566 Arosa Dr. Vail, CO 81658
2vv8 Pairrier Ci. ~
Lawrence, KS 66047
Christina and David Wilson
25 72 tirosa Dr.
Vail, CO 81658
2572 Arosa Dr. Vail, CO 81658
Mark and Margie Stephens
2547 Arosa Dr.
Vail, CO 81658
Paul Smoyer
254 7 Hi-osa Dr.
Vail, CO 81658
Carl and Ruth Walker
255 7 Arosa Dr.
Vail, CO 81658
Dennis, Dorothea and James Scalise
P.O. Box 2591
Vail, CO 81657
Chamonix Chalets Corp.
,,, T~
"/o iv`istie Fosier
2470 Chamonix Lane
Ii- i
Vail, CO 81658
Chamonix Chalets Corp.
~o T1LrlSlle I osier
2470 Chamonix Lane
h- i
Vail, CO 81658
2547 Arosa Dr. Vail, CO 8156$
2547 Arosa Dr. Vail, CO 81658
2557 Arosa Dr. Vail, CO 81658
2567 Arosa Dr. Vail, CO 81658
2487 Chamonix Ln. Vail, CO 81658
2489 Chamonix Ln. Vail, CO 81658
•
•
•
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town
Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in
the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-
Family Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS),
Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium
Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF),
and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et. al.
Planner: Bill Gibson
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-
Family Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS),
districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Second reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family
Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary
Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF),
Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF),
and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2004, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004,
on first reading to amend the GRFA regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR),
Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density
Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density
Multiple-Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, with a modification to the
language of Section 15 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004.
Also on July 6, 2004, the Town Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance
No. 10, Series of 2004, to amend the GRFA regulations only in the Single-Family
Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family
• Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) districts.
1
On July 6, 2004, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, •
on first reading to amend the GRFA regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR),
Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density
Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density
Multiple-Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts.
III. DISCUSSION
Since the Council's July 6, 2004, meeting, Staff has received public input
addressing two issues related to the proposed GRFA amendments. The first
was a suggestion to ,maintain the existing "250 Addition" and "Interior
Conversion" GRFA bonuses in all residential districts by not repealing these
bonuses in the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, and Two-
Family Primary/Secondary Residential districts. The second item was a
suggestion to deduct below grade areas on multiple levels of a structure to more
appropriately address the construction of down-hill sloping lots.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council
approves Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, (Attachment A) on second
reading to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the
Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family
Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential
Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple-
Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts,
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Should the Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004,
on second reading, the Community Development Department recommends the
Town Council makes the following findings:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the Town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the
Zoning Regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances
its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council
denies Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004, (Attachment B) on second reading .
to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Single-
Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), and setting forth details in regard thereto.
2
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004
(amendments to all the residential districts with the repeal of the
250 Addition and Interior Conversion GRFA bonuses only in the
Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, and Two-
Family Primary/Secondary Residential districts)
Attachment B: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004
(amendments to the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family
Residential, and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential
districts)
•
•
3
Attachment: A
ORDINANCE NO. 14
Series of 2004
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 (ZONING REGULATIONS), VAIL TOWN CODE, TO
AMEND THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) REGULATIONS IN THE HILLSIDE
RESIDENTIAL (HR), SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SFR), TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R),
TWO-FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL (PS), RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER (RC),
LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (LDMF), MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (MDMF),
HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (HDMF), AND HOUSING (H) DISTRICTS AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARDS THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held
public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with the provisions of the Town
Code of the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed
amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
•
recommended approval of this text amendment at its September 8, 2003, meeting, and has
submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments are consistent with the
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and
WHEREAS., the Vail Town Council finds that the .amendments further the general and
specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments promote the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious
development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and
its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality.
•
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 12-2-2 (Definitions) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be
amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as r+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
BASEMENT: For the purposes of calculating gross residential floor area (GRFA):
on the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior wall surfaces
unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive,
shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the
GRFA calculation. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to
nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be
measured from fhe finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of
these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of
the lowest level's exterior walls.
FLOOR AREA, GROSS RESIDENTIAL (GRFA): Tho +n+,~ crn,nro fnn+•+no n+ ~n in„oi~ n+
•,
shoo+rnrL r,l~cfor ~r,~ n+hor c;m;~nr,e,r+ll finichc ~. Refer to chapter 15 of this title for
GRFA definitions, regulations, and requirements for GRFA calculations.
SITE: See "Lot"
SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site,
expressed as a percentage. Forthe purposes of this definition, "building area of a site" shall
mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, porte cochere, arcade, and
covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the
exterior face of the sheathing of the perimeter walls or supporting columns.
For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may
extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck
shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to
the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered
stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than
four feet (4') from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns.
Section 2. Section 12-6A-8B (Hillside Residential District, Density Control) of the Vail
Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows: , ~
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 Z
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as str-isl~e+~. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site:
~ Twnniv /'~/1\ cn~„+r° fnn4 of nrncc r°~ir!°n~inl flnnr nrn •+ /(~C?C4\
fir nnrh nnn h~ inrlr°rl /1 (111\ cni inr° f°n~ of fh° fir~t h~~on~v nng
}hn~ icnods°v°n hi mr~r°r• °inhly /71 752(1\ eni ~~+r° fn°} of cifn nr°n•
1~
}~ ~iv° /~\ cn~ inr° f°nf of nrncc r°cir7nn~inl flnnr ~+rnn /r_~G4\ fnr
v. ~ . vi.~
e'a~ noR~ ~~nrlro yl /1'rlrl\ cn~ ~°rn f°°} ~f ci~° Mro° ~ ~i°r fi yinnt~i nnv
}hn~ icnnrl c°v°n hi inr~r°r! °inh4v /71 7Qrl\ cn~ v+r° foot
t
a, Not more than forty three (43) square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100)
square feet of the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of
site area; plus
•
b, Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area
over fen thousand (10,000) square feet, not exceeding twenty
two Thousand (22,000) square feet of sife area; plus
c. Seven (7) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA)
for each one hundred (100) square feef of site area in excess
of twenty two thousand (22,000) square feet.
~I~dd i#+efa- te~he-ab ee~e~en ~Fed~ o eT~r~ /~~\ ~,.e
#nn4 of nrncc r°cirlnntiNl fl~~r ur°u /(~C?G41 chuii u° nnrmif~°r• fnr
3. On any site containing two (2) dwelling units, one of the units
shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of
gross residential floor area (GRFA). This unit shall not be
subdivided or sold separately from the main dwelling unit. This unit
may be integrated into the main dwelling unit or may be integrated
within a garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a
separate freestanding structure.
Section 3. Section 12-6B-8B (Single-Family Residential District, Density Control) of
the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
Ordinance No. 14 Series of 2004 •
3
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as ~+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site:
a. Tuio n+~i fivc /7C.\ cn~ inro fnn+ of nrncc rov~dv~r'tirui flnnr ~+rc~
fvQ~A\ fnr cnrF~ nnc ti~ ir,i-lror~l /'I nrn ~ni ~nro fn~t ~f +ha fir + fie~chic
+~ no ~~ nni-7 fivo hi inrlrn r• /1 7 G/1(\\ crn ~^ro fon+ of qi+.o nro ~+• nL ~c
a. Not more than forty (40) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (900) square feet of
the hrst ten thousand (10,000) square feet of site area; plus
b. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feef of site area in
excess often thousand (10,000) square feet.
3. No single-family residential lot except those located entirely in the red
hazard avalanche zone or the flood plain shall be so restricted that it
cannot be occupied by one single-family dwelling.
Section 4. Section 12-6C-86 (Two-Family Residential District, Density Control) of the
Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as sfr~srFe~. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site:
• ~ T~eionfi~ fide M~1 ~ni ~nre foo+ of nrnco raeiAen+inl flnnr ~+ren
• Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 4
n G'ivo /~.\ crn inra foo4 of nrnoc rncir+c n+inl flnnr r+ro.+ /(`QC~\ fnr
n~nh nno hi inr7ro r• /1 r\n\ cm i~rc fco+ of ci+n nron in nvrocc of +hir+~[
>.....~ ~ ..~ ~... .....~ .... ..... ~ .....~ ....~....... ., ~.~.~. ..~ .~~.., u~ vu ~~ ~ vrv~..s.a--vr-cr-rir-cam
i
a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of
the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of site area; plus
b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area
over ten thousand (10,000) square feef, not exceeding fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet of site area; plus
c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area
over fifteen Thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus
d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for
each one hundred (100) square feef of site area in excess of
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
2. Ifl-add iti-e n~a~e-a~ A~~f a ~r h a ^r~d-t~efa+„ f~~~T n ~ i •, r~~Givf
ar_~rc rocir~on+iol flnnr nrnn //'_C?~4\ chnll ho normi++v r) fnr onrh MllnuiMh~o
~~
Section 5. Section 12-6D-8 (Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District
Density Control) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as str-+sket~. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site:
^ T~~ron+~i fivn /'J~.\ c~n~ ~nro foo+ of nrncc rncir~on+inl flnnr ~+ro'. •
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 cJ
/r=R~~\ fnr °nnh nnn hi,nrJr°r! /'Inrn cni~.+r° f°°4 of Fh° fir F f'f}°°n
fhni io~n,-~ /~ ~ nnrn cn~ ~nrn fnn4 of ci}° •,r°~+• nl~ i
~ e
h T°n /1 n\ cn~~n r° fo°* of nrncc r°rirl°n4inl flnnr nron /r'`[7C~\ {nr
... ..... ~..,~ ,,.~,....,
Fy1rh nn° h~ ~nrlro ,. ,...,..,~ y..,..,. ,.,.,~....~~.~u, ~~.,..~ ~.,,~.
r! /~ nrn cn~ i-er° f°°t
° ur°" n"nr fif+°nn
nf v~t
.
v
~ e
/ten nnrn cn~~~r° f
t oof of ci4° ~r°n• nIi is
~
a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of
the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet ofsite area; plus
b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet ofsite area
over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet ofsite area; plus
c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of sife area
over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet ofsite area; plus
d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for
each one hundred (100) square feet ofsite area in excess of
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
2. I^ra~C~~tIAr~-t~zhezr'hn„° fni ~r hi inr-lr°rJ fin,°nf" fi~,° //I'~r.\ ~ni ~~+rn f°°4 of
i
ctrncc r°cir•I°n4iol flnnr nrnn /f_QC4\ chnll h° nnrmi#°rl fnr n~+nh nlln~e,nhl
~_ . __.__.._._...__. _. __ ~_. _...~ _.._.. -- r., ................. .~....,.................,..~
Section 6. Section 12-6E-8A (Residential Cluster District, Density Control) of the Vail
Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as str-+sker~. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
A. Gross Residential Floor Area:-"I^+ rv,nr° +hon fie,°n+„ fi„° /~~\ cni ~~+r° f°of
of nrncc r°cirl°n~inl flnnr °ron /('_D~A\ ~hr,ll hn n°rmi#°rJ fnr °nnh nnG
.... ~ ...,.....~ ~.~..~ ~~.....~ ..~..... \..~ .~ . ./ .~~ iwi vv ~..v~ ~ ~ n~wu-wr-cuvr-r-yr-rcr
f~a~dred~-99}~ mare-feet e#-b ~ °~-sn~~r-,~;~~- ",~v~ ~~"~rt
177.\ cm ~~r° f°n~ of nrncc rnci,-1on}inl flnnr nron /(~{?C~\ nor nnn 4r~ inF°ra
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004
6
daaret4i~ Not more than thirty six (36) square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one
hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall
not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached
accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of
the dwelling.
Section 7. Section 12-6F-8A (Low Density Multiple-Family District, Density Control) of
the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as str+sic~-. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
A. Gross Residential Floor Area:
/77~.\ cni i~rn ton} .,f nrncc rocir4on}inl flnnr ~ro'+ /r_`f~CA\ nor rnnc}n in}orb
' . Not more than forty four (44) square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one •
hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall
not exceed nine (9) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached
accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of
the dwelling.
Section 8. Section 12-6G-8A (Medium Density Multiple-Family District, Density
Control) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as stee. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
A. oT~ ncc Rocirlon}inl Clnnr 4 rno: Aln} mnro +hnn }hirFv ~vo /Q~.\ cni i~+re~, fr.r,} of
r_~irncc rncir~nn}inl flnnr nrc'+ /~CJC4\ ch-+II ho nnrm i}}orJ {nr n~+r•h nno
f~unr~r~d~~-89-}-s~ar~-€eet~f-b~~idabTe site~ea;~ia~^'~.-, h-,owe~~er~,hat
rinnlo_f~mily ~nr} fiein family rl~e~ollinn ~ ini}~ nnn~}n it}nr~l in }ho mor7i~ im
~onci}v rocirlon}inl r~lie}ri n} chnll ho on}i}loi-! }n nn ~+r-~r~i}innnl fiern h~ inrlrn i-7
fieion}~i fvn /77~~ cni ~nro }oo} of nrncc rccir~lon}i r,l flnnr nron /(~I~G~\ nor
iYY V1 Tiy llY4r
' .Not more than fifty six (56) square feet of
gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 7
hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall
not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached
accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of
the dwelling.
Section 9. Section 12-6H-8 (High Density Multiple-Family District, Density Control) of
the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as c+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
i ico lic+orr in con+inn 'I'~_G2u_Q of +hic ~.+i,.lo. Not more than seventy six (76)
square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for
each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall
not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each
accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (1/2) of a dwelling unit for
purposes of calculating allowable units per acre.
A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached
accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the
dwelling.
Section 10. Section 12-10-10B (Parking Requirement, Schedule B) of the Vail Town
Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as st~iske~. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
Use
• Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004
Parking Requirement
If nrncc ro~i,~errtial fleer aroma-;s-009 s^ua; e-feet-e~
rr9r..a~ i~rra q
locc• 1 ~. cnnnoc nor ~ mi+
if nrncc rocir•7on+i~l flnnr oro~ is nvor inn cn~ inro foo+
i in +n ~ nnn cni ~~ra foo+• '~ cn~noc nor rl~eiollinn ~ mi+
If nrncc rocirlon+i.~l flnnr nro'+ is 7 nnn ni ~•+ro foo+ nr
,~r2=2-~-spaseS-peFdwe4iin
8
Single-Family and If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor
Two-Family Dwellings area is less Phan 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces
if a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
2,000 square feet or more, but less than 4,000
square feet: 3 spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
4,000 square feet or more, but less than 5,500
square feet: 4 spaces
if a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
5,500 square feet or more: 5 spaces
Multiple-Family If a dwelling unit's gross residenfial floor
Dwellings area is 500 square feet or less: 7.5 spaces
if a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
more Phan 500 square, but less than 2,000 square
feet: 2 spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
2,000 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces
Section 11. Section 12-13-4 (EHU Requirements by Type) of the Vail Town Code shall •
hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as r+,- Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
EHU Additional GRFA
Type I The EHU is entitled to an additional a98 550 sq. ft.
Type II The EHU is entitled to an additional a98 550 sq. ft
Section 12. Section 12-15-2 (GRFA REQUIREMENTS BY ZONE DISTRICT) of the
Vail Town Code shall be repealed and hereby re-enacted as follows:
Zone Districts GRFA Ratio GRFA Credits (Added to results of
a lication of ercenta e
r
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004
9
•
•
Hillside Residential .43 of site _<10,000 sq. ft., plus None
(HR) .25 of site area>10,000 and <_22,000 sq. ft., plus
.07 of site area >22,000 sq. ft.
Single-Family .40 of site area <_10,000 sq. ft., plus None
Residential (SFR) .13 of site area >10,000 sq. ft.
Two-Family .46 of site area <_10,000 sq. ft., plus None
Residential (R) .38 of site area >10,000 and <_15,000 sq. ft., plus
.13 of site area >15,000 and <_30,000 sq. ft., plus
.06 of site area >30,000 sq. ft. '
Two-Family .46 of site area <_10,000 sq. ft., plus None
Primary/Secondary .38 of site area >10,000 and <_15,000 sq. ft., plus
(P/S) Residential .13 of site area >15,000 and <_30,000 sq. ft., plus
.06 of site area >30,000 sq. ft.
(the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of the
allowable GRFA
Residential Cluster .36 of buildable area None
(RC)
Low Density Multiple .44 of buildable area None
Family (LDMF)
Medium Density .56 of buildable area None
Multiple-Family
(MDMF)
High Density .76 of buildable area None
Multiple-Family
(HDMF)
Housing (H) Per Planning and Environmental Commission None
a royal
Public .80 of buildable area None
Accommodation
(PA)
Commercial Core 1 .80 of buildable area None
(CC1)
Commercial Core 2 .80 of buildable area None
(CC2)
Commercial Core 3 .30 of buildable area None
(CC3)
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 ~ O
Commercial Service .40 of buildable area None
Center (CSC)
(GRFA shall not exceed 50% of the total building
floor area on an site
Arterial Business .60 of buildable area None
(ABD)
Heavy Service (HS) None permitted None
Lionshead Mixed 2.5 of buildable area None
Use 1 (LMU-1)
2.5 of buildable area
Lionshead Mixed None
Use 2 (LMU-2)
Agriculture and 2,000 sq. ft. None
Open Space (A)
Outdoor Recreation None permitted None
(OR)
Parking (P) None permitted None
General Use (GU) Per Planning and Environmental Commission None
a royal
Natural Area None permitted None
Preservation (NAP)
Ski Base/Recreation Per Town Council approval None
(SBR)
Special Per underlying zoning or per development plan None
Development approval by Town Council
Districts SDD
Ski Base/Recreation Per Planning and Environmental Commission None
2 (SBR2) approval
Section 13. Section 12-15-3 (GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA; DEFINITION,
CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSION) of the Vail Town Code shall be repealed and hereby re-
enacted as follows:
t
r~
L_.~
•
.J
A. Within the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004
Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Districts:
1. Definition, Calculation and Deductions:
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square
footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the
outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior.
wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts
and stain~vells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical
spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages;
attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawlspaces; and roofed
or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area;
except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be
deducted from the calculation of GRFA:
a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage
of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as
set forth herein, shall then be deducted from total square footage:
1. Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300)
square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of
two (2) vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling
unit permitted by this title.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per
space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking
space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with
direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are
located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%)
or more open to the garage area may be included in the
garage area deduction.
Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a
structure may be included in the garage area deduction.
2. Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less, as
measured from the top side of the structural members of the
floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof
directly above.
3. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with structural
truss-type members, provided the trusses are spaced no
greater than thirty inches (30") apart.
4. Attic areas created by construction of a roof structure
utilizing a nontruss system, with spaces greater than five feet
(5') in height, if all of the following criteria are met:
~ (a) The area cannot be accessed directly from a
habitable area within the same building level; and
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 ~ 2
(b) The area shall have only the minimum access
required by the building code from the level below;
and
(c) The attic space shall not have a structural floor
capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty
(40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the
attic space shall not be improved with decking; and
(d) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a
"truss-type" or similar structural system cannot be
utilized as defined in the definition of floor area; and
(e) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e.,
collar-tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the
roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a
bearing ridge system is used, the staff will review the
space for compliance with this policy.
5. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater
than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or
less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the
earth to the underside of structural floor members of the
floor/ceiling assembly above.
Crawlspaces created by a "stepped foundation", hazard
mitigation, or other similar engineering requirement that
has a total height in excess of five feet (5') may be
excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the
administrator.
6. Basements: on the lowest level of a structure, the total
percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below
existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive,
shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest
level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The
percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to
nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall
surface area shall be measured from the finished floor
elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor
members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the
purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site
walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level's
exterior walls.
7. Vaulted Spaces: Interior vaulted spaces and areas "open
to below" with afloor-to-ceiling height less than sixteen feet
(16'), as measured from the finished floor to the underside of
the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly above.
8. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or
similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior
walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five
percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck,
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 ~ 3
porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the
opening is contiguous and fully open from floorto ceiling, with
an allowance for a railing of up to forty four inches (44") in
height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches
(18") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10')
apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from
the outer surface of the post.
2. Additional Calculation Provisions:
a. Common Interior Party Walls: Where more than one dwelling unit
exists within a single structure, GRFA shall be measured for each
dwelling unit from the center of common interior party walls to the
outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls.
b. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting
windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" are
defined according to the following criteria:
1: Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In order for a window to
be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of
thirty six inches (36") must be provided between the bottom of
the window and the floor surface, as measured on the inside
face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not include steps
necessary to meet building code egress requirements.) The
thirty six inch (36") minimum was chosen because it locates
the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat
and because it allows for a typical four foot (4') high
greenhouse window to be used in a room with an eight foot
(8') ceiling height.
2. Projection: No greenhouse window may protrude more
than eighteen inches (18") from the exterior surface of the
building. This distance allows for adequate relief for
appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the
mass and bulk of the building.
3. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows shall
be self-supporting and shall not require special framing or
construction methods for support, with the exception that
brackets below the window may be allowed provided they die
into the wall of the building at a forty five degree (45°) angle.
A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided
the overhang is limited to four inches (4") beyond the window
plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall
have a total window surface area greater than forty four (44)
square feet. This figure was derived on the assumption that
the maximum height of a window, in an average sized room, ~~
• is four feet (4') and the maximum width for a four foot (4') high
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 14
self-supporting window is between six feet (6') and eight feet
(8') (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would
protrude no more than eighteen inches (18"), the addition of
side windows would bring the overall window area to
approximately forty four (44) square feet.
5. Quantity: Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be
allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44) square
foot size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two
(2) windows.
6. Site Coverage: Greenhouse windows do not count as site
coverage.
c. Vaulted Spaces: Any interior space with afloor-to-ceiling height of
sixteen feet (16') or greater, as measured from the finished floor to
the underside of the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly
above, shall be calculated as GRFA on two levels of a structure.
B. Within the Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium
Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF), and Housing
(H) Districts:
1. Definition, Calculation and Deductions:
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square
footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the
outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior
wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts
and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical
spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages;
attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawlspaces; and roofed
or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area;
except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be
deducted from the calculation of GRFA:
a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring. the total square footage
of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as
set forth herein, shall then be deducted from total square. footage:
1. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces
are common spaces:
(a) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts
and air locks.
(b) Common lobby areas.
. (c) Common enclosed recreation facilities.
(d) Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems,
solar rock storage areas, or other mechanical
systems.
(e) Common closet and storages areas, providing
access to such areas is from common hallways
only.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 15
(f) Meeting and convention facilities.
(g) Office space, provided such space is used
exclusively for the management and operation of
on-site facilities.
(h) Floor area to be used in a type III "employee
housing unit (EHU)" as defined and restricted by
chapter 13 of this title.
(i) Common enclosed garages to accommodate on-
site parking requirements.
2. Enclosed garage areas, which are not common spaces, of
up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not
exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces for
each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title.
This garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a
"per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular
parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be
designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are
located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%)
or more open to the garage area may be included in the
garage area deduction.
Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a
• structure may be included in the garage area deduction.
3. Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less, as
measured from the top side of the structural members of the
floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof
directly above.
4. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with structural
truss-type members, provided the trusses are spaced no
greater than thirty inches (30") apart.
5. Attic areas created by construction of a roof structure
utilizing a nontruss system, with spaces greater than five feet
(5') in height, if all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The area cannot be accessed directly from a
habitable area within the same building level; and
(b) The area shall have only the minimum access
required by the building code from the level below;
and
(c) The attic space shall not have a structural floor
capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty
(40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the
~~ attic space shall not be improved with decking; and
• (d) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 16
"truss-type" or similar structural system cannot be
utilized as defined in the definition of floor area; and
(e) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e.,
collar-tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the
roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a
bearing ridge system is used, the staff will review the
space for compliance with this policy.
6. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater
than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or
less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the
earth to the underside of structural floor members of the
floor/ceiling assembly above.
Crawlspaces created by a "stepped foundation", hazard
mitigation, or other similar engineering requirement that
has a total height in excess of five feet (5') may be
excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the
administrator.
7. Basements: on the lowest level of a structure, the total
percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below
existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive,
shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest
level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The
percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to
nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall
surface area shall be measured from the finished floor
elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor
members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the
purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site
walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level's
exterior walls.
8. Vaulted Spaces: Interior vaulted spaces and areas "open
to below" with afloor-to-ceiling height less than sixteen feet
(16'), as measured from the finished floor to the underside of
the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly above.
9. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or
similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior
walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five
percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck,
porch, terrace, patio, or similarfeature or space, provided the
opening is contiguous and fully open from floorto ceiling, with
an allowance for a railing of up to forty four inches (44") in
height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches
(18") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10')
apart. The space ,between the posts shall be measured from
the outer surface of the post.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 ~ '~
•
10. All or part of an air lock within an accommodation or
dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty five (25)
square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the
outdoors.
2. Additional Calculation Provisions:
a. Common Interior Party Walls: Where more than one dwelling unit
exists within a single structure, GRFA shall be measured for each
dwelling unit from the center of common interior party walls to the
outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls.
b. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting
windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" are
defined according to the following criteria:
1. Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In orderfor a windowto
be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of
thirty six inches (36")must be provided between the bottom of
the window and the floor surface, as measured on the inside
face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not include steps
necessary to meet building code egress requirements.) The
thirty six inch (36") minimum was chosen because it locates
the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat
and because it allows for a typical four foot (4') high
greenhouse window to be used in a room with an eight foot
(8') ceiling height.
2. Projection: No greenhouse window may protrude more
than eighteen inches (18") from the exterior surface of the'
building. This distance allows for adequate relief for
appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the
mass and bulk of the building.
3. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows shall
be self-supporting and shall not require special framing or
construction methods for support, with the exception that
brackets below the window may be allowed provided they die
into the wall of the building at a forty five degree (45°) angle.
A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided
the overhang is limited to four inches (4") beyond the window
plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall
have a total window surface area greater than forty four (44)
square feet. This figure was derived on the assumption that
the maximum height of a window, in an average sized room,
is fourfeet (4') and the maximum width for a four foot (4') high
~ self-supporting window is between six feet (6') and eight feet
(8') (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would
protrude no more than eighteen inches (18"), the addition of
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004
side windows would bring the overall window area to
approximately forty four (44) square feet.
5. Quantity: Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be
allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44) square
foot size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two
(2) windows.
6. Site Coverage: Greenhouse windows do not count as site
coverage.
c. Vaulted Spaces: Any interior space with afloor-to-ceiling height of
sixteen feet (16') or greater, as measured from the finished floor to
the underside of the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly
above, shall be calculated as GRFA on two levels of a structure.
C. Within all districts except the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-Family
Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), Two-Family Primary/Secondary
(P/S), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple-Family (LDMF), Medium
Density Multiple-Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple-Family (HDMF), and
Housing (H) Districts:
1. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: The total square footage of all
levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls
(i.e., not including furring, Sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall
finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and
stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases,
vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawlspaces and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless
they meet the following provisions:
b. Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the
following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA.
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of
a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as
set forth herein, shall then be deducted from total square footage:
1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square
feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2)
spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this
title.
2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less,
as measured from the top side of the structural members of
the floor to the underside of the structural members of the
roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a
roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no
greater than thirty inches (30") apart. c\
3. crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 ~ 9
than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or
less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the
earth to the underside of structural floor members of the
floor/ceiling assembly above.
4. Roofed or covered deck, porches, terraces, patios or
similar features or spaces with no more than three (3)
exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than
twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area
of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or
space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open
from floor to ceiling with an allowance for a railing of up to
forty four inches (44") in height.
b. Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable
dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas
shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be
calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as
set forth herein. Excluded areas as set forth shall then be
deducted from the total square footage:
1. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking
requirements.
2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces
are common spaces:
• (a) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and air
locks.
(b) Common lobby areas.
(c) Common enclosed recreation facilities.
(d) Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar
rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems.
(e) Common closet and storage areas, providing access to
such areas is from common hallways only.
(f) Meeting and convention facilities.
(g) Office space, provided such space is used exclusively
for the management and operation of on-site facilities.
(h) Floor area to be used in a type III "employee housing
unit (EHU)" as defined and restricted by chapter 13 of this
title.
3. All or part of an air lock within an accommodation or
dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty five (25)
square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the
outdoors.
4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or
dwelling unit shall only be counted at the lowest level.
~ 5. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less,
as measured from the top side of the structural members of
Ordinance No. 14,.Series of 2004 20
the floor to the underside of the structural members of the
roof directly above. Attic areas created by construction of a
roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no
greater than thirty inches (30") apart.
6. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater
than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or
less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the
earth to the underside of structural floor members of the
floor/ceiling assembly above.
7. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or
similar features or spaces with no more than three (3)
exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than
twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area
of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or
space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open
from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to
forty four inches (44") in height and support posts with a
diameter of eighteen inches (18") or less which are spaced
no closer than ten feet (10') apart. The space between the
posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post.
2. Additional Calculation Provisions:
a. Walls: Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations. For two- •
family and primary/secondary structures, common party walls shall
be considered exterior walls.
b. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting
windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows"
are defined according to the following criteria:
1. Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In order for a window
to be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum
distance of thirty six inches (36") must be provided
between the bottom of the window and the floor surface, as
measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor
surface shall not include steps necessary to meet building
code egress requirements.) The thirty six inch (36")
minimum was chosen because it locates the window too
high to be comfortably used as a window seat and because
it allows for a typical four foot (4') high greenhouse window
to be used in a room with an eight foot (8') ceiling height.
2. Projection: No greenhouse window may protrude more
than eighteen inches (18") from the exterior surface of the
~; building. This distance allows for adequate relief for
appearance purposes; without substantially adding to the
mass and bulk of the building.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 2
• 3. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows
shall be self-supporting and shall not require special
framing or construction methods for support, with the
exception that brackets below the window may be allowed
provided they die into the wall of the building at a forty five
degree (45°) angle. A small roof over the window may also
be allowed provided the overhang is limited to four inches
(4") beyond the window plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall
have a total window surface area greater than forty four .
(44) square feet. This figure was derived on the
assumption that the maximum height of a window, in an
average sized room, is four feet (4') and the maximum
width for a four foot (4') high self-supporting window is
between six feet (6') and eight feet (8') (approximately 32
square feet). Since the window would protrude no more
than eighteen inches (18"), the addition of side windows
would bring the overall window area to approximately forty
four (44) square feet.
5. Quantity: Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be
allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44)
square foot size limitation will apply to the combined area
of the two (2) windows.
6. Site Coverage: Greenhouse windows do not count as
site coverage.
c. Vaulted Spaces: Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are
not included in GRFA calculations.
d. Garage Credit:
1. Allowable garage area is awarded on a "per space
basis", with a maximum of two (2) spaces per allowable
unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and
unobstructed vehicular access. All floor area included in
the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space.
2. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are
located in the garage and which are twenty five percent
(25%) or more open to the garage area shall be included
as garage credit.
3. Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit
shall be counted as GRFA.
e. Crawl And Attic Space:
i Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 22
1. Crawlspaces created by a "stepped foundation", hazard
mitigation, or other similar engineering requirement that •
has a total height in excess of five feet (5') may be
excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the
administrator.
2. If a roof structure is designed utilizing a nontruss system,
and spaces greater than five feet (5') in height result, these
areas shall not be counted as GRFA if all of the following
criteria are met:
(a) The area cannot be accessed directly from a
habitable area within the same building level;
(b) The area shall have the minimum access
required by the building code from the level below
(6 square foot opening maximum);
(c) The attic space shall not have a structural floor
capable of supporting a "live load'' greater than forty
(40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the
attic space cannot be improved with decking;
(d) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a
"truss type" or similar structural system cannot be
utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and
(e) It will be necessary that a structural element
(i.e., collar-tie) be utilized when rafters are used for
the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as
when a bearing ridge system is used, the staff will
review the space for compliance with this policy.
Section 14. Subsection 12-15-4B (INTERIOR CONVERSIONS) of the Vail Town Code
shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as str+sl~ea. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Applicability: Within all zone districts except the Single-Family Residential (SFR),
Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS)
Districts, c;.,,,~o f.,.,,~~„ +,~,~ f.,.,,;~„ .,rim~+ni/connni-!^+n~ „r .,,, ,~+; F.,r+,i~~i dwelling units that
meet or exceed allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the
following criteria are satisfied:
1. Any existing dwelling unit shall be eligible to add GRFA, via the "interior space
conversion" provision in excess of existing or allowable GRFA including such
units located in a special development district; provided, that such GRFA
complies with the standards outlined herein.
2. For the purpose of this section, "existing unit" shall mean any dwelling unit that
has been constructed prior to August 5, 1997, and has received a certificate of ~,
occupancy, or has been issued a building permit prior to August 5, 1997, or has
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 23
received final design review board approval prior to August 5, 1997.
• Section 15. Section 12-15-5 (ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
250 ORDINANCE) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as ~islFea. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of
existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the town for a period of at
least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet
of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria set
forth in this section are met. This section does not assure each single-family or two-
family dwelling unit located within the town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square
feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to
site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable town development
standards. The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross residential floor
area may be granted to existing single-family dwellings, existing two-family and existing
multi-family dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one
increment of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Upgrading of an existing
dwelling unit under this section shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, but
a demo/rebuild shall not be included as being eligible for additional gross residential floor
area.
B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to dwelling units in all
zone districts except the Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential
(R), and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Districts.
C ~. Single-Family Dwellings And Two-Family Dwellings in zone districts other than
the Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family Residential (R), and Two-Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Districts: Asingle-family ortwo-family dwelling
unit shall be eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a
maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing or
allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the single-
family ortwo-family dwelling unit shall meet the following criteria:
1. Eligible Time Frame: Asingle-family ortwo-family dwelling unit shall be eligible
for additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to
November 30, 1995, or a completed design review board application for the
original construction of said unit has been accepted by the department of
community development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years
must have passed from the date the single-family dwelling ortwo-family dwelling
unit was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary or final) or, in the
event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use of the dwelling at the
time of completion, from the date of original completion and occupancy of the
dwelling. ~ `.
. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 24
2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional
gross residential floor area (GRFA) under this provision shall comply with all town •
zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is
required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the planning and environmental
commission pursuant to chapter 17 of this title before an application is made in
accordance with this section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within
one year of final planning and environmental commission approval or the
approval for additional GRFA shall be voided.
3. Garage Conversions: If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage
or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless: a)
either the conversion will not reduce the number of enclosed parking spaces
below the number required by this code; or b) provision is made for creation of
such additional enclosed parking spaces as may be required for the new total
GRFA under this code. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area, if
required, shall accompany the application under this section, and shall be
constructed concurrently with the conversion.
4. Parking: Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in chapter 10 of this
title due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this section shall be met by the
applicant.
5. Conformity With Guidelines: All proposals under this section shall be required
to conform to the design review guidelines set forth in chapter 11 of this title. A
single-family ortwo-family dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be
required to meet the minimum town landscaping standards as set forth in chapter •
11 of this title. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with
this section, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing
single-family ortwo-family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine
whether they comply with the design review guidelines. No temporary certificate
of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this section
until all required improvements to the site and structure have been completed as
required.
6. Applicability: No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be~ allowed in
single-family ortwo-family dwelling units. No application for additional GRFA shall
request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor
area per single-family dwelling ortwo-family dwelling, nor shall any application be
made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been
constructed on the property, or an application is presently pending in conjunction
with the application for additional GRFA that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the
property.
7. One-Time Grant: Any single-family ortwo-family dwelling unit which has
previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this section and is
demo/rebuild, shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously
approved.
~\ 8. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any single-family ortwo-family dwelling unit which
is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 •
25
9. Nonconforming Structures And Site Improvements: Structures which do not
• conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this
section.
D S. Multi-Family Dwellings: Any dwelling unit in amulti-family structure that meets
allowable GRFA shall be eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to
exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the
existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Any application of such additional GRFA must
meet the following criteria:
1. Eligible Time Frame: Amultiple-family dwelling unit shall be eligible for
additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to November
30, 1995, or a completed design review board application for the original
construction of said unit has been accepted by the department of community
development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years must have
passed from the date the building was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether
temporary or final) or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not required for
use of the building at the time of completion, from the date of original completion
and occupancy of the building.
2. Use of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional
GRFA under this provision shall comply with all town zoning requirements and
applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall
be approved by the planning and environmental commission pursuant to chapter
17 of this title before an application is made in accordance with this section. The
applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final planning and
environmental commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be
voided.
3. Parking Area Conversions: Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be
converted to GRFA under this section if there is no loss of existing enclosed
parking spaces in said enclosed parking area.
4. Parking Requirements Observed: Any increase in parking requirements due to
any GRFA addition pursuant to this section shall be met by the applicant.
5. Guideline Compliance; Review: All proposals under this section shall be
reviewed for compliance with the design review guidelines as set forth in chapter
11 of this title. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be
required to meet minimum town landscaping standards as set forth in chapter 11.
of this title. General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and sites,
including the multi-family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash
facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff
after the application is made for conformance to said design review guidelines.
No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA
pursuant to this section until all required improvements to the multi-family dwelling
site and building have been completed as required.
6. Condominium Association Submittal: An application for additional GRFA shall
be made on behalf of each of the individual dwelling unit owners by the
. condominium association or similar governing body.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 26
7. Applicability: The provisions of this section are applicable only to GRFA •
additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in
multi-family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than
two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit
nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the
allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. When exterior additions
are proposed to amulti-family structure, the addition of the GRFA shall be
designed and developed in context of the entire structure.
8. Nontransferable To Demo/Rebuild: Any building which has previously been
granted additional GRFA pursuant to this section and is demo/rebuild, shall be
rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved.
9. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any multiple-family structure or dwelling unit which
is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA.
10. Nonconforming Structures And Site Improvements: Structures which do not
conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this
section.
E ~. Procedure:
1. Application; Content: Application shall be made on forms provided by the
department of community development. If the property is owned in common
(condominium association) or jointly with other property owners such as
driveways or C parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not
limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable
owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application. The application shall also include:
a. A fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the
application.
b. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12-11-4C
of this title.
c. Any other applicable information required by the department of
community development to satisfy the criteria outlined in this section.
2. Hearing Set; Notice: Upon receipt of a completed application for additional
GRFA, the design review board shall set a date for a hearing in accordance with
subsection 12-11-4C2 of this title. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance
with subsections 12-11-4C2 and C3 of this title.
3. Compliance Determined: If the department of community development staff
determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance
with town landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall
proceed as follows:
a. Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exterior
of a structure shall be reviewed and approved by the department of
community development. •
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 27
• b. Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a building
shall be reviewed and approved by the design review board in accordance
with the .provisions of this section.
4. Compliance Required: If the department of community development staff
determines that the site for which additional GRFA is applied for pursuant to this
section does not comply with minimum town landscaping or site standards as
provided herein, the applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance
with such standards before any such temporary or permanent certificate of
occupancy will be issued for the additional GRFA added to the site. Before any
building permit is issued, the applicant shall submit appropriate plans and
materials indicating how the site will be brought into compliance with said town
minimum standards, which plans and materials shall be reviewed by and
approved by the department of community development.
5. Building Permit: Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this
section, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to
beginning the construction of additional GRFA.
Section 16. Chapter 14-9 (GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA) of the Vail Town
Code shall be repealed and hereby re-enacted as follows:
• 9. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
Please refer to Chapter 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town
Code for complete regulations.
Section 17. Chapter 14-10-D (BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN) of the Vail
Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as r+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
12. Building footings and foundations shall be designed in accordance with
the minimum standards of the adopted building code. Footings and
foundations shall also be designed to be responsive to the natural topography
of the site, and shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to
minimize the necessary amount of excavation and site disturbance.
Section 18. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, sucti.decision shall not effect the validity of the
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 2$
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 19. 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 20. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
•
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 21., 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 6th day of June, 2004 and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 20th day of July, 2004, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
r ~,
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 29
•
•
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Rod Slifer, Mayor
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day
of , 2004.
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 30
Attachment: B
ORDINANCE NO. 10
Series of 2004
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 (ZONING REGULATIONS), VAIL TOWN CODE, TO
AMEND THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) REGULATIONS IN THE SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SFR), TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R), AND TWO-FAMILY
PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL (PS) ZONE DISTRICTS AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS
IN REGARDS THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental .Commission of the Town of Vail has held
public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with the provisions of the Town
Code of the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed
amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of this text amendment at its September 8, 2003, meeting, and has
•
submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments are consistent with the •
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments further the general and
specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendments promote the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious
development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and
its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
•
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 12-2-2 (Definitions) of the Vail Town Code shall hereb be
Y
amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as strisk~a. Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
BASEMENT: For the purposes of calculating gross residential floor area (GRFA):
on the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior wall surfaces
unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive,
shall be the percentage of fhe horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the
GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to
nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be
measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of
these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of
the lowest level's exterior walls.
FLOOR AREA, GROSS RESIDENTIAL (GRFA): -rho +„+~~ cn, into fnn+nno of .,ii io„oi~ of
•, ,
shoo+rnnlr nl~~for ~nr! n+hor c;rr„~~r,.,,~~ f;.,;~ho~~. Refer to chapter 15 of this title for
GRFA definitions, regulations, and requirements for GRFA calculation.
SITE: See "Lot"
SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site,
expressed as a percentage. For the purposes of this definition, "building area of a site" shall
mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, porte cochere, arcade, and
covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the
exterior face of the perimeter walls or supporting columns.
For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may
extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck
shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to
the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered
stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than
four feet (4') from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns.
Section 2. Section 12-6B-8B (Single-Family Residential District, Density Control) of
the Vail Town Code shall hereby be repealed and amended with the following:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as stfisk~n. Text which is to be added is
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 2
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site:
~ T~~in nfv fiv° /7~.\ ern ~~r° fn°} of nrnc c• r°cirl°nfiol flnnr nrnn
Ir_'QC4\ fnr °nrh nn° h~ ~nrlr°r! /4 rlf\\ eni inr° f°°} of }h° fire} fi~inl~i°
}hni ~cnnr} fivn hi mr~lror! /1'~ Gf1/1\ cni ~nr° f°n} of ci}° nr°n• nh io
o i
a. Not more than forfy (40) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of
the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of sife area; plus
b. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in
excess often thousand (10,000) square feet.
~. le-ad~ifie r~-#~th a ~be~re, ear hur+d rid-#v~en#~fT~~2-g\ ~~-~eTe~f
~.
3. No single-family residential lot except those located entirely in the red
hazard avalanche zone or the flood plain shall be so restricted that it
cannot be occupied by one single-family dwelling.
Section 3. Section 12-6C-8B (Two-Family Residential District, Density Control) of the
Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as ~+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site:
~ T~u°n}v fiv° /'~~+\ cn~ i~rn fnn} of nrncc rncirl°n}inl flnnr ~r°~
/.
/(~17C0\ fnr °~nh nn° hi inrlr°r~ /'1 /1/\\ ern ~~r° fnn} of }h° fim} fif}°°n
}hn~ ~c~nr~l /~ ~ nnrn cni ~~rn fnn} of ciF° nrnn• nIi i~
s i
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 3
h Tan /'I rl\ cn~ i~rc foo# of nrncc rocirlcn#i~l flnnr .~rn~ /!'2 C?G4\ fnr
a~rh nno hi mrlrc rl /1 r1M cni ~~rc foot of ci#o nron n~ror fif#onn
• v -' y
+hni ~onni~l /1 r'. !1(1(1\ cn~ ~nrr, foo# nn# #n cvroorl #hirf~r #hn~ ~ .+nr~
/~n nnrn cni Coro foo# of ci#o nroo• nh ~c
a. Nof more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of
the first fen thousand (10,000) square feet of site area; plus
b. Thirty eight(38) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area
over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet of site area; plus
c. Thirteen(13) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of sife area
over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus
d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for
• each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
,~. In nrlr•!i#inn #n #ho nhn~ro fni ~r hi ~nrlro~~~r~n~9r_rfi~r~L~~cn~TCTC~#~~nT
rlurollinn i ~ni#
Section 4. Section 12-6D-8 (Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District
Density Control) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as s_+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Gross Residential Floor Area:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site:
o T~ernn#v fi~ro /7~i\ cn~ i~ro foe# of nrncc rocir#cn#i~l flnnr ~rn~
/(_C?~4\ fns r,nr•h nno hi inrlror•! /1 rl/1\ eni ~~ro foo# of #ho fire} fifFoon
#hni ~~nnr~l /~ ~ nnrn cn~ Coro foo# of ci#o nro~• nlt ~c
. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 ,4, '
}~_Son /'Irl\ er+~i•~rc food of nrn~~ r°~irlon+i~l fl~~r .•+ron /('`pC0\ fnr
~QOh ono Fii ~nrlrcrd /1 rlrl\ cni inrc fooF ~f .°.i~c uron vv~~°.i ~rfe~°~-ice
> >
ran nnrn cni ~nro fool of ciao '+ro'+• r,li i
a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of
the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of site area; plus
b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residenfial floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area
over ten Thousand (10,000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet of site area; plus
c, Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residenfial floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area
over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus
d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential f/oor area (GRFA) for ,
each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of •
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet.
e, The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of
the allowable GRFA.
In ~t1r-~itinn fn rho ohnvo fns ~r h~ ini-7roiJ }~eion~v fi~io /il'~~.\ c~ni ~r+ro food of
rrr uc. arcrorr cc~-zr i c-cro v v fro m rrari crrcczvv crtry-rrvc~-rcv~rc-rccc-vr
rli~rollinn ~ ini4
Section 5. Section 12-10-10B (Parking Requirement, Schedule B) of the Vail Town
Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as ~+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
Use Parking Requirement
B~nfl+t ',rgr~~ssTesader~tial fieer areas-s ~^~~uare~ee~c3;~
locc• 1 ~. cn~roc nor i ini~
if nrn~c rocir•lon~inl flnnr Oren is nvor ~rlrl cn~ i^+ro foo4 ~ •
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 cJ
•
Single-Family and If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor
Two-Family Dwellings area is less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross residential floot area is
2,000 square feet or more, but less than 4,000
square feet: 3 spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
4,000 square feet or more, but less than 5,500
square feet: 4 spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
5,500 square feet or more: 5 spaces
Multiple-Family if a dwelling unit's gross residential floor
Dwellings area is 500 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces
•
If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
more than 500 square, but less than 2,000 square
feet: 2 spaces
If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is
2,000 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces
Section 6. Section 12-13-4 (EHU Requirements by Type) of the Vail Town Code shall
hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as r+r Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
EHU Additional GRFA
Type I The EHU is entitled to an additional 588 550 sq. ft.
Type II The EHU is entitled to an additional 588 550 sq. ft
Section 7. Section 12-15-2 (GRFA REQUIREMENTS BY ZONE DISTRICT) of the
Vail Town Code shall be repealed and hereby re-enacted as follows:
c
• Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 6
Zone Districts GRFA Ratio GRFA Credits (Added to results of
a lication of ercenta e
Hillside Residential .20 of site <_21,780 sq. ft., plus 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit
(HR) .05 of site area >21,780 sq. ft.
Single-Family .40 of site area <_10,000 sq. ft., plus None
Residential (SFR) .13 of site area >10,000 sq. ft.
Two-Family .46 of site area <_10,000 sq. ft., plus None
Residential (R) .38 of site area >10,000 and <_15,000 sq. ft.,
plus
.13 of site area >15,000 and <_30,000 sq. ft.,
plus
.06 of site area >30,000 sq. ft.
Two-Family .46 of site area <_10,000 sq. ft., plus None
Primary/Secondary .38 of site area >10,000 and <_15,000 sq. ft.,
(P/S) Residential plus
.13 of site area >15,000 and <_30,000 sq. ft.,
plus
.06 of site area >30,000 sq. ft.
(the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of the
allowable GRFA
Residential Cluster .25 of buildable area 225 sq.ft. for single-family and two-family
(RC) structures only
Low Density Multiple .30 of buildable area 225 sq.ft. for single-family and two-family
Family (LDMF) structures only
Medium Density .35 of buildable area 225 sq.ft. for single-family and two-family
Multiple-Family structures only
(MDMF)
High Density :60 of buildable area None
Multiple-Family
(HDMF)
Housing (H) Per Planning and Environmental Commission None
a royal
Public .80 of buildable area None
Accommodation
(PA)
Commercial Core 1 .80 of buildable area None
(CC1)
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004
•
r~
LJ
•
•
Commercial Core 2 .80 of buildable area None
(CC2)
Commercial Core 3 .30 of buildable area None
(CC3)
Commercial Service .40 of buildable area None
Center (CSC)
(GRFA shall not exceed 50% of the total
buildin floor area on an site
Arterial Business .60 of buildable area None
(ABD)
Heavy Service (HS) None permitted None
Lionshead Mixed 2.5 of buildable area None
Use 1 (LMU-1)
2.5 of buildable area
Lionshead Mixed None
Use 2 (LMU-2)
Agriculture and 2,000 square feet None
Open Space (A)
Outdoor Recreation None permitted None
(OR)
Parking (P) None permitted None
General Use (GU) Per Planning and Environmental Commission None
a royal
Natural Area None permitted None
Preservation (NAP)
Ski Base/Recreation Per Town Council approval None
(SBR)
Special Per underlying zoning or per development plan None
Development approval by Town Council
Districts SDD
Ski Base/Recreation Per Planning and Environmental Commission None
2 (SBR2) approval
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004
Section 8. Section 12-15-3 (GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA; DEFINITION,
CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSION) of the Vail Town Code shall be repealed and hereby re- •
enacted as follows:
A. Within the Single-Family Residential (SFR),Ttyo-Family Residential (R) and Two-
Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Districts:
1. Definition, Calculation and Deductions:
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square
footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the
outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior
wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts
and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical
spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages;
attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawlspaces; and roofed
or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area;
except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be
deducted from the calculation of GRFA:
a. Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300) square feet
per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle
parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space
basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each
vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and
unobstructed vehicular access.
Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a
garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the
garage area may be included in the garage area deduction.
Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure
may be included in the garage area deduction.
b. Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less, as
measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to
the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above.
c. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with structural truss-
typemembers, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty
inches (30") apart.
d. Attic areas created by construction of a roof structure utilizing a
nontruss system, with spaces greater than five feet (5') in height, if all
of the following criteria are met:
(1) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable
area within the same building level; and
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 9
(2) The area shall have only the minimum access required by
• the building code from the level below; and
(3) The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of
supporting a "live load" greater than forty (40) pounds per
square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space shall not be
improved with decking; and
(4) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a "truss-
type" orsimilar structural system cannot be utilized as defined
in the definition of floor area; and
(5) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar-
tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the roof system. In
an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is
used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this
policy.
e. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater than
twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or less of ceiling
height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside
of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above.
Crawlspaces created bjr a "stepped foundation", hazard mitigation,
or other similar engineering requirement that has a total height in
excess of five feet (5') may be excluded from GRFA calculations at
the discretion of the administrator.
f. Basements: on the lowest level of a structure, the total
. percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing
or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the
percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from
the GRFA calculation. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's
exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor
elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor
members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of
.these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be
considered part of the lowest level's exterior walls.
g. Vaulted Spaces: ,Interior vaulted spaces and areas "open to below"
with afloor-to-ceiling height less than sixteen feet (16'), as measured
from the finished floor to the underside of the structural members of
the floor/ceiling assembly above.
h. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar
features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a
minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (25%) of the
lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or
similar feature or space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully
open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to forty
four inches (44") in height and support posts with a .diameter of
eighteen inches (18") or less which are spaced no closer than ten
. feet (10') apart. The space between the posts shall be measured
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 ~ ~
from the outer surface of the post.
2. Additional Calculation Provisions:
a. Common Interior Party Walls: Where more than one dwelling units
exist within a single structure, GRFA shall be measured for each
dwelling unit from the center of common interior party walls to the
outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls.
b. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting
windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" are
defined according to the following criteria:
1. Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In orderfora windowto
be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of
thirty six inches (36") must be provided between the bottom of
the window and the floor surface, as measured on the inside
face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not include steps
necessary to meet building code egress requirements.) The
thirty six inch (36") minimum was chosen because it locates
the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat
and because it allows for a typical four foot (4') high
greenhouse window to be used in a room with an eight foot
(8') ceiling height.
•
2. Projection: No greenhouse window may protrude more
than eighteen inches (18") from the exterior surface of the •
building. This distance allows for adequate relief for
appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the
mass and bulk of the building.
3. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows shall
be self-supporting and shall not require special framing or
construction methods for support, with the exception that
brackets below the window maybe allowed provided they die
into the wall of the building at a forty five degree (45°) angle.
A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided
the overhang is limited to four inches (4") beyond the window
plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall
have a total window surface area greater than forty four (44)
square feet. This figure was derived on the assumption that
the maximum height of a window, in an average sized room,
is fourfeet (4') and the maximum width for a fourfoot (4') high
self-supporting window is between six feet (6') and eight feet
(8') (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would
protrude no more than eighteen inches (18"), the addition of
side windows onrould bring the overall window area to
approximately forty four (44) square feet.
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004
1
5. Quantity: Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be
• allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44) square
foot size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two
(2) windows.
6. Site Coverage: Greenhouse windows do not count as site
coverage.
c. In the Two-Family and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Districts,
GRFA is calculated based on the entire site area.
d. Vaulted Spaces: Any interior space with afloor-to-ceiling height of
sixteen feet (16') or greater, as measured from the finished floor to
the underside of the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly
above, shall be calculated as GRFA on two levels of a structure.
B. Within all districts except the Single-Family Residential (SFR), Two-Family
Residential (R), and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Districts:
1: Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: The total square footage of all
levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls
(i.e., not including furring, Sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall
finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and
stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases,
vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawlspaces and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless
. they meet the following provisions:
b. Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the
following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA.
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of
a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as
set forth herein, shall then be deducted from total-square footage:
1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square
feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2)
spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this
title.
2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less,
as measured from the top side of the structural members of
the floor to the underside of the structural members of the
roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a
roof with truss=type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no
greater than thirty inches (30") apart.
3. crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater
t ~ than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or
less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the
• ~ earth to the underside of structural floor members of the
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 12
floor/ceiling assembly above.
4. Roofed or covered deck, porches, terraces, patios or •
similar features or spaces with no more than three (3)
exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than
twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area
of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or
space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open
from floor to ceiling with an allowance for a railing of up to
forty four inches (44") in height.
b. Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable
dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas
shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be
calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as
set forth herein. Excluded areas as set forth shall then be
deducted from the total square footage:
1. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking
requirements.
2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces
are common spaces:
(a) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and air
locks.
(b) Common lobby areas.
(c) Common enclosed recreation facilities. •
(d) Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar
rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems.
(e) Common closet and storage areas, providing access to
such areas is from common hallways only.
(f) Meeting and convention facilities.
(g) Office space, provided such space is used exclusively
for the management and operation of on-site facilities.
(h) Floor area. to be used in a type III "employee housing
unit (EHU)" as defined and restricted by chapter 13 of this
title.
3. All or part of an air lock within an accommodation or
dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty five (25)
square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the
outdoors.
4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or
dwelling unit shall only be counted at the lowest level.
5. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less,
as measured from the top side of the structural members of
the floor to the underside of the structural members of the
roof directly above. Attic areas created by construction of a •
roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 ~ 3
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no
• greater than thirty inches (30") apart.
6. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater
than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or
less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the
earth to the underside of structural floor members of the
floor/ceiling assembly above.
7. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or
similar features or spaces with no more than three (3)
exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than
twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area
of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or
space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open
from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to
forty four inches (44") in height and support posts with a
diameter of eighteen inches (18") or less which are spaced
no closer than ten feet (10') apart. The space between the
posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post.
2. Additional Calculation Provisions:
a. Walls: Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations. For two-
' family and primary/secondary structures, common party walls shall
be considered exterior walls.
• b. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting
windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows"
are defined according to the following criteria:
1. Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In order for a window
to be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum
distance of thirty six inches (36") must be provided
between the bottom of the window and the floor surface, as
measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor
surface shall not include steps necessary to meet building
code egress requirements.) The thirty six inch (36")
minimum was chosen because it locates the window too
high to be comfortably used as a window seat and because
it allows for a typical four foot (4') high greenhouse window
to be used in a room with an eight foot (8') ceiling height.
2. Projection: No greenhouse window may protrude more
than eighteen inches (18") from the exterior surface of the
building. This distance allows for adequate relief for
appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the
mass and bulk of the building.
3. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows
• shall be self-supporting and shall not require special
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 14
framing or construction methods for support, with the
exception that brackets below the window may be allowed •
provided they die into the wall of the building at a forty five
degree (45°) angle. A small roof over the window may also
be allowed provided the overhang is limited to four inches
(4") beyond the window plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall
have a total window surface area greater than forty four
(44) square feet. This figure was derived on the
assumption that the maximum height of a window, in an
average sized room, is four feet (4') and the maximum
width for a four foot (4') high self-supporting window is
between six feet (6') and eight feet (8') (approximately 32
square feet). Since the window would protrude no more
than eighteen inches (18"), the addition of side windows
would bring the overall window area to approximately forty
four (44) square feet.
5. Quantity: Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be
allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44)
square foot size limitation will apply to the combined area
of the two (2) windows.
6. Site Coverage: Greenhouse windows do not count as
site coverage. •
c. Vaulted Spaces: Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are
not included in GRFA calculations.
d. Garage Credit:
1. Allowable garage area is awarded on a "per space
basis", with a maximum of two (2) spaces per allowable
unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and
unobstructed vehicular access. All floor area included in
the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space.
2. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are
located in the garage and which are twenty five percent
(25%) or more open to the garage area shall be included
as garage credit.
3. Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit
shall be counted as GRFA.
e. Crawl And Attic Space:
1. Crawlspaces created by,a "stepped foundation", hazard
mitigation, or other similarengineering requirement that
has a total height in excess of five feet (5') may be •
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 ~ cJ
•
•
excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the
administrator.
2. If a roof structure is designed utilizing a nontruss system,
and spaces greater than five feet (5') in height result, these
areas shall not be counted as GRFA if all of the following
criteria are met:
(a) The area cannot be accessed directly from a
habitable area within the same building level;
(b) The area shall have the minimum access
required by the building code from the level below
(6 square foot opening maximum);
(c) The attic space shall not have a structural floor
capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty
(40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the
attic space cannot be improved with decking;
(d) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a
"truss type" or similar structural system cannot be
utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and
(e) It will be necessary that a structural element
(i.e., collar-tie) be utilized when rafters are used for
the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as
when a bearing ridge system is used, the staff will
review the space for compliance with this policy.
Section 9. Subsection 12-15-46 (INTERIOR CONVERSIONS) of the Vail Town Code
shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as ~+.- Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
B. Applicability: Within all zone districts except fhe Single-Family Residential, Two-
Family Residential, and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Districts,
dwelling units that meet or
exceed allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the
following criteria are satisfied:
1. Any existing dwelling unit shall be eligible to add GRFA, via the "interior space
conversion" provision in excess of existing or allowable GRFA including such
units located in a special development district; provided, that such GRFA
complies with the standards outlined herein.
2. For the purpose of this section, "existing unit" shall mean any dwelling unit that
has been constructed prior to August 5, 1997, and has received a certificate of
occupancy, or has been issued a building permit prior to August 5, 1997, or has
~ received final design review board approval prior to August 5, 1997.
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 16
Section 10. Section 12-15-5 (ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
250 ORDINANCE) of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows: •
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as r+" Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of
existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the town for a period of at
least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet
of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria set
forth in this section are met. This section does not assure each single-family ortwo-
family dwelling unit located within the town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square
feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to
site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable town development
standards. The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross residential floor
area may be granted to existing single-family dwellings, existing two-family and existing
multi-family dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one
increment of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Upgrading of an existing
dwelling unit under this section shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, but
a demo/rebuild shall not be included as being eligible for additional gross residential floor
area.
B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to dwelling units in all • ;
zone districts except the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, and
Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts.
C B. Single-Family Dwellings And Two-Family Dwellings: Asingle-family ortwo-family
dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to
exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the
existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the
single-family ortwo-family dwelling unit shall meet the following criteria:
1. Eligible Time Frame: Asingle-family ortwo-family dwelling unit shall be eligible
for additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to
November 30, 1995, or a completed design review board application for the
original construction of said unit has been accepted by the department of
community development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years
must have passed from the date the single-family dwelling ortwo-family dwelling
unit was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary or final) or, in the
event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use of the dwelling at the
time of completion, from the date of original completion and occupancy of the
dwelling.
2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional
gross residential floor area (GRFA) under this provision shall comply with all town
zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is
required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the planning and environmental
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 ~ 7
.commission pursuant to chapter 17 of this title before an application is made in
• accordance with this section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within
one year of final planning and environmental commission approval or the
approval for additional GRFA shall be voided.
3. Garage Conversions: If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage
or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless: a)
either the conversion will not reduce the number of enclosed parking spaces
below the number required by this code; or b) provision is made for creation of
such additional enclosed parking spaces as may be required for the new total
GRFA under this code. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area, if
required, shall accompany the application under this section, and shall be
constructed concurrently with the conversion.
4. Parking: Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in chapter 10 of this
title due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this section shall be met by the
applicant.
5. Conformity With Guidelines: All proposals under this section shall be required
to conform to the design review guidelines set forth in chapter 11 of this title. A
single-family ortwo-family dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be
required to meet the minimum town landscaping standards as set forth in chapter
11 of this title. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with
this section, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing
single-family ortwo-family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine
whether they comply with the design review guidelines. No temporary certificate
• of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this section
until all required improvements to the site and structure have been completed as
required.
6. Applicability: No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in
single-family ortwo-family dwelling units. No application for additional GRFA shall
request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor
area per single-family dwelling ortwo-family dwelling, nor shall any application be
made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been
constructed on the property, or an application is presently pending in conjunction
with the application for additional GRFA that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the
property.
7. One-Time Grant: Any single-family ortwo-family dwelling unit which has
previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this section and is
demo/rebuild, shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously
approved.
8. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any single-family ortwo-family dwelling unit which
is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA.
9. Nonconforming Structures And Site Improvements: Structures which do not
conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this ~
section.
• Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004
D S. Multi-Family Dwellings: Any dwelling unit in amulti-family structure that meets
allowable GRFA shall be eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to
exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the
existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Any application of such additional GRFA must
meet the following criteria:
1. Eligible Time Frame: Amultiple-family dwelling unit shall be eligible for
additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to November
30, 1995, or a completed design review board application for the original
construction of said unit has been accepted by the department of community
development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years must have
passed from the date the building was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether
temporary or final) or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not required for
use of the building at the time of completion, from the date of original completion
and occupancy of the building.
2. Use of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional
GRFA under this provision shall comply with all town zoning requirements and
applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall
be approved by the planning and environmental commission pursuant to chapter
17 of this title before an application is made in accordance with this section. The
applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final planning and
environmental commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be
voided.
3. Parking Area Conversions: Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be
converted to GRFA under this section if there is no loss of existing enclosed •
parking spaces in said enclosed parking area.
4. Parking Requirements Observed: Any increase in parking requirements due to
any GRFA addition pursuant to this section shall be met by the applicant.
5. Guideline Compliance; Review: All proposals under this section shall be
reviewed for compliance with the design review guidelines as set forth in chapter
11 of this title. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be
required to meet minimum town landscaping standards as set forth in chapter 11
of this title. General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and sites,
including the multi-family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash
facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff
after the application is made for conformance to said design review guidelines.
No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA
pursuant to this section until all required improvements to the multi-family dwelling
site and building have been completed as required.
6. Condominium Association Submittal: An application for additional GRFA shall
be made on behalf of each of the individual dwelling unit owners by the
condominium association or similar governing body.
7. Applicability: The provisions of this section are applicableconly to GRFA
additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in
multi-family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than •
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 ~ 9
two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit
• nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the
allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. When exterior additions
are proposed to amulti-family structure, the addition of the GRFA shall be
designed and developed in context of the entire structure.
8. Nontransferable To Demo/Rebuild: Any building which has previously been
granted additional GRFA pursuant to this section and is demo/rebuild, shall be
rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved.
9. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any multiple-family structure or dwelling unit which
is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA.
10. Nonconforming Structures And Site Improvements: Structures which do not
conform to density controls shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this
section.
Ems. Procedure:
1. Application; Content: Application shall be made on forms provided by the
department of community development. If the property is owned in common
(condominium association) orjointly with other property owners such as
driveways or C parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not '
limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable
owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application. The application shall also include:
a. A fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the
application.
b. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12-11-4C
of this title.
c. Any other applicable information required by the department of
community development to satisfy the criteria outlined in this section.
2. Hearing Set; Notice: Upon receipt of a completed application for additional
GRFA, the design review board shall set a date for a hearing in accordance with
subsection 12-11-4C2 of this title. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance
with subsections 12-11-4C2 and C3 of this title.
3. Compliance Determined: If the department of community development staff
determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance
with town landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall
proceed as follows:
a. Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exterior
of a structure shall be reviewed and approved by the department of
community developrrTent.
b. Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a building
~~ shall be reviewed and approved by the design review board in accordance
• with the provisions of this section.
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 20
4. Compliance Required: If the department of community development staff •
determines that the site for which additional GRFA is applied for pursuant to this
section does not comply with minimum town landscaping or site standards as
provided herein, the applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance
with such standards before any such temporary or permanent certificate of
occupancy will be issued for the additional GRFA added to the site. Before any
building permit is issued, the applicant shall submit appropriate plans and
materials indicating how the site will be brought into compliance with said town
minimum standards, which plans and materials shall ~be reviewed by and
approved by the department of community development.
5. Building Permit: Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this
section, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to
beginning the construction of additional GRFA.
Section 12. Chapter 14-9 (GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA) of the Vail Town
Code shall be repealed and hereby re-enacted as follows:
9. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
Please refer to Chapter 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town
Code for complete regulations.
•
Section 13. Chapter 14-10-D (BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN) of the Vail
Town Code shall hereby be amended as follows:
(Text which is to be deleted is indicated as r}ri Text which is to be added is
indicated as bold italics.)
12. Building footings and foundations shall be designed in accordance with
the minimum standards of the adopted building code. Footings and
foundations shall also be designed to be responsive to the natural topography
of the site, and shall be designed and construcfed in such a manner as to
minimize the necessary amount of excavation and site disturbance.
Section 14. 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
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 2 ~ •
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 15. 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 16. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
•
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 17. 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 1St day of June, 2004-and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 6th day of July, 2004, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
• Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 22
s
ATTEST:
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day
of , 2004.
ATTEST:.
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
t
Rod Slifer, Mayor
.]
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004 •
23
CJ
ORDINANCE 12
SERIES 2004
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE TOWN OF VAIL; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS
TO THE TOWN OF VAIL POLICE REGULATIONS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS
IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's belief that certain "housekeeping"
amendments are necessary in Title 6, Chapter 3, of the Vail Municipal Code to more
effectively enforce the Town's police regulations; and
WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's opinion that the health, safety and welfare of
the citizens of the Town of Vail would be enhanced and promoted by the adoption of this
ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Title 6, Chapter 3, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby
amended as follows: (deletions are shown in el~ilg~, additions are shown in
bold)
6-3A-5: RESISTING AN OFFICER:
A. Resisting Arrest: It is unlawful for any person within the Town to knowingly
+r~tent+eraalfy prevent or attempt to prevent any peace officer, acting under color of his/her
official authority, from effecting an arrest of the person by the use or threat of physical
force or violence against the police officer or by the use of any other means which
creates a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the peace officer.
B. Obstructing A Peace Officer: It is unlawful for any person within the Town to
knowingly +~-te~ use or threaten to use violence, force or physical interference to
obstruct or impair or hinder the enforcement of the provisions of this Code or the
preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting under color of his/her official
authority or intentionally obstruct, impair or hinder the prevention, control or abatement
of fire by a firefighter acting under color of his/her official authority.
• 6-3A-7: FURNISHING CONTRABAND aAl€~4~9Pk~ TO PRISONERS:
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
It is unlawful for any person to furnish or attempt to furnish or take into jail or to deliver or •
attempt to deliver to any prisoner confined therein, or in the custody of any officer, any
weapon, tool, intoxicating liquors, drug or other article without the consent of the law
enforcement officer in charge.
6-3A-8: FALSE REPORTS:
It is unlawful for any person knowingly why to give or make, or cause to be given or
made in any manner any false report to any police officer of the Town or to any person
authorized to receive reports in behalf of the police of the Town.
6-3A-9: FALSE ALARMS:
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly wil#~ give or make or cause to be given or
made in any manner a false alarm of fire, avalanche, missing person or other emergency
or disaster.
6-3B-1: ASSAULT:
A. Assault And Battery: It is unlawful for a person to knowingly ese~y- or •
recklessly cause or attempt to cause bodily injury to another person.
B. Reporting Required: It is the duty of -the owner or manager of any premises
licensed by the Town to serve, sell or dispense alcoholic beverages or fermented malt
beverages, to report or cause to be reported to the Town Police Department all incidents
involving violations of subsection A of this Section, occurring within or upon their
premises within twenty four (24) hours of such incidents.
6-36-2: LARCENY, FRAUD AND RELATED OFFENSES:
A. Definitions:
LARCENY:' To take or exercise control over property of another having a value of less
then five hundred dollars ($500.00) without
authorization or by threat or deception; and
1. With the intention to deprive the owner permanently of the use or benefit of such
property; or
2. To knowingly use, conceal or abandon such property in a manner so as to deprive the
owner permanently of its use or benefit; or •
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
nhnnrlnmm~ni ~~iill rlenrivn thn n~a.nnr r~nrmn.~r. r.il....t :a.. .. t__.__t:a. _
• .~_ ,.
4. To knowingly demand any consideration for which one is not legally entitled as a
condition of restoring such property to the owner.
RECREATIONAL FACILITY: Any golf course, tennis court or any recreational property,
or any related property facility or thing whatsoever.
SKIING FACILITY: Any ski tow, ski lift, gondola, or any related property or facility er
SKIING SERVICE: Service and instruction offered or provided by any ski instructor or ski
school, and any service offered or provided in connection with any skiing facility.
B. Larceny Unlawful: It is unlawful for any person to commit larceny in the Town.
C. Concealment Of Goods: If any person wil#elly knowingly conceals unpurchased
goods, wares, or merchandise owned or held by and offered or displayed for sale by any
store or any other mercantile establishment, whether the concealment be on his/her own
person or otherwise and whether on or off the premises of such store or mercantile
establishment, such concealment constitutes prima facie evidence that the person
intended to commit the offense of larceny.
• D. Deceptive Use Of Ski Facilities: It is unlawful for any person within the Town,
knowingly to obtain or attempt to obtain the use, benefit or enjoyment of any skiing
service or skiing facility or other recreational facility by any false pretense, trick, or
deceptive means, method or device whatsoever ~e~ .
E. Using False Ticket: It is unlawful for any person within the Town knowingly to
possess, offer, use, present, sell or give away, any false, simulated, bogus, spurious,
sham, altered, forged, counterfeit, defaced or mutilated ticket, token, pass, badge, pin or
other device which is not genuine and authorized for obtaining the use, benefit, or
enjoyment of any skiing service or skiing facility or other recreational facility by the
owner, proprietor, lessee, licensee or operator of such skiing service or facility or other
recreational facility.
F. g False Tickets: It is unlawful for any person within the Town to knowingly
falsify, alter, forge, counterfeit, deface or mutilate any ticket, pass, badge, pin or other
device entitling the holder thereof to the use, benefit or enjoyment of any skiing service
or skiing facility or other recreational facility, or to make or manufacture any simulated,
bogus, spurious, or sham ticket, token, pass, badge, pin or other device purporting to
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
entitle the holder thereof to the use, benefit or enjoyment of any skiing service or facility •
or other recreational facility.
G. Fraud By Check:
1. As used in this subsection, unless the context otherwise requires:
CHECK: A written, unconditional order to pay a certain amount of money drawn on a
bank, payable on demand and signed by the drawer.
DRAWEE: The bank upon which a check is drawn.
DRAWER: A person, either real or fictitious, whose name appears on a check as a
primary obligor, whether the actual signature be that of the person or of a person
authorized to draw a check on himself or herself.
INSUFFICIENT FUNDS: A drawer has insufficient funds with the drawee to pay a check
when the drawer has no checking account with the drawee, or has funds in a checking
account with the drawee in an amount less than the amount of the check, plus the
amount of all other checks outstanding at the time of issuance; and a check dishonored
for "no account" shall also be deemed to be dishonored for "insufficient funds".
ISSUE: A person issues a check when he or she makes, draws, delivers or passes it, or
causes it to be made, drawn. delivered or passed.
2. Any person, knowing he or she has insufficient funds with the drawee who, with intent •
to defraud, issues a check for the payment of services, wages, salary, commissions,
labor, rent, money, property, or other thing of value commits fraud by check, which is
unlawful.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, no violation of this subsection
occurs if:
a. The check alleged to be fraudulent was for the sum of two hundred dollars ($200.00)
or more. ,
b. The person issues two (2) or more checks within any thirty (30) day period in the State
of Colorado totaling two hundred dollars ($200.00) or more in the aggregate, or
c. The person issuing the check has been twice previously convicted under Colorado
Revised Statutes section 18-5-205 (1973, as amended) or any former. Colorado statute
of similar content and purport, and
d. The allegedly fraudulent check was drawn on an account which did not exist or which
has been closed for a period of thirty (30) days or more prior to the issuance of said
check.
•
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
• 4. It shall be unlawful for any person to open a checking account using false
_ identification or an assumed name for the purpose of issuing a fraudulent check.
5. If the deferred prosecution or sentencing is ordered, the court, as a condition of such
disposition, may require the defendant to make restitution on all checks issued by the
defendant which are unpaid as of the date of commencement of the deferred period in
addition to other terms and conditions appropriate for the treatment or rehabilitation of
the defendant.
6. A bank shall not.be civilly or criminally liable for releasing information relating to the
drawer's account to a police officer, Town Attorney, Assistant Town Attorney, or
authorized investigator for the Town Attorney investigating or prosecuting a charge
under this subsection.
H. Control Over Stolen Thing Of Value:
v~~ Every person who obtains control. over any stolen thing of value, knowing the
thing of value to have been stolen by another, may be tried, convicted and punished
whether or not the principal is charged, tried or convicted.
6-3C-2: INDECENT EXPOSURE:
• It is unlawful for any person to +~~y~ knowingly expose such person's genitals to
the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause
affront or alarm to the other person.
6-3C-3: ILLEGAL ACTS ON PREMISES HOLDING LIQUOR LICENSES;
A. Definitions: For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
' ~'"~v° INDECENT DISPLAYS: Performing acts of or acts which simulate:
1. Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, #~~getla#fe~ or
any sexual acts which are prohibited by law;
2. The touching, caressing or fondling on the breast, buttocks, anus or genitals;
3. The displaying of the pubic hair, anus, vulva or genitals;
4. The displaying of the post-pubescent hest-pubertal human female breast below a
point immediately above the top of the areola, or the displaying of the post-pubescent
hest-~er~a~l human female. breast where the nipple only or the nipple and areola only
are covered.
•
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
.+
NUDITY: Uncovered, or less than opaquely covered, post-pubescent ~es#-~f3er~af •
human genitals, pubic areas, the post-pubescent human female breast
below a point immediately above the top of the areota,
. For purposes of this definition, a female breast is
considered uncovered if the nipple only or the nipple and the areota only are covered.
B. Gambling Prohibited: No licensee for the sale of spirituous, vinous or malt
beverages or 3.2 beer shall install, maintain or operate or permit the installation,
maintenance or operation of, within or upon the licensed premises, any gambling table,
establishment, device, machine, apparatus or other thing contrary to this section or to
the laws of this state or which is kept or used for the purpose of gambling either directly
or indirectly. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the use of bona fide
amusement devices which do not and cannot be adjusted to pay anything of value, and
which may not be used for gambling, directly or indirectly, and for the scoring,
achievement, use or operation of which no prize, reward or thing of value is offered. or
paid by any person. ~ .
C. Offensive Behavior By Patrons: Each licensee shall conduct his/her
establishment in a decent, orderly and respectable manner, and shall not permit within •
or upon the licensed premises Lewd-~ indecent displays, profanity, ~ewdiaes~ undue
noise, or other disturbance or activity offensive to the senses of the average citizen, or to
the residents of the neighborhood in which the establishment is located.
• ,
€D. Begging And Soliciting Drinks: No licensee, manager or agent shall permit upon
any liquor licensed premises for consumption on the premises anyone to loiter in or
about said premises for the purpose of begging, and soliciting any patron or customer of,
or visitor in, such premises to purchase any drinks or beverages of any type or nature
whatsoever, for the one soliciting or begging.
~E. Nudity: No licensee for retail sale by the drink of spirituous, vinous, or malt
beverages or 3.2 beer shall permit any person or persons to appear in a state of nudity
or simulated nudity within or upon the premises.
•
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004 .
• (~F. Showing Of Offensive Materials: No licensee for retail sale by the drink of
spirituous, vinous, or malt beverages or 3.2 beer shall permit the showing of film, still
pictures, electronic reproduction, or other visual reproductions depicting any act or live
performance prohibited by this section.
6-3C-4: DRINKING IN PUBLIC eT~o:
A. Prohibited: It is unlawful for any person to drink any malt, vinous, or spirituous
liquors upon any street, alley, sidewalk, public building or public parking lot in the town
or within any vehicle upon the streets, alleys, sidewalks or public parking tots in
the town except by written authorization of the town council. It is unlawful for any person
to possess or have in such person's possession or under his/her control in or upon any
street, alley, sidewalk, public building or public parking lot in the town, any malt, vinous,
or spirituous liquors in any container of any kind or description which is not sealed or
upon which the seal is broken. The word "sealed" means the regular seal applied by the
United States government over the cap of all malt, vinous or spirituous liquors.
B. Closed Containers Prohibited:
1. Affected Areas: No person shall possess any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquor or
• fermented malt beverage in or upon any public highway, street, alley, walk, parking lot or
any other public property or place or in or upon those portions of any private property
upon which the public has an expressed or implied license to enter or remain within the
area bounded by:
Vail transportation center/village parking structure to the- north, the south edge of Seibert
Circle to the south, Mill Creek to the east, the eastern curb line of Willow Bridge Road
from Gore Creek Drive through the International Bridge.
The affected area is inclusive of Wall Street from Gore Creek Drive through One Vail
Place and the Gore Creek Promenade from Willow Bridge Road through the Children's
Fountain, between six o'clock (6:00) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M., from June 30
through July 5, and between six o'clock (6:00) P.M. on December 31 and six o'clock
(6:00) A.M. of January 1 of each year.
2. Exception: Notwithstanding the foregoing, persons shall have the right to possess
malt, vinous or spirituous liquor or fermented malt beverage in said area if they are
taking it to permanent or temporary residence located in said area.
3. Resolution By Officer: Any peace officer is authorized to seize any malt, vinous or
• spirituous liquor or fermented malt beverage possessed in violation of this section. If no
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
summons or complaint is issued for the violation and if the circumstances reasonably •
permit, the officer may require the possessor to leave the prohibited area with the
alcoholic beverage or to abandon the beverage to the officer for destruction at such
person's option.
6-3C-5: SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS:
A. Prohibited: It is unlawful for anyone to knowingly sell, give, or dispense any
intoxicating beverage of any kind, including fermented malt beverages, commonly known
as 3.2 beer, to any person who is visibly intoxicated, and it is the responsibility of anyone
licensed by the town and state to dispense any malt, vinous, and spirituous liquor, as
well as fermented malt beverages, commonly known as 3.2 beer, to determine if any
such person is visibly intoxicated before selling, searing or delivering such beverages to
any such person.
B. False Identification: It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly make false
statements or to furnish, present, or exhibit any fictitious or false registration card,
identification card, driver's license, note or any other document; or to furnish, present
or exhibit such document or documents issued to a person other than the one presenting
the same, for the purpose of gaining admission to any prohibited place or for the
purpose of procuring the sale, gift or delivery of prohibited articles, including fermented
malt beverages, malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors.
C. Possession Of Liquor By Underage Persons: It shall be unlawful for any person
under the age of twenty one (21) years to have in such person's possession or in his/her
control in a public place or a privately owned place opened to the use.and access of the
public, any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquor, or any fermented malt beverages within the
town limits.
D. Sale To Minors: It shall be unlawful for any person to procure for, sell to, or give
away within the town limits, any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors, or any fermented malt
beverages to any person under the age of twenty one (21) years.
6-3C-6: CANNABIS:
A. Defined: "Cannabis" includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether
growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and
every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its
seeds, or resin, but shall not include the mature stalks of said plant, fiber produced from •
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
. its stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of said plant, or any, other compound or
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of its mature stalks, except the
resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is
incapable of germination.
B. Unlawful Acts Designated: It is unlawful to possess, use or attempt to obtain or
procure less than one ounce of cannabis.
6-3D-2: DISORDERLY CONDUCT:
It is unlawful for a person to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly:
A. Make a coarse and obviously offensive utterance in a public place, and the
language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or
B. Make a coarse and offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture
or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or
•
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
C. Fight with another in a public place, except in an amateur or professional contest •
of athletic skill; or
D. Make an unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that
he/she has no right to occupy
6-3D-3: DANGEROUS OR VIOLENT CONDUCT:
It is unlawful for a person to participate with two (2) or more others in fees
dangerous and violent conduct which creates ~e imminent danger of damage or
injury to property or persons or substantially obstructs the performance of any
governmental function.
6-3E-1: CRIMINAL INJURY TO PROPERTY:
It is unlawful for any person +r~te~ieraa~lly to knowingly injure, deface, mutilate, remove,
pull down, break, or in any way interfere with, molest, desecrate or destroy any #~ees-er
r~er~e~senal property belonging to or under control of the Town or any person within
the limits of the Town.
6-3E-2: THEFT OF LIBRARY PROPERTY:
It shall be unlawful for any person to tak '
or to retain any property belonging to the Vail Public Library for
thirty (30) days after notice is sent to said person in writing to return the same, given
after the expiration of the time that by the rules of the Vail Public Library such property
may be kept,
Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
•
Section 4. The 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. •
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
• Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended.
The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 6. 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 this 6th day of July, 2004 and a public hearing for second
reading of this Ordinance set for the 20th day of July, 2004, at 6:00 pm in the Council
• Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this 20th day of July, 2004.
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor •
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
•
Ordinance 12 ,Series of 2004
• ORDINANCE NO. 15
Series of 2004
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12, SERIES OF 1997, REMOVING A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT PROHIBITS THE OPERATION OF RESTAURANTS
WITHIN THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (SDD N0. 35 Austria Haus), AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-2 of the Vail Town Code permits major amendments to
existing special development districts; and
WHEREAS, Johannes Faessler, as owner of the property, has submitted an application
for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 35; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of this major amendment at its June 28, 2004, meeting, and has
submitted its recommendation of approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and
• welfare to amend the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 35.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO,.THAT:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, is hereby amended as follows:
(deletions are shown in c+riLo +hrn~ inh~additionS are shown in bold)
SECTION 5
J. Uses -The underlying zoning for Special Development District No. 35 shall be
Public Accommodation. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be those listed in
Chapter 18.22 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail . ~.,i+h +ho ovr•on+inn of roc+~i tron+c nr cimil~r
SECTION 6
The developer, agrees with the following conditions, which are a part of the Town's approval
• Ordinance No. 15, Series 2004
of the establishment of Special Development District No. 35: •
1. That no rooftop or other exterior ventilation or exhausting equipment (hoods) be
installed on the building for the expressed purpose of ventilating the kitchen or
restaurant area of the easternmost retail tenant space (Unit D).
2. That any future proposal to expand the area of the restaurant be reviewed and
approved by the Town of Vail pursuant to the applicable development review
process.
3. That all loading and delivery activity for the Austria Haus be conducted on the Austria
Haus property in the loading dock area provided on the west side of the property.
Loading and delivery for the Austria Haus shall not be conducted from the
designated loading and delivery spaces in front of the Mountain Haus.
4. The applicant, Johannes Faessler, or his authorized agent, shall cause the Town's
conditions of approval and the following written agreement to be recorded with the
Eagle County Clerk 8~ Recorder's office within 30 days of approval on second •
reading.
"The Austria Haus (herein "Property") may not be used for the operation
of a restaurant. The term "restaurant" as used herein means an eating
establishment which is full service, offering one or more of a complete
breakfast menu, lunch menu or dinner menu and which prepares the food
offered at the Property in an on-site kitchen. The term "restaurant" as
used herein does not include a coffee shop, sandwich shop or similar use
which involves any one or more of the following; 7) preparation of brewed
coffee, tea, and/or espresso drinks at the Property, 2) use of a microwave
oven at the Property, and 3) the sale of any one or more of the following;
a) whole ground coffee beans, b) coffee by the cup, c)
espresso%offee/tea-based drinks, d) teas and spices, e)
espresso%offee/fea-related equipment, supplies and accessories, t)
seasonal, promotional and branded merchandise, g) assorted food items
including, but not limited to, baked foods, desserts, frozen desserts,
salads, sandwiches, juices, candies and novelties, h) books, magazines
and newspapers, and i) other non-food related items reasonably
associated with the operation of a coffee shop."
Additionally, this same language shall be included in all future lease or rental •
Ordinance No. 15, Series 2004 2
agreements made by and between Johannes Faessler, or his authorized agent, and
any future tenant of the space. Failure to comply with this condition shall cause this
approval to become null and void.
NOTE: All other conditions of approval shall remain unchanged.
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
•
inhabitants thereof.
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall
Ordinance No. 15, Series 2004 3
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 6th day of July, 2004 and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 20th day of July, 2004, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 20th day of
July, 2004.
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
Attest:
Ordinance No. 15, Series 2004 4
•
•
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Cterk
Ordinance No. 15, Series 2004
;Corey Swisher RE Capital projects List Page 1
From: "Michael Roeper" <Michael.Roeper@eaglecounty.us>
To: "Dick Cleveland" <dcleveland@vailgov.com>
Date: 7/13/04 1:59:05 PM
Subject: RE: Capital projects List
It's been great to have you as part of this process. The list is
attached here -let ine know if you have any trouble with it.
Also, we will probably need to re-convene because several additional
requests have come in, (some of which have high Commissioner interest)
and because I think we need to hear from some of the people who were
unable to attend our earlier meeting. I will be sending you a memo in
the next few days with further details.
Thanks again!
r
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Cleveland [mailto:dcleveland@vailgov.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 3:41 PM
To: Michael Roeper
Subject: Capital projects List
Mike:
Can you send me a copy of the final capital projects list that will be
sent to the commissioners as a result of the capital projects committee
work?
Thanks for thew opportunity to participate. It was very enlightening.
Dick Cleveland
s
Eagle County Capital Projects - 2005
Recommendations of CIP Committee June 24 2004 Primarily High rankinas)
1 Lease Payments-Sheriff Fire Vehicle 100% 31,711
9 IP/SANZ data storage expansion 100% 36,000
35 Mid Valley Trails Projects 100% 100,000
38 Basalt Roiad & Bridge Shop 100% 1,000,000
37 Justice Center Improvements-Design & Planning 100% 100,000
24 Golden Eagle Apts. Rehab. 85% 270,000
31 West Vail Fire Station 91 % 1,000,000
32 Mobile Data Terminals-CAD/RMS Users Group 82% 102,000
14 Finance/Human Resources system upgrade 77% 350,000
26 Pesticide containment Facility 69% 25,000
15 Phase II of Sheriffs front office remodel 69% 125,000
Total recommended
3,139, 711
r
f
TOWN OF VAIL~y
Office of the Mayor
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157 '
www ci. Vail. co. us
Ms. Ann Veneman
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave. S.W.
Washington D.C., 20250
Dear Ms. Veneman,
The Town Council in Vail, Colorado, support roadless area protection in the White River
National Forest (WRNF), which surrounds the majority of our town. Vail thrives on
tourism and the outdoor recreation industry, and fragmenting more of our roadless areas
could drastically affect our tourism and outdoor recreation opportunities and is not
consistent with what our residents and~visitors value.
The White River. National Forest makes up 2.3 million acres of Colorado's nearly 14.5
million acres of total National Forests. Out of this 2.3 million, about 640,000 acres are
considered to be roadless. We are concerned that the naturalness of our roadless areas
may be damaged or destroyed by Forest Service Projects that create roads into these
roadless areas. We believe that protecting these roadless areas from most commercial
logging, gas and oil exploration, and road building is in the best interest of the Town of
Vail and the WRNF.
These roadless areas provide a haven for threatened wildlife species, such as lynx and
greenback cutthroat trout. In addi~ion to the ecological benefits, these roadless areas
provide the opportuiuty for recreation such as fishing, hunting, hiking, bird watching and
backcountry skiing, which Vail recognizes as essential to our economy. Visitors prefer to
recreate in pristine areas of our surrounding national forest than in clear-cut or
commercially thinned areas.
There are already more roads in the WRNF that need maintenance than the Forest Service
has money to maintain. Additionally, more roads lead to greater habitat fragmentation,
increased odds of human-created forest f re, watershed sedimentation and the spread of
noxious and invasive weeds.
We understand the value and importance of Forest Service projects, including
commercial logging and subsequent road building. However, we believe that these
~~~ RECYCLEDPAPER
projects should take place in parts of the tVhite River National Forest that are not
considered to be roadless.
Sincerely;
Rod Slifer, Mayor
TOWN OF VAIL
Stan Zemler, Town Manager
TOWN OF VAIL
i= ~'C~9 L. ASMUSSEN PHONE N0. 970 328 5681 Jul . 01 2004 07: 49PM P2
~ OI].OTV'3I1 ~1V].~I.OII
V A I L
1600 5. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81bS7
(970)477-3699
(97077-3E97 FAQ
July 1, 2004
Town of'Vai!
Attn: Pam Brandmeyer
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, C®1657
Dear Para:
Donovan Pavilion Management, Inc. requests your acceptance of Cindy C.lemient's
resignation from the company. This resignation will be effective June 30, 2004.
Pursuant to section 6. ] of the John F. Donovan Pavilion Management Agreement
between the Town of Vail and Donovan Pa~rilion Management, .lnc., we are requesting
written approval from the Town accepting this personnel change.
Sincerely,
Laura Asmussen 8c Cindy Clement
Laurie Asmussen
C~~
Donovan Pavilion
V A I L
1600 :South.Fontagc Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
p 970 477 3699- f 9Z(1 4?7 3697
www.vailpavilion.com -.pavilion@vaiJgov.com
- ~,
_ , ~r a_
'~ ~ ~
~_~~<-iii sir ~~~ii/
Tucked into the mountainside near West Vail is a
gathering spot unlike any other. Built by the Town of
~ 2003, Donovan Pavilion is a stunning timber
~ stone mountain lodge that makes a statement
in itself. Add the views and surrounding 50
acres of park and open space and you'll see
why this is a truly unique venue for very
special events.
Nearly 250 guests can be accommodated in this gracious
5,200 square foot Pavilion. Another 100 guests can be easily
seated on the 3,000 square foot terrace overlooking Gore
Creek. Smaller groups will find themselves comfortably and
intimately at home. Parking is convenient and plentiful on site.
You can be flexible -have your ceremony here in the lodge, out on
the grounds or in one of the chapels in the valley.
~,
,: ~
~ professional staff is here to help you arrange every detail from
' ~~~~ .- flowers to menu to color scheme. Choose from our preferred
caterers or simply use our wonderful kitchen according to your
~~ individual needs and budget. Our tables and chairs, podium,
microphone and CD player are all right here for you to use.
Hiring a band? We make setting up easy!
i ~~~ Make a statement with your reception at Donovan Pavilion. Our
It's never too soon to start planning!
Call Donovan Pavilion today.
Donovan Pavilion
V A I L
A
~.~ ~
l~ ~ ,y
Donovan Pavilion, Vail's $3.1 million events facility nestled between Gore
Creek and the South Frontage Road near West Vail, is the perfect year round
resource for weddings, receptions, board retreats, banquets, fundraisers and
conferences. The towering windows and arched beam ceilings of this modern
alpine lodge showcase expansive mountain valley views and the adjacent 50
acres of open space. Parking is free and plentiful on site.
You'll find the space at Donovan Pavilion warm and
welcoming, flexible and functional. Offering a total of
5,200 square feet, Donovan Pavilion can accommodate a
sit down dinner for 250, a conference for 200, a
cocktail reception for 350 and a theater presentation for
300. The outdoor heated stone terrace overlooking Gore
Creek comfortably seats 120.
Planning an event has never been easier! Donovan Pavilion's full time
professional management team is available to recommend full-service event
production and catering. For casual get-togethers.
use our complete kitchen facilities for preparing,
baking, warming and serving your special recipes.
Feel free to use our state of the art audio visual
equipment, including portable screen, microphone,
podium, easels and CD player.
Make a statement with your next event
at Vail's beautiful Donovan Pavilion.
~~
Donovan Pavilion
V A 1 L
~, rrreef~~~,
1600 South Frontage Road Vail. Colorado 81657 970-477-3699 970-477-3697 fax www.vailgov.com pavilionQva
:. ~
~.-
~ ~' ~~
J
~~
Rental of Donovan Pavilion includes the following ameniti
AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT
Everything you need for a Powerpoint presenta ~
tion, awards banquet, birthday roast or wedding s ~ "''' /
toast is right here. Wall mounted electric .~~~~ ~ ~` d~
screen Podium Portable microphone ~ `~~-~ -
• Three easel boards • Five-disc CD/DVD
player VHS player (monitor required) Video `,,,_ .
{ i~_
presentation preview monitor Multiple wall - , ~ - r-~
outlets for easy laptop/Powerpoint connections ~~ ,~--•. .o.
• In-house sound system for background music
and announcements
CATERING KITCHEN
With prep tables, refrigerators, ovens, microwaves and coffee pots, you'll
have plenty of refreshment options. Do it yourself, or have our professional
management team hire your caterer and produce your event for you.
• Three-door commercial refrigerator Commercial ice maker
--
.5'~- fll
.Ai
r t
~~ ,
.,~
:~
_=~ '.
`~,'a. f,
`~y~
Ilf lid
iil I' Ili
._ -y'
iw~,~ ,~
~.;~ ~ -
- _ _.
`~
•Under-counter freezer Warming oven Six-burner commercial gas
~ range Two-door commercial gas oven Three-compartment sink
~-v' with sprayer Commercial microwave oven Portable beverage
service bar Two thermos coffee makers Two 18" x 24" prep tables
'~, One 90" x 24" prep table
~ FURNITURE
Choose the size and shape of the tables you need based on your
group size and the nature of your function. We're happy to help you
plan the best use of your space. 40 round tables (6 ft. diameter)
• 12 rectangular tables (8 ft.) 250 brushed chrome fabric covered chairs
• 96 natural wood patio chairs
OUTDOOR AMENITIES
Imagine a gentle snowfall while you're gathering around the outside fire pit on
the heated terrace. Gas fire pit with seating Heated concrete patio able
to accommodate tent coverage Secluded alpine setting along Gore Creek
~~.~~v ~~,. ~C
~.~.~ . ~ \
,~,~ A
'
~`C\
~
nit,~„o ~~, i., ~
_
~~~, ~sn~rTa
-
,aE n~ i
~ Ar~ ~„~N,a~E A~~~~, ~o
iii vll 1. n~;e Ex.li i~o WE`.:I VAIL tXII i]J
!~
.~
Donovan Pavilion
V A I I.
lorado 81657 970-477-3699 970-477-3697 fax www.vailgov.com pavilionQvailgov.co
STORAGE
AREA ~ \\/^,
r ~
®® gg
^ - STORAGE
ROOM
KITCHEN ,
MEN'S 58 ft.
RESTROOM
~--14tk ft-i OFFICE
®® SUPPLIES '
® CLOSET
COVERED rte. LOBBY
. ENTRY N '
BANQUET ROOM
®®
®®
coar
- cLOSET
~ WOMEN'S
~ RESTROOM ao HALL
U
~y BREAK-OUT ROOM
JANITOR O
STORAGE ~
®® ~ 29 ft.
:CTRIC ! ®®
LECOM
ROOM ,
~
~ COVERED
~ PATIo
I z '
~ Q N
N
I !b ~
I-I-12 ft--
~ COVERED
\ PATIO
1 ~®
18 ft.
OUTDOOR PATIO
40 ft.
Donovan Pavilion
V A I L
2004/2005 DATES AND RATES 970-477-3699
8 HOUR BOOKING
6 HOUR BOOKING -MONDAY-THURSDAY ONLY
MORNING RENTAL (2 - 4 HOURS) -MONDAY -THURSDAY ONLY
8 Hour bookings are allotted a total of eight (8) hours for the event. Additional hours may be purchased in two hour blocks
for the amount of $225 per two hour block.
6 Hour bookings are allotted up to six (6) hours for the event. The purchase of additional hours is available.
Morning Only rentals are allotted a maximum of four (4) hours for the event. The purchase of additional hours
is not available on a Morning Only rental.
PEAK SEASON
Winter
November 19, 2004 -April 17, 2005
November 20, 2005 -December 31, 2005
May 16, 2005 -October 23, 2005
Summer
EIGHT HOUR BOOKING (FRI-SUN)
SIX HOUR BOOKING (MON-TH)
MORNING RENTAL (MON-TH)
OFF-PEAK SEASON
Standard Vail Resident Eagle Countv Resident
$2,525 $1,950 $2,295
$1,900 $1,425 $1,710
$450 $350 $410
Fall September 8, 2004 -November 18, 2004
October 24, 2005 -November 20, 2005
Spring April 18, 2005 -May 15, 2005
Standard Vail Resident Eagle County Resident
EIGHT HOUR BOOKING (FRI-SUN) $2,065 $1,605 $1,881
SIX HOUR BOOKING (MON-TH) $880 $698 $814
MORNING RENTAL (MON-TH) $370 $290 $340
All rates are non-negotiable.
Prices are subject to 4.5% Town of Vail Sales Tax
DEPOSIT POLICY
Reservation Deposit 50% of Usage Fee Applied towards rental and non-refundable '
Security Deposit $500 - 8 Hour Block
$300 - 4 - 6 Hour Block
$175 -Morning Block
Final Payment Due in Full 30 Days Prior to Event
Revised 5/3/04
1600 South Frontage Road •~• Vail, Colorado 81657 •~• 970 477 3699 •~• www.vailpavilion.com •~• pavilion@vailgov.com
Donovan Pavilion
V A I L
CLIENT/CATERER CHECKLIST
Caterer/client is responsible for ALL set up and tear down of the Donovan Pavilion.
Load-in of all rental items and event supplies may take place at the rental start time
only. No early load-ins or deliveries please. Please confirm that your caterer has
this information.
Need to Supply:
• Utensils -all serving, cooking and opening
• Hot Pads
• Rags, sponges, liquid soap, cleanser
• Large Trash Bags - 30 gallon bags for 2 containers and 13 gallon bags for 3
containers
• Coffee must be "drip grind"
• Extension Cord, Ladder, Dolly
• If liquor is to be served, a TIPS trained bartender must do the serving. This is a
Colorado State Law.
At Conclusion of Event:
• Empty all trash cans and place trash in locked container outside kitchen door.
• Rinse out trash cans.
• Cardboard broken down and placed adjacent to dumpster in trash shed.
• All leftover food removed and properly disposed of from refrigerators and freezer.
Inside doors, shelves, thoroughly wiped down. Fingerprints removed from doors.
• Ovens, burners and heat/hold unit all turned off with insides thoroughly cleaned.
• Kitchen exhaust system turned off.
• Coffee makers thoroughly rinsed and left open to dry.
• All counters and sinks wiped clean.
• Kitchen floor swept and mopped.
• All tables and chairs thoroughly wiped and cleaned.
• All tables and chairs properly stored.
• Floor in Grand Timber room, Alcove and lobby swept of trash and litter.
• No overnight deliveries are allowed inside the Pavilion. Please store rental;
items in trash shed, adjacent to dumpster. Donovan Pavilion Management, Inca
is not responsible for items left overnight or outside of premises.
Thank you for leaving the kitchen, furniture, Alcove and Grand Timber Room in the condition
that you found it.
Please notify Pavilion staff of any problems or damage that you may have incurred during
your event. i
1600 South Frontage Road •~• Vail, Colorado 81657 •~• 970 477 3699 •~• www.vailpavilion.com •~• pavilion@vailgov.com
VAIL POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Dwight Henninger
Chief of Police
Table of Contents
Message from the Chief ................................................................................................................................... 3
Vision, Mission, Values ................................................................................................................................... 4
Organizational Chart and Goals .................................................................................................................... 5-6
Training ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Community Policing ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Problem Identification and Problem Solving .............................................................................................. 9-10
2003 Highlights ......................................................................................................................................... 11-12
Administrative Services Summary ................................................................................................................ 13
Patrol and Code Enforcement Services Summary ......................................................................................... 14
Investigative Services Summary .................................................................................................................... I S
Records Services Summary ........................................................................................................................... 15
Communication Center Services .................................................................................................................... 16
Law Enforcement Actions and Crime Statistics ....................................................................................... 17-21
2003 Professional Standards Review ............................................................................................................. 22
Vail Public Safety Communications Center-2004 Strategic Plan .......................................................... 23-25
Message from the Chief
On behalf of the dedicated men and women of the Vail Police Department, I am pleased to
present to you our 2003 Annual Report on service performance, public safety enhancement
activities, strategic objectives, accomplishments and a performance standard review.
2003 was a busy year! We addressed 52,923 calls for service, which included dispatched
and self-initiated calls. Numerous high profile events were held, and fortunately they all
passed without serious incidence, despite the potential for anti-social behavior and disorder
that such prominent events can attract.
On the information and technology front, we launched several major projects. We rebuilt the radio infrastructure and
computing network, and completed the first phase of shifting from one computer aided dispatch and records
management system to another. We instituted a new 911 system that can pin point the location of a cellular call.
And, we began the preparations for implementing a mobile computing system. Early indications suggest that these
projects will help us in achieving our wider goals, specifically enhancing community safety and reducing crime.
On the organizational front, we have put a lot of effort into recruiting and retaining good employees in order to reach
our target strength. We also focused on developing leadership and diversity skills among police staff . Personnel are
trained in anti-bias policing, reducing the incidence and effects of crime, detecting and apprehending offenders and
minimizing the effects of victimization.
The vast number of media requests for dispatch tapes pertaining to the People v Kohe Bryant case required awell-
coordinated, extended effort from our staff. Although the alleged incident took place in Eagle County Sheriffs Office
jurisdiction, the Vail Communications Center dispatches for Eagle County, and a Vail Detective provided additional
manpower to the Sheriffs Office as part of a countywide Crime Response Team.
Handling of a 20-foot sinkhole on 1-70 required exemplary Incident Command System operations. Multi-agencies
pulled together and worked vigilantly under the same plan to minimize the inconvenience and ensure the safety of the
residents.
Two Vail Communications Center Dispatchers were honored for their roles in helping to save a suicidal caller's life
Sharon Farmer was awarded a Life Saving Award by the Eagle County Sheriffs Office; Amy Gray was presented
with the Vail Police Department Certificate of Commendation for helping Farmer.
We made significant public safety gains through directed enforcement policies, aggressive investigations leading
towards successful case resolutions and high visibility road safety initiatives. Furthermore, the Vail Police
Department and representatives from local agencies and civic organizations partnered to develop a series of joint
operations. These organizatons have aimed to make the most efficient use of resources, and convey a consistent
message that underage drinking leads to adverse consequences such as alcohol related traffic accidents, and this sort
of risk taking behavior will not be tolerated.
I am proud that the members of our department continue to meet the challenges of serving a community that seeks
flexibility in meeting law enforcement obligations while maintaining the quality of life. It is a dedicated staff that
performs acts of compassion for citizens and guests, and provides efficient service by developing policies consistent
with statutory authority and available resources. I thank each one of you for your contributions and am grateful to
town officials and the community for their support.
I am aware, and I hope you will agree after reading this report, that while we have achieved a great deal in 2003, the
Vail Police Department is also well positioned to grow and achieve even greater distinction in the years to come.
Dwight E. Henninger
Chief of Police
f~.
~~ To be the best resort police department in the country.
To provide a sense of safety and security through high quality
police service.
Integrity I will never betray my office, character or the
public trust.
Teamwork I will actively collaborate with others to
accomplish the task.
Ownership I will take responsibility for what needs to be done
and hold myself and others accountable.
Excellence I will strive to do the best job possible.
The department Vision, Mission and Values were rewritten in 2003. The new Vision describes what the
future will look like when the department achieves its strategic goals and fulfills its Mission.
The Mission statement is a clear, concise statement of purpose for the entire department that serves as a
guiding framework for all our employees. It focuses on results the department will achieve for the
community.
Values are the basis for our beliefs and actions. They are the foundation upon which our policies, goals
and operations are built, and they are the measuring sticks with which to compare our behaviors with
expectations. One of the goals of the committee rewriting these important statements was for each
member of the department to be able to remember and to personally adopt these goals, which we feel was
accomplished.
vau vanes Department
Orgnnlzntlonal Chart
Chief of Police
Dwight Henninger
Main.enance LI Operations Commnnder
Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant pe[ective
Day Shift Nigh[ Shin Day Shin Night Shin Sergeant
Tcnm Team Tcam Team
(Sun, Mon, (Sun, Mon, ("I'hurs, Fri, (7'htus, I~ri,
Tues) Tues) Sat) Sat)
3 Officer 4 Officers 4 Officer 5 Oi'ficcrs 3 Detectives
2 CFOs s 3 CBOs s
Grant
Pundcd
Drug Task
For
Member
Admini
Comm strative
nnder
Systems
Engineer
Com cations
Center Manager
Citizens' Academy
Volunteer Yrogrnm
Professional 2ecords M nnnger 3 Dispatch
Standards
Superviso
I~Iiring/Training
Grants
Planning 8c
Rcs arch
Auditing
Animal Control
Court Liaison
1 F_xecutiv
`
Admin Duties Assistant 17
Accreditation Dispatchers
Demand Reduction 4 Records ' I'cchs
Reserve Program
Recruiting
Building
Maintenance
Budget
Goa!Is 2003 and Beyond
Become the best resort police department in the country.
Purchase and implement a countywide Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)/Records Management S system
(RMS) with MOBILE and JAIL functionality through a total collaborative effort of local law enforcement
agencies.
A regional information-sharing system will improve the collection, organization, retrieval and analysis of
real-time data by law enforcement personnel tasked with making critical decisions, identifying crime trends
and assessing the public's exposure to threats.
This new system will process calls more efficiently and lead to real-time information sharing capabilities.
A call received in Dispatch will automatically be pushed out to a mapping module, then to a Mobile module,
allowing officers, investigators and CEOs to access critical information in a matter of seconds.
Develop a Strategic Plan based on short, medium and long term goals.
Development of strategic plans, which integrate law enforcement planning, community issues, performance
measurements and management of resources, began with department-wide goal setting meetings. Our plans,
once finalized, will express what the department must do to proactively respond to major issues in the
Community and align every employee to organizational success. Employees will ask themselves what we are
doing to help contribute to our strategic direction and what we are doing that is effective. Tools to measure
our success will support operational improvement and enhanced resource allocation decisions.
Standardize law enforcement functions and procedures countywide.
Local law enforcement agencies are standardizing operational practices, performance measurements, data
collection, ad-hoc reporting and training. Analysis of crime trends, associations and operational activities
can be viewed on an individual agency basis or can be consolidated to obtain countywide results.
Continue to strengthen community partnerships to reduce the fear of crime and disorder.
Our proactive policing methods are reliant upon the department's partnership with citizens in the resolution
of quality of life issues, including the reduction of crime and public disorder.
Goals 2003 and Beyond (continued)
Manage the 800 MHz system more effectively and develop a proactive maintenance approach.
Spearhead the organization of county wide committees to address the radio system in the areas of strategic
planning, technical issues and policy development. The first steps were taken in developing a strategic plan
and grants were applied for to fund system upgrades.
A revised radio matrix was drafted and new command and tactical channels introduced. Objectives to scale
back, reduce the amount of frequencies and build commonalities was achieved.
Purchase and install new 911 equipment
The 911 Authority Board approved and funded the purchase of equipment that allows the Communication
Center to pin point calls made on cellular phones and upgrade antiquated phone equipment at a cost of
$285,000.
~^ Develop greater operational efficiencies
I' After a thorough reevaluation period, we re-engineered some of our processes and made numerous cost cutting
measures including over $70,000 in line item budget cuts and three full-time personnel cuts. Productivity and
efficiency have become two of the benchmarks by which we rate the value of our achievements.
(' Reinstitute a Part Time and Reserve Officer Program
Similar programs at other departments were explored and helped start our own. Recruitment for part-time and
' reserve officers is in full swing. Once hired and trained, reserve officers will be scheduled during special events
to reduce costs and will act as a second officer in patrol duties.
Increase safety and reduce noise levels on I-70
Historically, the police department has concentrated traffic enforcement efforts on in-town violations and not
violations on the highway. Due to a shift in philosophy, the department will now have a presence on I-70
in order to take action on vehicles traveling at high rates of speed, on truck noise violations and to reduce
traffic accidents, starting in April 2004.
~~~
TRAINING
There is no one thing that sworn and civilian police personnel must do well. These are jobs that require many skills
because they handle and respond to many different types of calls.
Our department not only provides in-service training, but allows each employee to apply for additional training
throughout the year on a wide range of topics.
Hours in Training
Administration 539
Investigation 994
~trol 2,969
Code Enforcement 269
Records 429
Communications Center 562
TOTAL 5,764
Training for sworn personnel includes patrol procedures, criminal and civil law, search and seizure,
self-defense, arrest procedures, crime scene investigation, traffic accident investigation, CPR,
domestic violence, drug investigation, leadership, winter driving, community policing and
technology.
Training for code enforcement officers includes community policing, leadership, accident response,
winter driving, CPR, technology and evidence processing.
Training for records technicians and an executive assistant includes community policing, leadership,
uniform crime reporting, Colorado Open Records Law, property and evidence, statistical reporting and
technology.
Training for communication officers includes community policing, leadership, law enforcement dispatching,
emergency medical dispatching, 911, conflict management, power phones, suicide intervention and
technology.
COMMUNITY POLICING PROGRAMS
Vail Police Department's philosophy of community policing is an
extension of our liaisons with community members, civic organiza-
tions, merchants and town officials. Community policing activities
reflect the interdependence of police personnel and the community.
The ability of law enforcement personnel to effect proactive policies
toward public safety and quality of life issues is in large part
contingent on its unique partnership with the community.
CITIZENS ACADEMY- In 2003, 13 members of the community graduated from the Vail Citizens Academy.
"Through seminars, demonstrations and hands-on participation, citizens gain an awareness of what officers can do, and
cannot do when enforcing local, state and federal laws.
r' 911 SAFETY FAIR -This year, Vail residents and guests met with local emergency services and law
enforcement at a summer safety fair. Participating agencies include: the Vail Police Department, the Eagle County
I Sheriffs Office, the Colorado State Patrol, the Colorado Air National Guard, the Eagle County Ambulance District,
' Fire Districts throughout the county, Flight for Life and Mountain Rescue.
ADOPT-A-HOMEROOM -Code enforcement officers and patrol ofticers visit schools and become a strong pres-
(' once in a learning environment helping kids gain a better respect for themselves and their surroundings. They are
taught good decision making skills, how to handle peer pressure and other important life skills.
MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY FOOD DRIVE- Over the past three years, the department's food drive has
collected tons of food to help the elderly, unemployed, chronically sick and some who are just experiencing tough
times in Eagle County. 'This year 20,000 pounds of food were collected.
' SKUSNOWBOARD/BIKE REGISTRATIONS - Serial numbers and other identifiers of over 895 skis, snowboards
and bikes were entered into a local database in 2003. Stolen recovered gear is then traceable through the database.
BIKE PATROL -Increases visibility of patrol and code enforcement and significantly increases interaction between
officers and citizens.
SHOP WITH ACOP -Needy children shopped with officers at Christmas time for toys and clothes for themselves
and their families with Vail Municipal Court funds.
LIDS FOR KIDS -Bicycle and skateboard helmets are donated to ensure safety of our youth.
CEILING ART PROJECT -Elementary students paint acoustic ceiling tiles for display in our main lobby. Their
diverse themes about police officers and police work are revealing.
SKATEBOARD PARK -Every summer the top level of our parking structure is converted into a skateboard park as
an outlet for a safe alternative. At the end of the summer, the department hosted a barbeque to thank the skaters for
their compliance with laws and rules and to promote interaction with officers.
STAY OUT OF JAIL CARDS- The department encourages personal responsibility by making more informed
decisions after drinking alcohol. The cards have two test strips to measure blood alcohol content.
BOOTH-IN-A-BOX -Mobile platforms used as recreational property registration booths, deter many opportunistic
crimes and educate the public about theft prevention.
TIP ACOP -Uniformed personnel serve as waiters and waitresses at a local restaurant to generate over $1,000 for
the Colorado Special Olympics.
VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT AND COMMUNITY PROBLEM
IDENTIFICATION AND PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES
dVILDLIFE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
`~, new Town ordinance was passed in August 2002 after bear sightings tripled from the
-car prior. The law is aimed at forcing residents to be more responsible with their trash.
effect year-around, the law states residents can only put their trash out on garbage
pi~b.u}~ ua~~ I~r;;~n <~:00 am to 7:00 pm. The law also makes it a violation to leave trash outside, where bears
can get to it. The bear calls were half of the number in 2002.
COMMUNITY SURVEYS
A new survey form was developed in cooperation with Vail Resorts to be implemented in 2004. The results
are used to determine the level of understanding of crime prevention and the level of fear in the community
towards crime and social disorder. This information helps the department identify and prioritize crime
problems and develop solutions.
SOCIAL NORMING CAMPAIGN
The department has partnered with the CARES Group Inc., Eagle River Youth Coalition, local schools and
media to develop a collaborative community effort to impact substance abuse patterns among Eagle
County youth. Campaign strategies include: extensive research conducted to understand issues faced
by youth and their perceptions; a proactive, collective local law enforcement response including party patrols
and compliance checks on liquor establishments; and, delivery of a consistent message about the
consequences of risk taking behavior.
CONTRIBUTOR TO PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL NEWSLETTERS
One of our Commanders writes informational articles for the three public high schools located in Eagle
County. Topics include rethinking alcohol and drugs, understanding depression, and creating different
opportunities with and for our youth.
CURFEW AND SPECIAL EVENTS DISTRICT
The Town of Vail first implemented curfew and special event district measures in 2001 during peak
holidays to reduce crowding, underage drinking, unruly behavior and personal injuries. The curfew restricts
individuals 17 years old or younger to be out unless accompanied by a parent or guardian over 21. The
special event district was established in the heart of Vail Village for individuals who are 21 and older, or who
are accompanied by an adult or guardian. These measures have helped to keep arrests to a minimum,
prevented serious injuries and property damage, and created a safe, fun environment for residents and
visitors, where families can feel comfortable.
CRIME PREVENTION WORKSHOPS
Community members learn valuable business and residential crime prevention topics conducted by Vail
detectives
INTRADO-911 PROGRAM
The primary purpose of the reverse 911 system is to simultaneously call up to 1,000 phone numbers per
minute notifying them of an emergent message from the local authorities. This information could include
evacuation or public safety announcements.
TIPS
83 liquor establishments, trained on responsible liquor service, proactively address issues related to over
service of alcohol.
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS
Staff from AT&1~ Language Line offer immediate land-line translation service between officers, investigators
and the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week in a multitude of languages. Additionally, three officers,
one dispatcher and one volunteer provide Spanish translation service for our Spanish-speaking community.
VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT AND COMMUNITY PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND PROBLEM
SOLVING STRATEGIES & PROGRAM (continued)
COMPLIANCE CHECK OPERATIONS
In December 2003, the first of a series of countywide checks targeted 48 liquor stores throughout the county.
Law enforcement officials recruited, trained and sent juveniles into liquor stores to buy beer without
presenting identification. The checks are part of the Underage Drinking Grant received from the Colorado
Department of Transportation being led by the Vail Police Department, the Eagle River Youth Coalition and
CARES Group, Inc. to address the issue of youth illegally obtaining alcohol from liquor stores.
The "Rethinking Alcohol and Drugs (RAD) Report", prepared by Holly Woods, PhD., indicated that
approximately 6% of the youth in the study illegally accessed alcohol through liquor stores. The checks
reinforce the message that it is illegal to sell to minors, and liquor store merchants will catch heat for non-
compliance. Prior to this enforcement action, each establishment received a letter from the Chief informing
them of the upcoming compliance check. Even after these measures were undertaken, 29% of the package
liquor stores in the county failed the compliance check receiving a summons into court. In Vail, we did even
poorer with a 50% success rate.
PARTY PATROL
I Another program that has been developed out of the same grant is the county wide effort by law enforcement
to conduct party patrols. Information obtained from the Eagle CARES survey and Woods' RAD Report,
indicate that our youth are using drugs and alcohol at a rate higher than average for Colorado or the nation.
(' As a strategy to help deter the illegal usage of drugs and alcohol by our youth, the Eagle River Youth
Coalition has developed a Social Norming Campaign to educate local youth that their perception of what
their peers are doing in regards to drug and alcohol usage is not realistic.
I' Local law enforcement have combined forces to develop the Party Patrol. When there is a high likelihood of
youth drinking and driving or when parties are held such as homecoming, prom, and graduation, our youth
have displayed a greater probability of risk taking behavior. Law enforcement has taken a leadership role in
' efforts to create positive social norming messages and enforce the liquor laws that hold juveniles and adults
responsible for illegal activity.
' VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
In 2003, 27 volunteers performed 2,490 hours ofnon-enforcement functions, thus freeing up department staff
to engage in critical problem solving and community policing activities. Volunteer hours worked in 2003
add up to $39,840 in savings to the Town of Vail. Projects accomplished and tasks performed include
' translation services, administrative support, special events assignments, development of a youth volunteer
program, ski/board bike registrations and police auction support.
~~
,.,
,,
~~
CLICK IT OR TICKET CAMPAIGN
The Vail Police Department encourages motorists to buckle up during the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Click It or Ticket Campaign, a national public awareness program designed to educate
drivers about seat belt safety. The 2003 campaign raised the seat belt usage rate from 71 % in 2002 to 84%
in 2003.
NEIGHBORHOOD CLEAN-UPS
Code Enforcement Officers and Community Development Department employees walked neighborhoods to
address code violations and eyesores such as abandoned cars, piles of junk stacked outside of houses, tossed
mattresses and old tires, discarded car batteries, gas and oil cans and general rubbish. Health and sanitation
issues are dealt with promptly and seriously.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
Outreach efforts with tenant and property manager associations yield significant information for our problem
solving strategies.
RIDE ALONGS
Contact between officers and community members increases intimate knowledge of the community and the
role of the community and the role of the police in crime prevention and intervention.
EAGLE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
The Town of Vail contracts with Eagle County Animal Control to respond to different animal problems
including nuisances, cruelties, running at large, barking dogs and animal attacking.
The Eagle County Animal Control Yearly Report 2003 is shown below:
Count
Total Calls for Service 266
Nuisance
Dogs at Large
Bites/Attacks
Other 16
156
20
74
Citations Issued 46
Warnings Issued 19
Impounds 55
Surrenders 5
~Totai~Patrol'Times (hours)
;~ . 963.25
NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTED PATROL
Officers spend concentrated patrol time in areas such as a traffic safety program in the Buffeter Creek
neighborhood.
SAFETY REVIEWS
A safety review of the Vail Transportation Center was conducted and a report written by a patrol sergeant and
a dispatch supervisor in collaboration with a Town of Vail Parking Structure supervisor. The report outlines
how upgrades and enhancements to the existing parking structure along with active security measures can
help to ensure the safety and sense of security of our visitors and residents. The next step is to determine
what measures can be implemented immediately, such as new environmental design features.
~~ , k,: ~ ~.~ 2003 F-li~hlights~~~ ~, ~ ~k~~> ~ = K~ ~ µ 1
:~ ~ ~~ a -~
_.
Reduction in Crimes
The combination of modern technology, law enforcement efforts and community policing basics is partially
responsible for the steady decrease of serious crime in Vail over the past few years.
Continued Technological Achievements
Through federal grants and shared local resources, the police department has purchased a countywide
Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System that will give law enforcement personnel
the resources they need to ensure the maximum safety of our residents, business owners and visitors, and
the successful prosecution of offenders.
The Vail Communication Center's 911 call system was upgraded to handle calls from wireless phones. The
upgrade improves the center's ability to pinpoint the origin of 911 calls by tracking longitude and latitude
locations on a sophisticated mapping module.
Colorado Police Corps
(' Vail Police Department has been a participant of the Colorado Police Corps since June 2001, and therefore,
are eligible to hire graduates of police corps academies. Three police corps graduates joined the department
in 2001 and 2002, another three joined in 2003, one veteran officer completed aone-year instructor, fully-
(, sponsored fellowship, and another has just begun a fellowship.
I-70 Traffic and Noise Enforcement
The police department received approval and funding to conduct traffic enforcement on I-70 in an effort to
' increase traffic safety and reduce traffic noise on I-70 within the Town of Vail limits in 2004. The program
will include a comprehensive educational campaign.
' Rethinking Alcohol and Drug (RAD) Report
The RAD Report, written by Holly Woods, PhD of CARES Group Inc, provides a summary of youth action
research about substance use, along with important insights about patterns of influence and the culture that
' shapes them. The ground-breaking nature of the data will help us to develop strategies and policies that reflect
our local culture, and may also affect the decisions our youth, and the adults who influence them, make on a
daily basis. The RAD Report project is currently being carried out in partnership with the Vail Police
Department and the Eagle River Youth Coalition.
' Employee-Driven Process Improvement Teams
Communication Action Teams (CATS) began writing and developing 109 new policies and procedures for
' the Communication Center.
Jail Video System
A plan was put in place to replace the existing jail monitoring system. This will occur in early spring 2004.
' The new system will significantly reduce the department's liability exposure in the area of prisoner
housing. The Town Council funded this capital project.
' Telephone DORs
A new system was put in place in which officers began calling in to testify at Department of Revenue
administrative hearings regarding DUI arrests so they do not have to physically appear in Glenwood Springs
but can rather testify over the telephone. This results in significant savings in overtime, time off shifts and
equipment costs.
Grant Awards
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) awarded a $40,000 grant to fund the second phase of a
countywide underage drinking prevention program. CDOT officials praised the program in Eagle County
as the best in the state and declared it a model policy and successful program from which others can learn.
Commander Joe Russell graduated from the FBI National Academy
(FBINA)
Commander Russell was invited to attend the 214th session of the FBINA in
Quantico, Virginia during the summer of 2003. The internationally known
academy offers rigorous graduate level coursework to 240 federal, state and
international law enforcement officials. coursework included leadership
development, behavioral science, law, communications, forensic science and
health/fitness.
New Vail Communications Center Manager
Paul Smith was selected in January 2003 as the Center's new manager. Paul comes to Vail with a back
ground in the private ambulance community where he was responsible for regional communication centers
and the information technology divisions. Paul started his public safety career as a paramedic in Denver.
New Sergeant
Mark Allen was promoted to the position of patrol sergeant in 2003. Mark is a 16-year veteran of the Vail
Police Department and, originally, a bobbie with the London Metropolitan Police in England.
Vail Police Volunteer Program (VP2)
VP2 became a member of Volunteers in Police Service, a citizen corps program managed by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police in partnership with and on behalf of the White House Office of the USA
Freedom Corps and the U.S. Department of Justice. The Corps was created to foster a culture of service,
citizenship and responsibility.
New Cars
The police department received approval to replace the existing fleet of Saabs with a new fleet of Ford
Explorer SUVs. The new fleet will be on the street in April 2004.
Officer Recognition
In response to an increase in negative interaction between wildlife and people, Vail Police Officer Matt
Lindvall assisted in drafting a ne~v ordinance to minimize human conflicts with bears and other forms of
wildlife. Officer Lindvall received recognition and appreciation from the Division of Wildlife at a Vail
Town Council meeting. `"" ~ ___. -_
.r _. ___._...-_ ...__ f. i~.y
Vail Communications Center Dispatchers Given Life Saving Awards
Two Dispatchers were honored for their roles in helping to save a suicidal
caller's life. Sharon Farmer was awarded a Life Saving Award by the Eagle
County Sheriff's Office; Amy Gray was presented with the Vail Police
Department Certificate of Commendation for helping Farmer.
Stay Out of Jail Cards
The department took home an award for civic awareness from the Colorado
Municipal League in June 2003 for its approach in tackling drinking and driving. Personal alcohol test strips
are distributed to Vail bars, allowing drinkers to test their blood alcohol levels and then make responsible
choices about driving.
Colorado Certified Records Network (CCRN)
The Records Team, in collaboration with five other Colorado law enforcement agencies, received an
endorsement from the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police for its
public safety records and information training program. Training includes Colorado Open Records Law,
Uniform Crime Reporting, leadership skills and more.
Dwight Henninger
Chief, Commanders
and Communication
'~~. a ,F
Communications Center Manager
Paul Smith
Manager
^ Chief Dwight Henninger leads the Vail Police Department consisting of 61 members: the Chief, two
Commanders, five Sergeants, three Detectives, 17 Police Officers, two State-funded officers, five Code
Enforcement Officers, one Records Manager, four Records Technicians, one Executive Assistant, one
Communications Manager, three Communications Supervisors and 17 Dispatchers.
The role of the Chief encompasses internal leadership and external representation. The Chief articulates a
vision of where the department is going in a way that galvanizes the department in that direction. The Chief is
responsible for setting goals and objectives and to see they are accomplished. He also coordinates community
relations, problem solving approaches, fiscal management, strategic planning, technological developments and
organizational initiatives.
The Administrative Services Division of the Vail Police Department includes the Chief of Police, one
Administrative Commander, and one Colorado Police Corps Training Supervisor. The Administrative
Commander is responsible for Professional Standards, Grants, Planning & Research, Auditing, Training
and Hiring, Records Unit, Animal Control, Court Liaison, Citizen's Academy, Volunteer Program and
Administrative Duties.
~ ,
+s-7w r'~i' y=
~~ s:... J ~ . ~.
~d+, ~ •
~•„N a--•
~,~s ~ \~ -
r;
. r .,,~
;~~=-,may
"s ._r.
a,
F
~~. ~. ~+
^ The Operations Commander is responsible for Patrol, Investigations, Code Enforcement and Special Events
Planning. The division consists of four patrol sergeants, one detective sergeant, three detectives, one task force
detective, 17 police officers and five code enforcement officers. Patrol officers perform variety of duties
including calls for service, routine reports, arrests, criminal investigations, traffic accidents, traffic enforcement,
proactive and preventative patrol and general community activities. As with all other divisions in the department,
they are trained and empowered to make decisions and participate in activities that support the principles of
community policing.
Five code enforcement officers who comprise this civilian branch serve on two day-shift teams and are supervised
by a patrol sergeant. They are responsible for the education and enforcement of non-criminal municipal codes.
They assist with Vail Pass closures in instances of inclement weather or bad traffic accidents. They perform
many services that can be accomplished by non-sworn personnel. They participate and initiate a broad range of
.community relations programs and participate in special events. They are responsible for coordinating and
enforcing loading and delivery in both the Village and in [ .iE»-~s~hea~3. :~~~~~. they st~,f~f Checkpoint Charlie.
Patrol and Code Enforcement
Division
I
~~
_~:. '•,
1
1
\~
Investigations Division
^ The Investigations Division consists of one detective
sergeant and four detectives. The detective sergeant and
three detectives are responsible for in-depth investiga-
tions of crimes against persons and property. The fourth
detective was assigned in July 2002, to the Eagle County
Crimes Task Force, an organization responsible for
multijurisdictional investigations throughout Eagle
County. The task force is a joint effort with the Vail
Police Department and the Eagle County Sheriff's
Office and is funded by a Byrne grant from the State of
Colorado and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Cases handled by detectives are typically the result of
calls initially investigated by patrol officers. Depending
upon the complexity or nature of the call, a detective
may be called to a crime scene to assist patrol officers.
In some instances, the detectives will work with the
patrol officer rather than assume the case directly. The
Investigations and Patrol Divisions work closely
together, sharing information as it is learned and solving
cases with great diligence. Detectives also serve as
patrol officers when necessary for staffing needs.
Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) roles were created in
2003 so CSIs could collect the evidence on major crime
scenes and free up the detectives to conduct interviews
and oversee the investigation more efficiently. Two
patrol officers will be assigned as CSIs in 2004.
^ The Administrative Commander oversees the
Records Division which is comprised of one
Records Manager, one Executive Assistant and four
Records Technicians. Three Technicians work 30
hours per week, while one works 40 hours per week.
The Executive Assistant performs administrative,
budgetary and secretarial functions to maintain
department operations.
The Records Technicians perform criminal justice
records management functions which include
classifying crime reports for NIBRS (National
Incident-Based Reporting System), coding statistical
information into Colorado Crime Information
Center (CCIC), and preparing statistical reports for
the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation under very strict
federal and state crime reporting mandates. They
research and retrieve information for individuals and
criminal justice agencies while applying and
administering specific statutory dissemination
requirements.
They staff the front desk area of the Police
Department seven days a week and coordinate
Lost and Found functions in collaboration with Vail
Resorts and the Eagle County Sheriff's
Records Division
Becky Comroe, Julie Anderson, Jennifer Kirkland, Jenifer Mitchell, Liza Lowe
^ The Town of Vail's commitment to public safety starts with its
state-of-the-art consolidated 911 Center, a countywide 800 megahertz
radio system and new 911 phone equipment. The Vail Communica-
tions Center is located at the Vail Police Department and supports
twenty-four hour a day operations for thirteen public safety agencies
including: law enforcement, emergency medical services and fire
departments across the county.
"Twenty one full-time communications professionals staff the Vail
Communications Center which handles on average 600 phone calls
and dispatches over 400 responses a day. These professionals hold
national and state certifications in Emergency Medical Dispatch and
9-1-1 call management.
_._ _ ~ ~
~. - ~
-~ r
' -
.~
`~d;z
~''' ,;~„
s,
".
Operational cost for the Center is
distributed to all thirteen agencies with the
Town of Vail's contribution equaling ap-
proximately 38% of the operating budget.
The Vail Communications Center as
featured in 9-1-1 Magazine.
~~,M Talk -_
generally SNiMI~C..
_,_.,.,......_ car hslmenr
917 CYIP -
Tone Talk is distributed to
agencies served by the Commu-
nications Center. Articles are
contributed by dispatchers; the
newsletter is published by
Dispatcher Amy Gray.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
AND
CRIME STATISTICS
OFFENSES & INCIDENTS REPORTED (1999 - 2003)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total Arrests 942 1102 1078 877 994
Offenses Reported:
Burglary 56 61 86 98 52
Larceny/Theft 722 669 775 648 542
Ski/Board Thefts + 145 119 128 102 61
Motor Vehicle Theft 23 28 24 35 19
Assault 107 89 132 119 81
Fraud +++ 101 87 73 103 150
DUI 209 186 184 108 136
Drugs 90 159 122 120 149
Vandalism 252 265 252 269 225
Sexual Offenses (incl. rape) 8 12 8 14 16
Trespassing 147 129 163 186 161
Trespassing (vehicular) ~ - - 56 113 63
Disorderly Conduct 69 76 115 88 90
Obstructing/Resisting 32 36 43 32 43
Protective Custody (non criminal) 91 146 163 167 188
+ Ski alai bonrd thefts are incl uded in /.nrceny/Theft
~'~' Vehiculnr Trespnssings are included in TrespassinK
~F Prior to October 2002. Deceptive Use of Ski Facilities ~ti~ere c lassified as
Larce»y/Theft;
Deceptive Use o/'S'ki Facilities are cur rently classified as Frnud.
. , .:t
a
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total Accidents 631 658 650 638 588
Accidents involving
alcohol and/or drugs
34
22
15
22
19
of Total Accidents
Involving Alcohol andJor Drugs
5.4
3.4
2.3
3.5
3.2
2002/2003 Offenses by Time of Day
(In Percentages)
35
~ 30
r
~ 25
~
a~
~ u~i
~
~ 20
15
=
v O
10
L
a 5
0
OOto04 04 to 08 08 to 12 12 to 16 16 to 20 20 to 24
Time of Day (Hours)
®2002
^ 2003
The department's highest call volume occurs between Friday through Sunday, and from
10:00 pm (2000 hours) to 4:00 am (0400 hours), which is why more officers are
assigned to these shifts.
2002/2003 Offenses by Day of Week
(In Percentages)
,~ 20
0
w ~ 15
O ~
a, ~ 10
~~
= O 5
d
L
0
Q_
14.2 14.8
19
~ ~ ~ ~'
~~ a~ ~
~ ~
Day of Week
~ -
a`~ a`~
~`~
a 2002
^ 2003
' Incident report numbers are assigned to calls for service when an officer generates paperwork,
does follow-up investigation on a case or when certain types of calls require an incident report
number by department policy.
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
RAPE:
Four cases of rape were reported in 2003, two of which resulted in arrests. In one case, the 27-year old male
offender forced his female victim back to his residence and raped her. In the second case, the 28-year old male
invited his female victim back to his residence where he raped her. The two other cases were closed after both
victims refused to cooperate with the investigation.
SEXUAL OFFENSES:
' In 2003, 12 cases of sexual assault were reported. Four cases involved indecent exposure, two cases included
offenders meeting their victims in bars, two cases involved acquaintances sexually assaulting their victims, one
case entailed a sex offender who failed to register and who was caught watching the reporting party's children,
' one involved the sexual assault of a victim by her ex-boyfriend, one was a sexual assault of a father against his
daughter, and the remaining case was committed by an offender who was a friend of the family of the victim.
Of these 12 cases, nine male offenders were arrested, one case was determined to be unfounded, two cases were
' closed by the District Attorney for lack of probable cause and lack of cooperation from the victim, and one case
remains open and under investigation.
ROBBERY:
Only one strong-arm robbery, which involved no weapons other than hands and feet, occurred in 2003 involving
one unknown male suspect. Four other male friends of the suspect sat in a nearby vehicle while the offense was
committed. One male victim sustained minor injuries.
ASSAULT:
Total assaults dropped from 119 cases reported in 2002 to 81 cases reported in 2003, which is a 32% decrease.
Total number of assaults includes both aggravated and simple assaults. In 2003, there were six aggravated
assaults and 75 simple assaults. Aggravated assaults are those involving a weapon or inflicting severe or
aggravated bodily injury.
In 2003, there were 19 cases of domestic violence resulting in 18 arrests, including 15 males and three females.
In 2000, there were 28 cases of domestic violence resulting in 31 arrests. In 2001, there were 24 cases of
domestic violence resulting in 26 arrests. In 2002, there were 24 cases of domestic violence resulting in 27
arrests.
According to victim advocates, only a small percentage of domestic violence is reported. Victims often endure
multiple events of battery before making the first call to law enforcement.
BURGLARY:
In the first quarter of 2003, there was a noted rise of almost 300% in burglaries reported from the first quarter of
2002. Ten burglaries were reported in the first quarter of 2002, 29 reported in first quarter of 2003. Six (23%) of
the 2003 burglaries can be attributed to one suspect who was arrested after a thorough investigation. Two cases
were domestic related and two others were unfounded. Four of the burglaries were committed by employees of
the businesses and the remaining burglaries are hotel related thefts with no pattern.
By the end of 2003, total number of reported burglaries decreased 47% from 2002.
The department offers vacation security checks, where a patrol officer will check residential and commercial
properties in an owner's absence. Detectives and patrol officers conduct business crime prevention workshops.
These are just two measures used by our patrol to combat the increase in burglaries.
FRAUD:
In 2002, there were 103 fraud cases and 150 cases in 2003. The increase in the reported fraud cases are due to a
procedural change by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the reporting of deceptive use of ski
facilities. In 2002, this crime was reported under theft of services and in March 2003, CBI dictated that this
crime to be reported under fraud-impersonation. In March and Apri12003, 23 deceptive use of ski facility
crimes were reported. Theft and larceny decreased in the first quarter from 2002 and 2003 to reflect the
statistical reporting to CBI.
THEFT/LARCENY:
Larcenies have decreased steadily over the past five years. There were 542 cases of larceny reported in 2003
Of the 542 larcenies reported, 61 involved theft of skis or snowboards. This is a 58% decrease in ski and
snowboard thefts from a high in 1999 of 145 incidents involving stolen skis and boards.
The most commonly stolen skis by make are Salomon, Rossignol and K2. The most commonly stolen snow-
boards by make are Burton, Salomon and Rossignol.
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFTS:
19 motor vehicle thefts were reported to the Vail Police Department in 2003, which represents a 46% decrease
from 2002, when 35 motor vehicles thefts were reported. 18 vehicles were recovered in separate incidents
leading to eight arrests. One vehicle reported stolen was not recovered and is closed pending further leads.
The most commonly stolen vehicle in Vail by make and model was Chevrolet Tahoe.
According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, the most commonly stolen vehicle in the U.S. in 2001 was
the Toyota Camry, followed by the Honda Accord and Chevrolet full-size pickups. FBI statistics show that
vehicle theft increased 4.2% during the first six months of 2002, compared with the same period in 2001. At the
same time, the recovery rate of stolen vehicles has declined from the mid 80% in the early 1990s to 62% in 2001
(latest data available).
ARSON: No arsons were reported in 2003. Four arsons were reported in 2002.
Vail Police Traffic, Parking & Code Enforcement
Year # of Warnings
Issued # of Citations
Issued Total # of
Warnin s & Citations
1999 3044 1601 4645
2000 2287 1106 3393
2001 1065 941 2106
2002 978 1437 2415
2003 1534 1375 2909
2002/2003 Motor Vehicle Accidents
by Day of Week (In Percentages)
20
,;~ 18
moo, N 16
~. 14
° ~ 12
~ ;o
~ ° 10
:° ° 8
m Q 6
i 4
°' 2
a
0
~~ aa~ aa~ ~~ aa~ ~~ a~~
^ 2002
^ 2003
~~ o~ ~~ ~~a ~~ ~`a ~`
5 tS .~.~ ~a~ ~rJ F ~a'`
Day of Week
The highest number of motor vehicle accidents in Vail occur on Thursday and Friday,
between 8:00 am (0800 hours) and 8:00 pm (2000 hours).
2002/2003 Motor Vehicle Accidents
by T Ime Of Day (In Percentages)
35 29.9 - __ . _j
~ 30 27.3
0 23.1 24.5
25 -- 21
~ ~ 20 18.4 15.6 ~ 2002
rn :a
~ 15 10.2 11.2 ®2003
~ Q 10 8.3
~ 5.94.6
a 5
0
00 to 04 to 08 to 12 to 16 to 20 to
04 08 12 16 20 24
Time of Day (Hours)
l
2003 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REVIEW '
There were 10 Professional Standard cases assigned in 2003, more commonly known as Internal Affairs or IA '
investigations, regarding Vail PD personnel. The following topics were investigated or reviewed. Additionally the
department investigated and reviewed all use of force incidents and motor vehicle accidents involving employees.
Professional Total Internally Externally Disposition
Standards Category # Generated Generated
Evidence 1 1 1 Verbal Counseling
Handling
Rudeness 1 1 1 Written Reprimand
Harassment 2 2 2 Exonerated
Off-Duty 1 1 1 Suspension
Conduct
Missing Money 1 1 1 Exonerated
Conduct 1 1 1 Exonerated
Unbecoming
Expired 1 1 1 Verbal Counseling
Intoxilizer
Certification
Inappropriate 1 1 1 Verbal Counseling
Language
Use of Force 1 1 1 Exonerated
Complaint
Total 10 3 7 3 Verbal Counseling
1 Written Reprimand
5 Exonerated
1 Suspension
Traffic Accidents 4 4 1 Not Preventable
3 PreventableNerbal Counseling
Use of Force 22 22 22 Within Policy
Reporting 3 were from wildlife being put down.
I
~_
THE VAIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
' 2003 Review and 2004 Strategic Plan
Management Statement
' Over the past year the Vail Public Safety Communications Center (VPSCC), has taken its mission seriously and
has been working cooperatively with the public safety agencies in Eagle County to develop and improve the
county-wide public safety communications system. These improvements are demonstrated by improved communi-
cations with the local agencies, changes in operational policy, technological improvements in 911equipment and
now the build out of a county-wide CAD and RMS system.
' To position the Vail Public Safety Communications Center for continued success, the center's management team
has developed this strategic plan as a model for 2004. To summarize, the management team will direct their focus
and vision in the establishment of processes that develop critical thinking, empowerment and ownership within the
' Communications Center. Through these processes -productivity, efficiency and effectiveness will increase. This
increase shall be congruent with the increase in morale and a decrease in the centers attrition rate.
' Overview
VPSCC has made enormous strides in the development of programs and processes which will govern its opera-
tions, direction, improvements, development and training. All told, we have introduced nine new projects or proc-
' esses in an attempt to foster better intradepartmental communications and departmental standardization.
With the implementation of so many new processes and the upgrading of our department's technology, we feel
' that it is important to take a step back and review our 2003 accomplishments. As we review the year, it becomes
easier to see and understand the `big picture'. We can also begin to see the building blocks from which the
success of the center will be built.
t The programs and processes that have been developed or are in development have taken place in a very short time
frame and are either approaching implementation or are ready for follow up/review. Over the next twelve months
we will readdress all developed practices to ensure their success and continued improvement.
' 2003 Goals and Accomplishments
2003 goals were adopted to establish the foundation for center standardization and stabilization. To accomplish
this, focus was placed on the development of standardized processes for the center operation. These include:
Revamped new hire selection process
' Formalized continuing education process
Development of a Communications Instructor program
Communications Instructor Selection Process
' Beginning development of an employee recognition program
Development of a Policy and Procedures manual
Dissemination of Information process
CAT Teams/Project Development Teams
Implementation of shift briefings
Development of agency-based and employee-based newsletters
Redesign of the Communications Center including furniture and technology
' Implementation of new 911 phone equipment and Phase II compliancy
Additionally we have worked to:
' Utilize processes/structure to continue Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services accreditation level
Develop processes that are interlinked and flow
Develop processes that are self-sustaining/self-directed programs
Develop a strong working relationship with Information Technology and other support departments.
d[ 70 o R 7_ p _ _ o
Vision
In addition to the Vail Police Department Vision, Mission and Values, the VPSCC believes that vision creates
momentum for the team. It provides the center guidance and inspires commitment. It truly displays the direc-
tion that we are going. Our vision is to develop:
Technical Excellence: By implementing a foundation of quality improvement through technical excellence, we
bring to our internal and external customers the highest quality of customer service. Technical excellence will
insure the center's ability to provide quick responses, accurate dispatching, and accurate reporting processes.
Interpersonal Excellence: Creating an environment of growth and opportunity. This is accomplished by creat-
ing asafe environment where people are not threatened to express concerns and ideas for improvement. Having
mutual respect and dignity for co-workers and customers with the understanding we must support individuals
who are not capable of the same tolerance.
Center Synergy: Creating a team approach to problem-solving and victory celebrations. Functioning at a top
performance level takes the synergy that is created by maintaining a 1+1=more than 2 philosophy. Creating an
environment that fosters individual successes by recognizing the team's achievements.
Center Values
VPSCC's values are the essence of this center's philosophy for achieving success. They are the foundation of
our center's culture. Our values provide the communicators with a sense of common direction and guidelines
for day-to-day behavior. Our Shared Values can be summed in one word "WOW"! Wow is defined as:
•The treatment of all persons with respect and integrity, recognizing their individual needs.
•The recognition of our co-workers as our greatest and most valuable asset.
•Becoming leaders in promoting service excellence through agency support and customer service.
•Working as a team to communicate effectively, encourage professional growth and responsibility,
recognizing our accomplishments, and embracing change.
Mission Statement
In order to achieve our vision, VPSCC commits to the following:
The Vail Public Safety Communications Center is a specialized multidiscipline organization dedicated to
seeking professional excellence in agency support and customer service from each employee through
education, creativity, community service, and continuous quality improvement.
Through along-term commitment to this mission, we will be known as a center that offers our customers,
vendors, and employees the benefits associated with knowledge and results. Through our strategic plan, the
vision, values and mission of the center will become the strength of Vail Public Safety Communications Center.
2004's goals and objectives must be broken into three areas to allow for maximum focus and adaptability
These areas are as follows:
Immediate Objectives: (Completed by December 31, 2004)
Successfully complete the installation of the new CAD/1ZMS software and insure county-wide functionality
and user acceptance.
Development understanding of Community Oriented Policing and the role of dispatch with each employee.
Work with local law enforcement agencies in the development of wireless 911 policies and false 911 call
reduction plan which can be measured and reported.
Develop a passion for excellence within the center that embraces our shared values and enhances team
synergy.
Re-focus the current supervisor team and redefine roles.
Complete the development of Communication Center policies and procedures.
Establish the center's performance expectations and evaluation methodology.
Distribute customer service surveys to identify center strengths and weaknesses
Institute employee-driven process improvement teams. (Law, Fire, EMS, and EMD review committees)
Implement a structured training program that includes standardized evaluations and performance expectations
Redefine the Center's mission, vision, and values and how it coordinates the mission of the police department.
Develop a Communication's Supervisor training program that encompasses the spirit of the center's mission,
vision and values.
Instill a strong sense of pride within the Center that is based on shared values, mission, and vision. Such pride
should be team based to improve team synergy and interpersonal excellence.
Short Term Objectives: (Completed by December 2005)
Work with local Fire and Emergency Management Services agencies to adapt the EMD protocols of the National
Academy of Emergency Medical Dispatch and develop a system of call prioritization.
Develop a radio communications backbone for expanded coverage and State of Colorado DTRS interoperability.
Work with fire agencies to develop station and apparatus-based call assignments.
Work on the development and construction of a county-based mobile communications vehicle.
Expand the Communications Center's role in community education.
Develop acounty-wide "Incident Dispatch Team".
Develop a "Community Oriented Dispatch" program with the county's law enforcement agencies.
Work toward center accreditation with both the National Academy of Emergency Medical Dispatch and
Center for Law Enforcement Accreditation.
Work with other Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) to develop radio communications and data sharing
capabilities.
Long Term Objectives: (Over the next five years)
Establish a linked communications network with the ten county regional homeland security group.
Establish national communications center recognized as the top PSAP in a resort community.
Communications center recognition as leader in 911 public education and community oriented dispatching.
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS'` ASSOCIATION
Appropriate Levet of Unreserved Fund Balance in the General Fund (20021
BackEround. Accountants employ the term fund balance to describe the net assets of governmental funds calculated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Budget professionals comtrionly use this same term
to describe the net assets of governmental funds calculated on a government's budgetary basis.l Iri both cases, fund
balance is intended to serve as a measure of the financial resources available in a governmental fund.
Accountants distinguish reserved fund balance from unreserved fund balance. Typically, only the latter is available for
spending. Accountants also sometimes report a designated portion of unreserved fund balance to indicate that the
governing body or management have tentative plans concerning the use of all or a portion of unreserved fund balance.
It is essential that governments maintain adequate levels of fund balance to mitigate current and future risks (e.g.,
revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures) and to ensure stable tax rates. Fund balance levels are a crucial
consideration, too, in long-term financial planning.
In most cases, discussions of fund balance will properly focus on a government's general fund. Nonetheless, financial
resources available in other funds should also be considered in assessing the adequacy of unreserved fund balance in the
general fund.
Credit rating agencies carefully monitor levels of fund balance and unreserved fund balance in a government's general
fund to evaluate a govemment's continued creditworthiness. Likewise, laws and regulations often govern appropriate
levelsof fund balance and unreserved fund balance for state and local governments.
Those interested primarily in a government's creditworthiness or economic condition (e.g., rating agencies) are likely to
favor increased levels of fund balance. Opposing pressures often come from unions, taxpayers and citizens' groups,
which may view high levels of fund balance as "excessive."
Recommendation. GFOA recommends that governments establish a formal policy on the level of unreserved fund
balance that should be maintained in the general firrrd.Z GFOA also encourages the adoption of similar policies for other
types of governmental funds. Such a guideline should be set by the appropriate policy body and should provide both a
temporal framework and specific plans for increasing or decreasing the level of unreserved fund balance, if it is
inconsistent with that policy. .
The adequacy of unreserved fund balance in the general fund should be assessed based upon a government's own
specific circumstances. Nevertheless, GFOA recommends, a7 a minimum, that general-purpose governments, regardless
of size, maintain unreserved fund balance in their general fund of no_ less than five. to 15.percent of regular general fund
operating revenues, or of no less than one to two months of regulaz general fund operating expenditures.4 A
government's particular situation may require levels of unreserved fund balance in the general fund significantly in
excess of these recommended minimum levels.s Furthermore, such measures should be applied within the context of
' For the sake of clarity, this recommended practice uses the terms GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance to distinguish
these two different uses of the same term.
z Sometimes reserved fund balance includes resources available to finance items that typically would require the use of unreserved
fund balance (e.g., a contingency reserve). In that case, such amounts should be included as part of unreserved fund balance for
~urposes of analysis.
See Recommended Practice 4.1 of the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting govemments on the need to
"maintain a prudent level of financial resources to protect against reducing service levels or raising taxes and fees because of
temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted one-time expenditures" (Recommended Practice 4.1).
`'The choice of revenues or expenditures as a basis of comparison may be dictated by what is more predictable in a govemment's
particular circumstances. In either case, unusual items that would distort trends (e.g., one-time revenues and expenditures) should be
excluded, whereas recurring transfers should be included. Once the decision has been made to compaze unreserved fund balance to
either revenues or expenditures, that decision should be followed consistently from period to period.
s In practice, levels of fund balance, (expressed as a percentage of revenuesJexpenditures or as a multiple of monthly expenditures),
typically are less for larger governments than for smaller governments because of the magnitude of the amounts involved and because
the diversification of their revenues and expenditures often results in lower degrees of volatility.
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
Revised 07/06/04
To: Town Council
From: Stan Zemler
Judy Camp
Date: July 1, 2004
Subject: Guidelines for General Fund Balance
As requested in your last meeting, we have scheduled time on Tuesday to discuss guidelines for
the appropriate balance to be maintained in the General Fund.
BACKGROUND: The town's General Fund balance has grown from $3.7 million or 21% of
revenue in 1999 to $10 million or 46% of revenue by year-end 2004. The budget guideline for
the General Fund balance was 10% in 1999 and was increased to 25% for the 2001 budget. The
guideline was established to assure that the fund balance is adequate to cover short-term
fluctuations in revenues, emergencies, and planned future expenditures.
The Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) "recommends, at a minimum, that
general-purpose governments, regardless of size, maintain unreserved fund balance in their
general fund of no less than five to 15 percent of regular general fund operating revenues, or of
no less than one to two months of regular general fund operating expenditures." (See attachment
A for full text). This recommendation, of course, should be considered in the context of the
particular government's own circumstances.
In the case of Vail, we are heavily dependent upon a single source of revenue -sales tax, which
contributes about 45% of all town revenue. Two other revenue sources, the ski areas admissions
tax and the public accommodations tax, which add another 10%, are similar to the sales tax in
that, their revenue is concentrated in the five winter months and they are vulnerable to outside
factors such as snow conditions, tourism, and the general economy. Another source of revenue
that is generally considered more stable is property tax. Because of the Gallagher Amendment,
however, we have seen a reduction in property tax revenue and are likely to see additional
reductions in the future. On the cost side, we are entering a period of redevelopment which is
expected to increase our costs in the near term. All of these considerations make it prudent to
carry a fund balance that is higher than the minimum recommended by GFOA. GFOA also
suggests higher percentages for smaller governments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the town continues to maintain as a
minimum 25% of general fund revenue in the general fund balance. Recognizing that 25% is a
minimum and that the town is entering a period of uncertainty during redevelopment, staff further
recommends that an appropriate target for the 2005 budget and five-year plan is somewhat higher
than the minimum at 35%.
.~
r. _ ~_......__ . .
The Case For More Ice
Presentation to Vail Town Council
Public Comment Session:
The Vail Ice Dome
July 7, 2004
7/6/2004 Prepared by The Committee for Valley Wide Ice 1
i
Who We Are
• Vail Junior Hockey West Vail Men's Group
Association Alpine Engineering
• Battle Mountain High School Eagle Valley Skating Club
• Skating Club of Vail WECMRD
• Twin Peaks Winter and Local and tourist public
Summer Leagues users
• Vail Breakaways Colorado Mountain College
• Mountain Women's Hockey Mountain Referees
7/6/2004
2
Why We're Here
• To thank you for your long term support and continued financial
commitment to hockey and skating in Vail
• To demonstrate the need for more ice than Dobson alone,
illustrate some of the opportunities more ice can create, and
begin dialogue for building a short and long term vision to
expand ice usage and programs valley wide
We plan to secure an additional sheet of ice for the 2004-2005
season and build permanent plans for the long term.
7/6/2004
3
Why We're Here
• Valley wide ice usage is growing and will continue to grow, if
properly managed
• Dobson alone will not support current ice needs
• VJHA Club mission is to keep competitive hockey in Vail and
support development and feeder programs in the wider valley
• Not feeding ice programs with additional ice, risks additional
shifting of programs and revenue away from Dobson
• Ice and facility usage benefits the entire valley
• The opportunity for ice and facilities usage has not yet been
tapped
7/6/2004 4
VJHA (50%)
Skating Club of Vail
(25%)
^ Mtn Women's League
(5%)
Twin Peaks (2.5%)
$100K spent on ice:
15 teams, 161 users,
>100 families
$50K spent on ice
6 teams
2 teams
® Breakaways (2.5%
^ Alpine Engineering 1
(2.5%) -
West Vail Liquormart
(2.5%)
Pub/LTS/S&P/Misc
(10%)
I. 5 teams
7/6/2004 5
Ice Usage
But What is the Potential?
• VJHA Mites will grow 150% from 2003-2005 (from 16 kids to 40)
• Mtn Women's League will grow 50% (from 4 teams to 6) in
2005. In 2004, these teams could secure only one session/wk
and had to go to Eagle for a second session
• Battle Mountain Hockey is considering adding a Junior Varsity
Team to its already immensely successful Varsity Team
- Also generates revenue at the gate and other community benefits
• To remain competitive, older VJHA teams (Midget, Bantam, Pee
Wee) must increase practices to 3/week and eliminate shared
A/B team practices
• WECMRD hockey in Eagle grew from 0 to 250 kids in one year
• In one season, Eagle Ice is booked to the point where no
additional ice is available
• With more aggressive marketing and management.....?
7/6/2004 6
Eagle Ice Rink Case Study
The following numbers represent the total number of participants, programs, and hours used
during the first year of the Eagle Pool and Ice Rink.
Season Program
Winter
Summer
sers Hours Per Week
Comments
Youth Ice Hockey 226 25 18 teams
Adult Ice Hockey 210 3 14 teams
Learn To Skate 240 1.5 3 sessions
Public Skate 4,019 13 More hours available before and after hockey season
Drop In Hockey 1,683 10 Huge lunch program, as well as Friday nights
Stick Puck 561 4
Evening Rentals 2 Groups 3 Mountaineers and MWHL
Youth Inline Hockey 19 2
Adult Inline Hockey 60 4
Youth Indoor Soccer 25 2
Adult Indoor Soccer 40 2
Sports Connection 80 2
Youth Inline Drop In 3
Adult Inline Drop In 4
Youth Soccer Drop In 3
Adult Soccer Drop In 3
Public Skate 6
In-house club program
5 teams
In-house club program
4 teams
Average 20 kids per week throughout summer
During the winter seasons we also offer weekly "Kidz Night Out" programs as well as hosting up to 6 birthday parties per week. In the future
we will look at adding a speed and power skating program, additional learn to skate hours, and weekly hockey skills clinics.
7/6/2004 7
Our Proposal
Option 1:
• Put the bubble back up for 2004-2005 on golf course site with
an aggressive third party operator
Option 2: -
• Find a new site for the bubble in Vail
Option 3:
• Donate the bubble (or sell for reduced price) to Ice Users of the
Valley
7/6/2004 g
Considerations
• We have two qual i fied entities to o perate t he bu b bl e
• We have at least two options for land in Avon and Edwards
locations
• Long term plan is to develop a long term mid-valley multi-use
facility in Edwards
• Ice users of the valley can work together to collaborate on ice
scheduling to the benefit of all groups and Dobson, to maximize
usage of all facilities in ways .most suited to each
7/6/2004 g
Opportunities
• Show goodwill to the larger valley area
Eliminate ongoing resistance to the bubble by homeowners
• Shifting more ice time to the bubble would allow Dobson to bring
back nightly public skating - a large revenue generator
• Growing the largest ice user groups that buy majority of ice is a
win/win
- Restricting available ice could ultimately result in loss of $160K/yr
• Growing ice users requires more ice
- Creates new opportunities for programs
• Growing valley-wide ice usage benefits all
- More hockey tournaments
- More competitions (skating club, broomball, curling)
- More visitors (supporting the economy)
- New leagues, programs, clubs (broomball, curling, date and skate)
7/6/2004 10
Opportunities
• Multiple sporting facilities are required to support Valley Wide
events
• Events primarily drive economy in Vail
- Events bring people to town who need lodging and food
- TOV benefits from Valley wide events due to limited hotel supply in
Avon and Edwards. Beaver Creek has hotel supply but rates and
access limit the use of the hotel facilities for many sporting events
- We have examples of tournaments who have requested lodging but
could not be accommodated because they required two sheets of
ice
- Soccer and lacrosse tournaments could easily be imitated in
hockey and other ice events if we had additional ice and someone
charged with making it happen
7/6/2004 11
Opportunities
• Additional ice creates two revenue streams during peak hours
and option to shift scheduling from Dobson to free up space for
events
- May increase ice usage for Skating Club of Vail
- Allows more scheduling of revenue producing events
- Reduces scheduling conflicts
• Additional year round facility could be managed for multi-uses
- Summer indoor soccer, special events, party rental, etc
7/6/2004 ~ 2
Issues
• For years, VJHA not able to create a developmental
program because of lack of ice
- Eagle program took advantage of the opportunity and signed up
250 kids in the first year
- % of recreational users will migrate to competitive leagues and
come up valley -but not if there isn't enough ice to support them
• Programs to grow VJHA cannot be constructed on the basis of a
year to year commitment to a temporary sheet of ice
• High School team will be closed out of all local ice practice 1
week prior to 2005 playoffs because Dobson has been reserved
by a large event
- VJHA teams must address 1 week blackout during main league
season
• Other blackout periods
- Ski Swap, Concerts,
close out ice during key periods
etc.
7/6/2004 13
Issues
• In the past, inefficient management of the bubble resulted in
- Youth team sessions being pre-empted by adult users
- Youth team practices being shortened by poor scheduling
- Inconsistent quality of ice maintenance
- Promoting a poor image of Vail ice facilities
- Poor tracking of usage and non-existent fee collection for Public
Skating, Stick and Puck sessions
- Little/no promotion or program development to create new usage
• In the past, available ice allowed VJHA 2 practices/week for all
teams -Midget, Bantam and Pee Wee A teams require 3
practices/week to be competitive
• All VJHA teams forced to share ice for 1 practice/week
7/6/2004 14
Issues
• Women's league only allowed 1 session/week for either a game
or a practice
- Forced to go to Eagle
• Some youth users forced to use before school skating because
after school hours are in such demand
7/6/2004
15
Next Steps
• Agree on direction asap
• Implement plans to support the bubble for 2004/05
• Continue building valley wide vision for future
7/6/2004 16
Chad Salli - ole0.bmp `` Page 1
Q ~~ # ,~.~
WRNF Boundary Piney Timber Sale Project Area
fpResrsE'"~F Pine River Timber Sale Temporary Roads
Y ~ Proposed Cutting Units
i Hol Cross RD Red Sandstone/Muddy Pass Road
~v ~ y ~ Roadless Areas
~nnor~ WRNF Other Roads
- Wilderness Areas
PINEY RIVER PROJECT BRIEFING
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
JULY 6, 2004
This briefing consists of excerpts from the draft Environmental Assessment being conducted for the
Piney River Project It is pre-decisional and subject to change.
SUiVI Nf ARY
The White River National Forest proposes vegetation treatments that may include the use of
commercial timber harvest to achieve management area goals and objectives. Vegetation proposed for
treatment is lodgepole pine, with minor incidental amounts of aspen, sub-alpine fir and Engelmann
spruce. The project area is located near Freeman Creek, approximately 4 air miles northwest of Vail,
Colorado and is within the Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Colorado.. This
action is needed to provide wood fiber and forest products to local industry from areas identified as
part of the suitable base, reduce the susceptibility of lodgepole pine forest type to mountain pine beetle
infestations by lowering the current stand densities, move lodgepole pine landscape toward desired
conditions by creating mosaics of age groups and size classes in the project area and improve scenic
values through rehabilitating straight, geometric edges of past clearcutting activity.
The proposed action may treat approximately 1500-1840 acres of vegetation producing approximately
30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of timber and other forest products. This alternative was designed
to achieve a balance of resource objectives to improve lodgepole pine age class and size class
diversity, improve scenic values, maintain forest health, maintain wildlife habitat, maintain
transportation system roads, reduce accumulation of natural fuels and provide forest products while
meeting Forest Plan direction for all affected resources.
In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives:
Alternative 1 allows for custodial management activities and other ecological processes to
continue uninterrupted in the Piney River Project area. The project area would be managed to
protect and maintain existing improvements and uses.
Alternative 3 would treat, the same amount of vegetation in the project area and proposes
hauling forest products west on FSR 700 (Red Sandstone Road) to Muddy Pass. Alternative 3
places greater emphasis on minimizing conflicts with recreational and residential traffic on
FSR 700, as compared with Alternative 2.
Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide if vegetation treatments
should occur as proposed, not at all, or to some other extent.
Page 1 of 14
7/6/2004
1.1 General Description
The Piney River project area is located approximately 4 miles northwest of Vail, Colorado near
Freeman Creek encompasses approximately 34,745 acres: Primary access is via Forest Service Road
(FSR) 700, also known as the Red Sandstone Road. Project opportunities include commercial timber
harvest using shelterwood preparatory and seed cuts, thinning and individual tree selection tree
removal methods to move vegetation toward its desired condition. See Vicinity Map on page 4 for
general project area location.
1.11 Management Areas included in the Project Area
The revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 (referred to as
the Forest Plan) assign management prescriptions for specific areas of land in the White River
National Forest, each with a different resource emphasis. The management areas provide the
emphasis and requirements that are used in project implementation to help achieve Forest Plan goals
and objectives. - ____-- _ . _-_-- _ - _ ___---
The Piney River project area contains seven Management Areas and a few parcels of private land
ownership. Proposed vegetation treatments would occur in 5.13 Resource Production (Forest
products) and 5.4 Forest Flora and Fauna Habitats. Table 1-1 displays these Forest Plan Management
Areas.
Table 1-1: Management Area Acres in Piney River Project Area
Management Area Acres
Other Lands 789
1.2 RecommendedWilderness 1,184
1.31 Backcountry Recreation, Non Motorized 3,850
5.13 Resource Production (Forest products) 5,172
5.4 Forest Flora and Fauna Habitats 19,253
5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range 2,277
5.42 Bighorn Sheep Habitats 931
8.32 Designated Utilities 1,291
TOTAL 34,745
Although each management area has a resource emphasis, other multiple-use activities can also occur.
Specific management area direction for these management areas is listed in Chapter 3, pp. 49-70 of the
Forest Plan. See Management Area Map on page 5.
1.12 Existing Condition
The Piney.River project area contains a variety of forest and mountain shrubland vegetation. This
vegetation includes aspen, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, Douglas fir, shrubs,
serviceberry and snowberry. These vegetation types occur in a mosaic pattern and are intermixed with
meadows and natural openings. All vegetation types are generally in a mature state, except in areas
where previous harvest has regenerated lodgepole pine. Dense stands of lodgepole pine are present in
large continuous stands throughout the project area. Mountain pine beetle populations are increasing
and increasing mortality is occurring within the project area. Dwarf mistletoe is also present in a
Page 2 of 14
7/6/2004
portion of lodgepole pine stands in the project area. Engelmann spruce stands are small in size and
generally intermixed within the lodgepole pine stands.
Natural disturbances have occurred in the project area. Wildfire has played a role in disturbance,
mainly around the turn of the century (1880-1900). Large, stand-replacing fires occurred. in the area
converting conifer stands to the lodgepole pine stands we see today. Historic insect and disease
disturbances have been limited. Evidence of past mountain pine beetle activity in this area has been
local and confined to small groups of trees.
This vegetation has historically provided multiple-use benefits to the local economy for both personal
and commercial use. Forest products gathered for personal-use have included firewood, sawlogs,
houselogs, specialty woods, boughs and Christmas trees. Past silvicultural treatments that have
occurred in the project area include clear-cutting and individual tree selection. Existing clear-cuts
have treated lodgepole pine (1980's). Minor portions of other conifer cover types such as spruce/fir
have been treated with individual tree selection.
1-:2 Purpose & Need for Action
The purpose of this vegetative treatment initiative is to provide wood fiber and forest products to local
industry from areas identified as part of the suitable base while contributing to the White River
National Forest allowable timber sale quantity (ASQ), reduce the susceptibility of lodgepole pine
forest type to mountain pine beetle infestations by lowering the curent stand densities, move the
lodgepole pine landscape in the project area towards its desired condition by creating a mosaic of age
and size classes, improve scenic values through rehabilitating straight geometric edges of past
clearcutting activity.
This action is proposed because there is a need to develop and design management practices that
would move current vegetation, scenic integrity levels and transportation systems toward their desired
conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan.
This EA is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD)
for the revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 (referred to as
the Forest Plan). The Forest Plan identifies land use direction, standards, and guidelines for project
implementation while addressing local, regional, and national interests. The proposal and its
alternatives to the proposed action are designed to move vegetation and other resource conditions in
the project area toward the "desired condition" as outlined in the Forest Plan. The White River Forest
Plan will be incorporated by reference.
The FEIS discusses alternative long-term land uses and the envirorunental, economic, and social
effects of implementing these land uses. The intent of the direction in the Forest Plan is to manage
National Forest System lands for multiple-use and not for any single purpose (National Forest
Management Act of 1976, sec. 2(3).
The ROD for the Forest Plan describes a set of goals and activities for timber, wildlife, recreation,
fisheries, range, soils, watersheds and vegetation management on the White River National Forest.
Actions such as protecting soil and water resources, maintaining or enhancing wildlife habitat,
Page 3 of 14
7/6/2004
Vicinity Map
Piney. River Project
Vicinity Map
U~S
a
Holy Cross Ranger Distric
White River National Fore;
Forest Service, USDA
Eagle County
Colorado
1 inch equals 14.55 miles
n
Yampa
~ ..': I
Routt County
hite Rive I _
National Fo st ~~ Eagle County r--
:.
Garfield = ~
County '•~
i
•-, :, ~
.. ~ ..:
..
Gle ood Spri s
White River
~'y t' National Forest
-_ ~,
t••_• _Ni•68 + pitkin County
t,
• L.
` r I~'
t Vaii
ranby
Grand
County
~~ Piney River Project Area
Idaho
Summit
County
n
Page 4 of 14
7/6/2004
Western Colorado
maintaining long-term timber production, protecting areas from insect and disease
epidemics, maintaining visual quality objectives and providing forest products for local
industry are important in implementing the Forest Plan. This EA documents the site-
specific effects of implementing the proposed action and its alternatives. The Forest Plan
and FEIS are available at the Holy Cross Ranger District, P.O. Box 190, Minturn,
Colorado 81645 or the Forest Supervisor's Office, 900 Grand Avenue, Glenwood
Springs, Colorado 81602.
1.21 Goals and Objectives
The following goals and objectives from the Forest Plan are applicable to the Piney River
" Project.
- -- Goal l:-Ecosystem Health -Promote ecosystem health and conservation using a --- -
collaborative approach to sustain the nation's forests, grasslands and watersheds
(Forest Plan, 1-3 to 1-9).
• Objective 1 a -Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide
the water quality and quantity and soil productivity necessary to
support ecological functions and intended beneficial uses.
• Objective Ib -Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations
of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for
Management Indicator Species (MIS) and focal species.
Objective 1 c -Ensure viability of species of concern for the White River
National Forest through implementation of the Forest Plan and
recommendations made in the Species Viability Reports. Provide
ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired
nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator
Species (MIS) and focal species.
• Objective 1 d -Increase the amount of forest and rangelands restored to or
maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from
fires, insects, disease, and invasive species.
• Objective 1 e -Work cooperatively with individuals, organizations, local,
state, tribal, and other federal agencies to promote ecosystem health and
sustainability across landscapes.
Goal 2: Multiple Benefits to People -Provide for multiple uses and sustainability
of national forests in an environmentally acceptable manner (Forest Plan, 1-10 to
1-12).
Page5of14
7/6/2004
• Objective 2c -Improve the capability of national forests and rangelands to
sustain desired uses, values, products and services.
Goal 3: Effective Public Service -Ensure the acquisition and use of an
appropriate corporate infrastructure to enable the efficient delivery of a variety of
uses (Forest Plan, 1-14).
Objective 4a -Improve the safety and economy of Forest Service roads,
trails, facilities, and operations and.provide greater security for the public
and employees.
Goal 4: Public Collaboration -Engage the American public, interested
organizations, private landowners, state and local governments, federal agencies,
and others in the stewardship of National Forest System lands (Forest Plan, 1-15). -
Objective Sa -Work cooperatively with individuals, organizations, local,
state, tribal, and other federal agencies to promote ecosystem health and
sustainability across the landscape.
Goa15: American Indian Rights and Interests -Engage tribal governments to
work in close coordination with the White River National Forest and in
collaboration with the American public, interested organizations, private
landowners, state, local, and federal agencies and others in the stewardship of
National Forest System lands in order to incorporate tribal resource management
values into forest management activities (Forest Plan, 1-16 to 1-17).
• Objective 6a -Coordinate closely with the three Confederated Ute Tribes
and work cooperatively with individuals and organizations, local, state and
federal governments to promote ecological, economic, and social health
and sustainability across landscapes.
Other project level objectives include:
Maintain or enhance desired biological and physical ecosystem components, and
apply management practices that mimic the frequency, intensity, duration and
severity of natural disturbance (e.g. fire; insect and disease outbreaks) to achieve
desired landscape condition.
Provide for a variety of vegetation types, patterns and structural components to
meet Forest Plan desired conditions.
By the end of the plan period, maintain vegetation structural components, such as
successional stages, standing and downed dead trees, canopy characteristics, and
grass and forb composition, consistent with their desired conditions on 10 % to
30% of forested landscapes depending on vegetation type and component.
Page 6 of 14
7/6/2004
By the end of the plan period, establish and maintain a healthy functioning mosaic
of vegetation types, ages, sizes and other characteristics that are consistent with
desired condition on 10% to 30% of upland landscapes depending on vegetation
type.
1.3 Proposed Action
The White River National Forest proposes vegetation treatments that would include the
use of commercial timber harvest to achieve management area goals and objectives.
Proposed vegetation projects include approximately 1500-1840 acres of commercial
timber harvest treatments. Vegetation that would be treated includes lodgepole pine and
incidental amounts ofsub-alpine fir, aspen and Engelmann spruce associated with
- proposed treatment-units, specified road reconstruction and temporary road_construction.
Proposed activities would be initiated in 2005 and be completed by 2015. Four
commercial timber sales are proposed to be implemented over the life of the project.
Approximately 30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of forest products would be
harvested. In addition, approximately 12.6 miles of Forest Service roads would be
reconstructed or reconditioned and 15-20 miles of temporary road construction would be
needed to access units for project implementation. Forest products from the project area
would be transported south and east towards Vail via FSR 700 (Red Sandstone road),
FSR 719 (Middle Creek road), FSR 734 (Red & White Mountain road), FSR 786 (Lost
Lake road), FSR 787 (Buffer road), the North Frontage road and then to I-70.
1.7 Issues
An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) made up of Forest Service specialists relating to
wildlife, timber, soils, water, geology, visual, fisheries, cultural, engineering, lands, range
and recreation were formed to make site-specific resource evaluations. The role of the
IDT is to analyze public and Forest Service comments to determine relevant issues;
develop alternatives to the proposed action; analyze resource impacts; and develop
mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate environmental impacts resulting from the
proposed and alternative actions.
The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: key and non-key issues. Key
issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed
action. Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed
action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision;
3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific
or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations
require_this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, "...identify and eliminate from detailed study the
issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental
review (Sec. 1506.3)...". A list ofnon-significant issues and reasons regarding their
categorization as non-significant maybe found in Appendix C.
Page 7 of 14
7/6/2004
As for key issues, the Forest Service identified one key issue raised during scoping. This
issue concerns public safety and the transportation of forest products south and east on
FSR 700 (Red Sandstone Road) to the town of Vail. The large numbers of logging trucks
and associated logging operation vehicles have the potential to impact recreation and
residential traffic along the Red Sandstone Road.
2.0 Description of Alternatives, including the Proposed
Action
This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Piney River
project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section
also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences
-between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the
decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives
is based upon the design of the project and some of the information is based upon the
environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.
The NEPA regulations (40CFR 1502.14) require exploration and objective evaluation of
the proposed action and alternatives, including a "no action" alternative. Federal
agencies are also required to include and discuss appropriate measures to mitigate
adverse environmental impacts that would result from implementing a proposed action.
The alternative descriptions include mitigation and monitoring measures necessary for
the implementation of each alternative.
The IDT team considered the issues identified through the scoping process as the primary
basis for alternative development. Alternatives were developed to respond to the
purpose, need and relevant issues in the project area, and be compatible with Forest Plan
management direction. As a guide and reference in formulating reasonable alternatives,
the IDT team applied specific Design Criteria and Conservation Practices to all action
alternatives (see Appendix B). Additionally, "Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines to
Protect Water Quality, Best Management Practices (BMP'S) for Colorado," (Colorado
State Forest Service, February 1998) were applied to formulate action alternatives.
2.1 Alternatives
2.12 Alternative 2 -Proposed Action
This alternative was developed to improve lodgepole pine age class and size class
diversity, maintain scenic values, maintain forest health, maintain wildlife habitat,
maintain transportation system roads, reduce accumulation of natural fuels and provide
forest products to industry while meeting Forest Plan direction for all affected resources.
This alternative was designed to achieve a balance of resource objectives. This proposed
Page 8 of 14
7/6/2004
action would manage the vegetative landscape in the project area through commercial
timber harvest. Proposed vegetation projects include approximately 1500-1840 acres of
commercial timber harvest treatments. Vegetation that would be treated includes
lodgepole pine and incidental amounts of sub-alpine fir, aspen and Engelmann spruce
associated with proposed treatment units, specified road reconstruction and temporary
road construction. Proposed activities would be initiated in 2005 and be completed by
2015. Four commercial timber sales would be implemented over the life of the project.
Approximately 30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of forest products would be
harvested. In addition, approximately 12.6 miles of Forest Service roads would be
reconstructed or reconditioned and 15-20 miles of temporary road construction would be
needed to access units for project implementation. Forest products from the project area
would be transported south and east towards Vail via FSR 700 (Red Sandstone road),
FSR 719 (Middle Creek road), FSR 720, FSR 729, FSR 734 (Red & White Mountain
road), FSR 786 (Lost Lake road), FSR 787 (Buffer road), the North Frontage road and
then to I-70. - --- --- _ . _ .
The following are descriptions for each proposed vegetative treatment:
Approximately 1030-1240 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using
shelterwood seed cuts to create a regenerated even-age stand of lodgepole pine
over the next 10-20 years. This treatment is designed reduce the susceptibility of
lodgepole pine stands to mountain pine beetle infestations and move the
lodgepole pine landscape in the project area towards its desired condition by
creating a mosaic of age and size classes. This treatment would open the canopy
enough to create forest floor conditions suitable 'for natural regeneration. In
general, 80 square feet of basal area would be retained (approximately 80 to 160
trees per acre). Upper cone bearing crowns would be left on site to initiate natural
regeneration. These treatments are designed reduce the susceptibility of
lodgepole pine stands to mountain pine beetle infestations and move the
lodgepole pine landscape in the project area towards its desired condition by
creating a mosaic of age and size classes. The shape and size of the proposed
harvest units are designed to blend with the current mix of natural openings
within project area. Proposed unit edges and shapes would be designed to retain a
variable mix of trees, densities and age/size classes. Natural regeneration in
cutting units would be monitored to assure required minimum stocking levels on
suitable lands are met as designated in the Forest Plan.
Approximately 260-330 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using
shelterwood preparatory cuts to create a regenerated even-aged stand of lodgepole
pine over the next 20 years. 'This treatment is designed reduce the susceptibility
of lodgepole pine stands to mountain pine beetle infestations and move the
lodgepole pine landscape in the project area towards its desired condition by
creating a mosaic of age and size classes. The shelterwood prep cut would test
windfirmness of trees and avoid the appearance of sudden changes in existing
stand conditions. In general, approximately 30%-40% of the overstory would be
removed. Based on inventory information, approximately 120 to 150 basal area
(120-250 trees per acre) would be retained.
Page9of14
7/6/2004
Approximately 150-190 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using
commercial thinning to reduce the susceptibility of lodgepole pine stands to
mountain pine beetle infestations and move the lodgpole pirie landscape in the
project area towards its desired condition by creating a mosaic of age and size
classes. The commercial thinning is an intermediate cutting method used to
maintain desirable rates of growth on the retained trees. This harvest practices
does not attempt to establish natural regeneration.. In general, the target leave
basal area is around 100 square feet (120-200 overstory trees per acre).
Approximately 60-80 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using commercial.
single tree selection to meet scenery management requirements by modification of
distinct edges between past clearcuts and current mature single story lodgepole
pine stands. A mix of variably spaced trees with scattered canopy gaps would be
-- created. In general, spacing between leave trees would vary from 15 to 30 feet
scattered between randomly selected small canopy openings varying from 1/z
(40ft)to 1 %Z (120ft)tree lengths. The upper crowns would be left on site to retain
cones for natural regeneration. Natural regeneration in cutting units would be
monitored to assure minimum required stocking levels on suitable lands are met
as designated in the Forest Plan.
Reserve overstory and large tree retention would occur in nineteen of the
proposed units for scenery purposes, snag recruitment, down log recruitment, seed
source and to retain the large live tree component. These proposed units are 3, 5,
19, 21, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 55, 57 and 60.
Approximately 10-20 trees per acre of large mature overstory trees would be
retained over the rotation period and would not be cut at the final removal step of
the shelterwood seed and preparatory cuts. Species identified for retention are
lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir and sub-alpine fir.
Commercial harvest operations would be conducted using conventional ground based
logging .systems. Approximately 12.6 miles of specified road reconstruction and
reconditioning would be necessary. This includes segments on FSR 719, .FSR 786, FSR
787, FSR 720, FSR 720.1H, FSR 734, FSR 734,1C, FSR 734.1D and FSR 729. One
small gravel pit would be developed to provide materials for the specified road
reconstruction and ~ spot reconditioning activities. This pit would be restored following
completion of the specified roadwork. Surface rock replacement and maintenance
deposits would be collected on FSR 700 for future maintenance needs. Approximately
15-20 miles of temporary road would be necessary to access proposed cutting units.
These temporary roads would be closed to the public for summer motorized use and
obliterated upon completion of harvest activities.
For public safety, signs informing the public of logging and harvest operations would be
placed where Forest System Roads enter National Forest System Lands and at or near
prominent road junctions. In addition, flaggers or road closure devices would be required
to temporarily delay all traffic when harvest operations (skidding and loading) are active
Page 10 of 14
7/6/2004
along FSR 700 to the Lost Lake Trailhead; and on FSR 786 to Unit 14. Temporary road
closures would not exceed 30 minutes. Flaggers would also be required on the Lost Lake
Trail when cutting and skidding operations are occurring within two tree lengths of the
Lost Lake Trail.
Management Actions and Outputs
Each alternative will be displayed in tabular format to illustrate management activities
analyzed in detail within this document. Table 2-2 illustrates Management Actions and
Outputs for the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2).
Table 2-2, Management Actions and Outputs for the Proposed Action Alternative 2
(units of measure are approximate)
Total Area Harvested 1500-1840 acres
.. _
Volume of Fiber Harvested --
30-37 MCF
Commercial Harvest (Lodgepole Pine)
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Preparatory Cut
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Seed Cut
Commercial Harvest Thinning
Commercial Harvest, Sin le Tree Selection 1500-1840 acres
260-330 acres
1030-1240 acres
150-190 acres
60-80 acres
Area treated to reduce susc tibility to mountain ine beetle 1240-1510 acres
Wei ted Haul Distance from ro'ect area to I-70 at Wolcott, CO 27 miles
Weighted Haul Time from project area (round trip to I-70 at
Wolcott, CO) 116 minutes
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 786 and NF Bound -- 2975-3635 each
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 701 and FSR 786 2730-3340 each
Traffic Use on FSR 700 southeast of FSR 701 (low, medium, high)
Traffic Use on FSR 700 west of FSR 701 (low, medium,- hi )
Tem or Road Construction and Obliterated after use 15-20 miles
S ecified Road Reconstruction 12.6 miles.
S ecified Road Reconditioning 0 miles
Gravel Pit Develo inept 0 each
Economic Revenues
Economic Costs
Cost/Benefit Ratio $0
$0
0.0
Scenery resources, vegetation resources, heritage resources, transportation, wildlife,
recreation and watershed have design criteria and conservation practices that serve as
measures to avoid mitigation. These are located in Appendix B. Alternative 2 Map is
located in Appendix A.
Page 11 of 14
7/6/2004
2.13 Alternative 3
This alternative was developed to address transportation system public safety. In this
alternative, forest products would be hauled from the project area via FSR 700 west to
Muddy Pass, then west on County Road 6, then south on State Highway 131 to I-70
(Wolcott). Vegetation treatment objectives in this alternative remain the same as the
proposed action and were developed to improve lodgepole pine age class and size class
diversity, maintain scenic values, maintain forest health, maintain wildlife habitat,
maintain transportation system roads, reduce accumulation of natural fuels and provide
forest products to industry while meeting Forest Plan direction for all affected resources.
This proposed action would manage the vegetative landscape in the project area through
commercial timber harvest. Proposed vegetation projects include approximately 1500-
1840 acres of commercial timber harvest treatments. Vegetation that would be treated
includes lodgepole pine and incidental amounts of sub-alpine fir, aspen and Engelmann
spruce "associated with proposed- treatment units, specified road reconstruction and
temporary road construction. Proposed activities would be initiated in 2005 and be
completed by 2015. Four commercial timber sales would be implemented over the life
of the project. Approximately 30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of forest products
would be harvested. In addition, approximately xx.xx miles of Forest Service roads
would be reconstructed or reconditioned and 15-20 miles of temporary road construction
would be needed to access units for project implementation.
The following are descriptions for each proposed vegetative treatment:
Shelterwood seed cuts, shelterwood preparatory cuts, commercial thinning and
single tree selection harvest treatments would occur as proposed in Alternative 2.
Refer to Alternative 2 for vegetative treatments.
Commercial harvest operations would be conducted using conventional ground based
logging systems. Approximately xx.xx miles of specified road reconstruction and
reconditioning would be necessary. This includes segments on FSR 719, FSR 786, FSR
787, FSR 720, FSR 720.1H, FSR 734, FSR 734.1C, FSR 734.1D and FSR 729. One
small gravel pit would be developed to provide materials for the specified road
reconstruction and spot reconditioning activities. This pit would be restored following
completion of the specified roadwork. Surface rock replacement and maintenance
deposits would be collected on FSR 700 for future maintenance needs. Approximately
15-20 miles of temporary road would be necessary to access proposed cutting units.
These temporary roads would be closed to the public for summer motorized use and
obliterated upon completion of harvest activities.
For public safety, signs informing the public of logging and harvest operations would be
placed where Forest System Roads enter National Forest System Lands and at or near
prominent road junctions. In addition, flaggers or road closure devices would be required
to temporarily delay all traffic when harvest operations (skidding and loading) are active
along FSR 700 to the Lost Lake Trailhead; and on FSR 786 to Unit 14. Temporary road
closures would not exceed 30 minutes. Flaggers would also be required on the Lost Lake
Page 12 of 14
7/6/2004
Trail when cutting and skidding operations are occumng within two tree lengths of the
Lost Lake Trail.
Management Actions and Outputs
Each alternative will be displayed in tabular format to illustrate management activities
analyzed in detail within this document. Table 2-3 illustrates Management Actions and
Outputs for Alternative 3.
Table 2-3, Management Actions and Outputs for Alternative 3
(units of measure are approximate)
Total Area Harvested 1500-1840 acres
Volume of Fiber Harvested 30-37 MCF
Commercial Harvest (Lodgepole Pine)
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Preparatory Cut
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Seed Cut
Commercial Harvest Thinning
Commercial Harvest, Single Tree Selection 1500-1840 acres
260-330 acres
1030-1240 acres
150-190 acres
60-80 acres
Area treated to reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle 1240-1510 acres
Wei ted Haul Distance from ro'ect area to I-70 at Wolcott, CO 43 miles
Weighted Haul Time from project area (round trip to I-70 at Wolcott,
CO 264 minutes
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 786 and NF Bound 60-70 each
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 701 and FSR 786 2200-2680 each
Traffic Use on FSR 700 southeast of FSR 701 (low, medium, high)
Traffic Use on FSR 700 west of FSR 701 low, medium, hi )
Tem orary Road Construction and Obliterated after use 15-20 miles
S ecified Road Reconstruction 12.6 miles
S ecified Road Reconditioning 0 miles
Gravel Pit Develo ment 0 each
Economic Revenues
Economic Costs ~
CostBenefit Ratio $0
$0
0.0
Scenery resources, vegetation resources, heritage resources, transportation, wildlife,
recreation, and watershed have design criteria and conservation practices that serve as
measures to avoid mitigation. These are located in Appendix B, .Alternative 3 Map is
located in Appendix A.
Page l3 of l4
7/6/2004
2.3 Proposed Sale Area Improvement Projects
As authorized in the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (KV), a portion of the timber
receipts from the proposed commercial timber harvests would be deposited in a
cooperative account for future use in improving existing structures and renewable natural
resources within sale boundaries. These proposed projects are listed in order of priority
in Table 2-4, Sale Area Improvement (KV) Projects. Accomplishment of these projects
is dependent upon KV collections and appropriated funding. These projects will be
included in the Sale Area Improvement Plan, which is required to receive and disperse
KV funds. They are a part of both action alternatives.
Table 2-4: Sale Area Improvement (KV) Projects
1. Re eneration serve s -1St, 3 , 5 ear all re eneration treatments
2. Site re aration for natural re eneration
3. Artificial reforestation fill in lantin
4. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement cut as en to induces routin
5. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement create sna s
6. Noxious Weed Control
7. Red S rin im rovement
8. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement create brush files for snowshoe bare habitat
9. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement construct wildlife zzlers
10. Trail Construction construct sin le tract trail from FSR 720 to Lost Lake Trail
Page 14 of 14
7/6/2004
Piney Timber Sale
Sample Silvicultural Prescriptions
July 6, 2004
Piney Unit 1 Shelterwood Seed Cut
2 Step (Cut/Entries) Shelterwood
1St Shelterwood Seed Cut (step) Leave 80BA
2nd Final Removal (step) Reserve 10-201arge overstory trees
The shelterwood prescription in the lodgepole pine establishes an even age-single story forest of lodgepole pine
with minor amounts of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and aspen.
lst Shelterwood Seed Cut--Leave 80BA
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 160 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. Young seedlings are established by either seed from the lodgepole pine cones or planted, seedlings.
Seedlings are planted if a grass groundcover prevents the establishment of natural regeneration
from seeds
3. The number of established young seedlings could vary from 200 to more than 4,000 per acre
2nd Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 201arge mature overstory trees
1. After the new forest of young seedlings grow for about 10 years (they are around 4-Sft tall) all or a
portion of the remaining overstory trees are cut and removed.
2. Some (10-20) to all of the overstory trees may be retained (reserved) to meet scenery, wildlife, soils,
or forest landscape diversity needs.
The four to five foot tall seedlings will mature into a single story self pruned forest of lodgepole pine.
Page 1 of 6 7/6/2004 4:50 PM
Shelterwood Seed Cut Prescription
rear=LUUo
Unit 1
Existing Condition
ICaf-LUI!
Unit 1 in 2017
10 Years after Seed Cut
hear=LUao
Unit 1 in 2038
20 Years After Final
Removal
rear-[uu ~
Unit 1
After Seed Cut
rear-zuin
Unit 1 in 2018
After Final Removal
Page 2 of 6 7/6/2004 4:44 PM
Unit 1 in 2078
60 Years After Final
Removal
Piney Unit 19 Shelterwood Prep Cut
3 Stea (Cut/Entries) Shelterwood
st
3'~ Final Removal (step) Reserve 10-201arge overstory trees
The shelterwood prescription in the lodgepole pine establishes an even age-single story forest of lodgepole pine
with minor amounts of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and aspen.
1St Shelterwood Preparatory Cut--Leave 60% to 70% of overstory trees
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
120 to 200 trees per acre
Average distance between the trunks of the trees varies from 15ft to 20ft
2. This step is designed to check.an area for windfirmness and to avoid the appearance of a sudden
change in the mature overstory
3. Young trees are not established at this time. However during logging when feasible patches or areas
occupied by understory trees are protected.
2°d Shelterwood Seed Cut--Leave 80BA
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 160 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. Young seedlings are established by either seed from the lodgepole pine cones or planted seedlings.
Seedlings are planted if a grass groundcover prevents the establishment of natural regeneration
from seeds
3. The number of established young seedlings could vary from 200 to more than 4,000 per acre
3rd Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 201arge mature overstory trees
1. After the new forest of young seedlings grow for about 10 years (they are around 4-Sft tall) all or a
portion of the remaining overstory trees are cut and removed.
2. Some (10-20) to all of the overstory trees may be retained (reserved) to meet scenery, wildlife, soils,
or forest landscape diversity needs.
The four to five foot tall seedlings will mature into a single story self pruned forest of lodgepole pine.
Page 3 of 6 7/6/2004 4:50 PM
Shelterwood Prep Cut Prescription
a rear=~uuo
Unit 19
Existing Condition
a rear-~uo~ r=nu of
Unit 19 in 2067
40 Years After Final
Removal Cut
Page 4 of 6 7/6/2004 4:44 PM
Piney Unit 3 Shelterwood Commercial Thinning
Commercial Thin followed by a 2 SteA Shelterwood
1St Commercial Thinning--Leave l OOBA
2"d Shelterwood Seed Cut--Leave 80BA
3`~ Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 201arge overstory trees
1st Commercial Thin--Leave 100BA
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 220 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. This harvest activity is designed to maintain desirable growth rates on the retained mature overstory.
It may also be used to lengthen the rotation age by delaying the follow-up harvest prescriptions for 20 to
40 years and allow trees to reach ages beyond 160 years.
3. Young trees are not established at this time. However during logging when feasible patches or areas
occupied by understory trees are protected.
2"d Shelterwood Seed Cut-- Leave 80BA
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 160 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. Young seedlings are established by either seed from the lodgepole pine cones or planted seedlings.
Seedlings are planted if a grass groundcover prevents the establishment of natural regeneration
from seeds
3. The number of established young seedlings could vary from 200 to more than 4,000 per acre
3`d Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 201arge mature overstory trees
1. After the new forest of young seedlings grow for about 10 years (they are around 4-Sft tall) all or a
portion of the remaining overstory trees are cut and removed.
2. Some (10-20) to all of the overstory trees may be retained (reserved) to meet scenery, wildlife, soils,
or forest landscape diversity needs.
The four to five foot tall seedlings will mature into a single story self pruned forest of lodgepole pine.
Page 5 of 6 7/6/2004 4:50 PM
Shelterwood Commercial Thinning Prescription
Stand=Piney Unit #3 Year=2000Imentorv conditions Stand=Piney Unit #3 Year-2007 Beginning of cycle
Unit 3 Existing Condition Unit 3 After Commercial Thinning
y ~i ' t''
'
'
' I
y
,ii ~ I
r:~':,Vl 1„ .1 v I t
± ~ ~ ~~
:,:I ~. i ~ 1 t „
I
' ~'
~'~
~ L f,
tip
_~~ J
' ~
~ MIS ~'fi II 'I ,~ I
i~t~b I~ II'' I ! I
~ul ti li
4 It°~;
'~ I ~ ' ' ~ I ~
,, A ~
t~t
~r' 1 I
I
: 3' p, ~
Pi i tl 'i 6~ {!
h 4 , 'I ( 'r
~' ~'
~
'
''r
;
~'
~ ,
~,..
1~~. 't~ ~A.. I
1:
~
I.
f
~r I I 114t.R;1 ,I ' P'I 1 ' ~ , ~ a,~ 'I ' ~
t~~,ft^
~
1 ~ I
I i II ~, ~ I I ` ! r I+I
I ~~~ i I
q
I
~
~ ~1~s
~~
' b
,
i
,,
;f
'~
~
' i
~, ;,,4,1 ,~ ,
, rf ,,a, .
,,
'„ , ,"
, '
;
„ ~
r
' e , ~~ 1
„
~
'I
'
r
, 't, ff ~
~
~ ~
f
~,a
„ ~,
I;
, ~I ,
:I ~
,,,~~
, ~, ~ I ' I
fgl iu I v , I II t
1 i
P
A.
i li
t
fR
;I r
„~
~ ,,
,;
1 „
,
I
Itn, t
;
i
t
nt
Page 6 of 6 7/6/2004 4:44 PM
WRNF Boundary Piney Timber Sale Project Area
F°R`5`S"~ Pine River Timber Sale TemporaryRoads
Y ~ Proposed Cutting Units
U~S Holy Cross RD Red Sandstone/Muddy Pass Road ~ Roadless Areas R
rxr11or WRNF Other Roads
- Wilderness Areas
r ~ ~ ~~ r
I ~
~ A
r
~~
Muddy Pass Road ~ ~,` i ~~
' , ~
- ~,,
Red an~'White
~ ~ - %
~ Moun~iain~ r~I
r -
.~. %~ ~ +_
'• f
/
-~I
J .1
~;'~; ~ ~ ~ i J
~
{
~'.. ~
~ ~ ~
~ f ~
y}{
'~ ~~ ~ ~ !
' ~ ~ ` f~
~ Ba
Mou ~In
~ !
- - .. ,~ ~~ i ~
~' ~ ~ ~
~, 'f
1~ ~ ~,,, I
, J Red Sandstone Road
~ ~"
,~
/
~ r r
~' ~
~,f
~ ~~ `~ >I
~o 1 Vail
~
~ Avon ~L~J -
.- ~ r,
y
~
~ ~
s
I
PINEY RIVER PROJECT BRIEFING
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
JULY 6, 2004
This briefing consists of excerpts from the draft Environmental Assessment being conducted for the
Piney River Project It ispre-decisional and subject to change.
SUMMARY
The White River National Forest proposes vegetation treatments that may include the use of
commercial timber harvest to achieve management area goals and objectives. Vegetation proposed for
treatment is lodgepole pine, with minor incidental amounts of aspen, sub-alpine fir and Engelmann
spruce. The project area is located near Freeman Creek, approximately 4 air miles northwest of Vail,
Colorado and is within the Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Colorado.. This
action is needed to provide wood fiber and forest products to local industry from areas identified as
part of the suitable base, reduce the susceptibility of lodgepole pine forest type to mountain pine beetle
. ---
infestations by lowering the current stand densities, move lodgepole pine landscape toward desired
conditions by creating mosaics of age groups and size classes in the project area and improve scenic
values through rehabilitating straight, geometric edges of past clearcutting activity.
The proposed action may treat approximately 1500-1840 acres of vegetation producing approximately
30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of timber and other forest products. This alternative was designed
to achieve a balance of resource objectives to improve lodgepole pine age class and size class
diversity, improve scenic values, maintain forest health, maintain wildlife habitat, maintain
transportation system roads, reduce accumulation of natural fuels and provide forest products while
meeting Forest Plan direction for all affected resources.
In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives:
Alternative 1 allows for custodial management activities and other ecological processes to
continue uninterrupted in the Piney River Project area. The project area would be managed to
protect and maintain existing improvements and uses.
Alternative 3 would treat the same amount of vegetation in the project area and proposes
hauling forest products west on FSR 700 (Red Sandstone Road) to Muddy Pass. Alternative 3
places greater emphasis on minimizing conflicts with recreational and residential traffic on
FSR 700, as compared with Alternative 2.
Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide if vegetation treatments
should occur as proposed, not at all, or to some other extent.
Page 1 of 14
7/6/2004
1.1 General Description
The Piney River project area is located approximately 4 miles northwest of Vail, Colorado near
Freeman Creek- encompasses approximately 34,745 acres. Primary access is via Forest Service Road
(FSR) 700, also known as the Red Sandstone Road. Project opportunities include commercial timber
harvest using shelterwood preparatory and seed cuts, thinning and individual tree selection tree
removal methods to move vegetation toward its desired condition. See Vicinity Map on page 4 for
general project area location.
1.11 Management Areas included in the Project Area
The revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 (referred to as
the Forest Plan) assign management prescriptions for specific areas of land in the White River
National Forest, each with a different resource emphasis. The management areas provide the
emphasis and requirements that are used in project implementation to help achieve Forest Plan goals
and objectives... -------- -~--- ----_ -- __ -- -
The Piney River project area contains seven Management Areas and a few parcels of private land
ownership. Proposed vegetation treatments would occur in 5.13 Resource Production (Forest
products) and 5.4 Forest Flora and Fauna Habitats. Table 1-1 displays these Forest Plan Management .
Areas.
Table 1-1: Management Area Acres in Piney River Project Area
Management Area Acres
Other Lands 789
1.2 RecommendedWilderness 1,184
1.31 Backcountry Recreation, Non Motorized ~ 3,850
5.13 Resource Production (Forest products) 5,172
5.4 Forest Flora and Fauna Habitats 19,253
5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range ~ 2,277
5.42 Bighorn Sheep Habitats 931
8.32 Designated Utilities 1,291
TOTAL 34,745
Although each management area has a resource emphasis, other multiple-use activities can also occur.
Specific management area direction for these management areas is listed in Chapter 3, pp. 49-70 of the
Forest Plan. See Management Area Map on page 5.
1.12 Existing Condition
The Piney River project area contains a variety of forest and mountain shrubland vegetation. This
vegetation includes aspen, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, Douglas fir, shrubs,
serviceberry and snowberry. These vegetation types occur in a mosaic pattern and are intermixed with
meadows and natural openings. All vegetation types are generally in a mature state, except in areas
where previous harvest has regenerated lodgepole pine. Dense stands of lodgepole pine are present in
large continuous stands throughout the project area. Mountain pine beetle populations are increasing
and increasing mortality is occurring within the project area. Dwarf mistletoe is also present in a
Page 2 of 14
7/6/2004
portion of lodgepole pine stands in the project area. Engelmann spruce stands are small.in size and
generally intermixed within the lodgepole pine stands.
Natural disturbances have occurred in the project area. Wildfire has played a role in disturbance,
mainly around the turn of the century (1880-1900). Large, stand-replacing fires occurred in the area
converting conifer stands to the lodgepole pine stands we see today. Historic insect and disease
disturbances have been limited. Evidence of past mountain pine beetle activity in this area has been
local and confined to small groups of trees.
This vegetation has historically provided multiple-use benefits to the local economy for both personal
and commercial use. Forest products gathered for personal-use have included firewood, sawlogs,
houselogs, specialty woods, boughs and Christmas trees. Past silvicultural treatments that have
occurred in the project area include clear-cutting and individual tree selection. Existing clear-cuts
have treated lodgepole pine (1980's). Minor portions of other conifer cover types such as spruce/fir
have been treated with individual tree selection.
1.2--Purpose & Need- for Action
The purpose of this vegetative treatment initiative is to provide wood fiber and forest products to local
industry from areas identified as part of the suitable base while contributing to the White River
National Forest allowable timber sale quantity (ASQ), reduce the susceptibility of lodgepole pine
forest type to mountain pine beetle infestations by lowering the curent stand densities, move the
lodgepole pine landscape in the project. area towards its desired condition by creating a mosaic of age
and size classes, improve scenic values through rehabilitating straight geometric edges of past
clearcutting activity.
This action is proposed because there is a need to develop and design management practices that
would move current vegetation, scenic integrity levels and transportation systems toward their desired
conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan.
This EA is tiered to the Final Environmental .Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD)
for the revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 (referred to as
the Forest Plan). The Forest Plan identifies land use direction, standards, and guidelines for project
implementation while addressing local, regional, and national interests. The proposal and its
alternatives to the proposed action are designed to move vegetation and other resource conditions in
the project area toward the "desired condition" as outlined in the Forest Plan. The White River Forest
Plan will be incorporated by reference.
The FEIS discusses alternative long-term land uses and the environmental, economic, and social
effects of implementing these land uses. The intent of the direction in the Forest Plan is to manage
National Forest System lands for multiple-use and not for any single purpose (National Forest
Management Act of 1976, sec. 2(3).
The ROD for the Forest Plan describes a set of goals and activities for timber, wildlife, recreation,
fisheries, range, soils, watersheds and vegetation management on the White River National Forest.
Actions such as protecting soil and water resources, maintaining or enhancing wildlife habitat,
Page 3 of 14
7/6/2004
Vicinity Map
Piney. River Project
Vicinity Map
~~
U~S
a
Holy Cross Ranger Distric
White River National Fore:
Forest Service, USDA
Eagle County
Colorado
1 inch equals 14.55 miles
n
Yampa
~hite R yr e~v• Routt County
National Fo st :,
Eagle County
. ~....;
Garfield •• ;
County ~•~
~- ~~ ~
I
:~..~
_ l
Gle ood Spri s j •
White River
r'~. { National Forest
- w ._
~•_•_ •+ Ba ~ pitkin County
_ ~~
va;i
Western Colorado
ranby
Grand
County
Piney River Project Area
S~~V Ila~-
Summit
County
n
Idaho
Page4of14
7/6/2004
maintaining long-term timber production, protecting areas from insect and disease
epidemics, maintaining visual quality objectives and providing forest products for local
industry are important in implementing the Forest Plan. This EA documents the site-
specific effects of implementing the proposed action and its alternatives. The Forest Plan
and FEIS are available at the Holy Cross Ranger District, P.O. Box 190, Minturn,
Colorado 81645 or the Forest Supervisor's Office, 900 Grand Avenue, Glenwood
Springs, Colorado 81602.
1.21 Goals and Objectives
The following goals and objectives from the Forest Plan are applicable to the Piney River
Project.
Goal l: Ecosystem Health-Promote ecosystem health and conservation using a
collaborative approach to sustain the nation's forests, grasslands and watersheds
(Forest Plan, 1-3 to 1-9).
• Objective 1 a -Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide
the water quality and quantity and soil productivity necessary to
support ecological functions and intended beneficial uses.
• Objective 1 b -Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations
of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for
Management Indicator Species (MIS) and focal species.
• Objective 1 c -Ensure viability of species of concern for the White River
National Forest through implementation of-the Forest Plan and
recommendations made in the Species Viability Reports. Provide
ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired
nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator
Species (MIS) and focal species.
• Objective 1 d -Increase the amount of forest and rangelands restored to or
maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from
fires, insects, disease, and invasive species.
• Objective 1 e -Work cooperatively with individuals, organizations, local,
state, tribal, and other federal agencies to promote ecosystem health and
sustainability across landscapes.
Goal2: Multiple Benefits to People -Provide for multiple uses and sustainability
of national forests in an environmentally acceptable manner (Forest Plan, 1-10 to
1-12).
Page5of14
7/6/2004
• Objective 2c -Improve the capability of national forests and rangelands to
sustain desired uses, values, products and services.
Goal 3: Effective Public Service -Ensure the acquisition and use of an
appropriate corporate infrastructure to enable the efficient delivery of a variety of
uses (Forest Plan, 1-14).
• Objective 4a -Improve the safety and economy of Forest Service roads,
trails, facilities, and operations and provide greater security for the public
and employees.
Goal 4: Public Collaboration -Engage the American public, interested
organizations, private landowners, state and local governments, federal agencies,
and others in the stewardship of National Forest System lands (Forest Plan, 1-15): -
• Objective Sa -Work cooperatively with individuals, organizations, local,
state, tribal, and other federal agencies to promote ecosystem health and
sustainability across the landscape.
Goal 5: American Indian Rights and Interests -Engage tribal governments to
work in close coordination with the White River National Forest and in
collaboration with the American public, interested organizations, private
landowners, state, local, and federal agencies and others in the stewardship of
National Forest System lands in order to incorporate tribal resource management
values into forest management activities (Forest Plan, 1-16 to 1-17).
• Objective 6a -Coordinate closely with the three Confederated Ute Tribes
and work cooperatively with individuals and organizations, local, state and
federal governments to promote ecological, economic, and social health
and sustainability across landscapes.
Other project level objectives include:
Maintain or enhance desired biological and physical ecosystem components, and
apply management practices that mimic the frequency, intensity, duration and _
severity of natural disturbance (e.g. fire, insect and disease outbreaks) to achieve
desired landscape condition.
Provide for a variety of vegetation types, patterns and structural components to
meet Forest Plan desired conditions.
By the end of the plan period, maintain vegetation structural components, such as
successional stages, standing and downed dead trees, canopy characteristics, and
grass and forb composition, consistent with their desired conditions on 10 % to
30% of forested landscapes depending on vegetation type and component.
Page6of14
7/6/2004
By the end of the plan period, establish and maintain a healthy functioning mosaic
of vegetation types, ages, sizes and other characteristics that are consistent with
desired condition on 10% to 30% of upland landscapes depending on vegetation
type.
1.3 Proposed Action
The White River National Forest proposes vegetation treatments that would include the
use of commercial timber harvest to achieve management area goals and objectives.
Proposed vegetation projects include approximately 1500-1840 acres of commercial
timber harvest treatments. Vegetation that would be treated includes lodgepole pine and
incidental amounts of sub-alpine fir, aspen and Engelmann spruce associated with
proposed treatment units, specified road reconstruction and- temporary road construction.
Proposed activities would be initiated in 2005 and be completed by 2015. Four
commercial timber sales are proposed to be implemented over the life of the project.
Approximately 30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of forest products would be
harvested. In addition, approximately 12.6 miles of Forest Service roads would be
reconstructed or reconditioned and 15-20 miles of temporary road construction would be
needed to access units for project implementation. Forest products from the project area
would be transported south and east towards Vail via FSR 700 (Red Sandstone road),
FSR 719 (Middle Creek road), FSR 734 (Red & White Mountain road), FSR 786 (Lost
Lake road), FSR 787 (Buffer road), the North Frontage road and then to I-70. ,
1.7 Issues
An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) made up of Forest Service specialists relating to
wildlife, timber, soils, water, geology, visual, fisheries, cultural, engineering, lands, range
and recreation were formed to make site-specific resource evaluations. The role of the
IDT is to analyze public and Forest Service comments to determine relevant issues;
develop alternatives to the proposed action; analyze resource impacts; and develop
mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate environmental impacts resulting from the
proposed and alternative actions.
The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: key and non-key issues. Key
issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed
action. Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed
action; 2) already decided bylaw, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision;
3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific
or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations
require this delineation in Sec. 1501:7, "...identify and eliminate from detailed study the
issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental
review (Sec. 1506.3)...". A list ofnon-significant issues and reasons regarding their
categorization as non-significant maybe found in Appendix C.
Page7of14
7/6/2004
As for key issues, the Forest Service identified one key issue raised during scoping. This
issue concerns public safety and the transportation of forest products south and east on
FSR 700 (Red Sandstone Road) to the town of Vail. The large numbers of logging trucks
and associated logging operation vehicles have the potential to impact recreation and
residential traffic along the Red Sandstone Road.
2.0 Description of Alternatives, including the Proposed
Action
This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Piney River
project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section
also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences
between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the
decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives
is based upon the design of the project and some of the information is based upon the
environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.
The NEPA regulations (40CFR 1502.14) require exploration and objective evaluation of
the proposed action and alternatives, including a "no action" alternative. Federal
agencies are also required to include and discuss appropriate measures to mitigate
adverse environmental impacts that would result from implementing a proposed action.
The alternative descriptions include mitigation and monitoring measures necessary for
the implementation of each alternative.
The IDT team considered the issues identified through the scoping process as the primary
basis for alternative development. Alternatives were developed to respond to the
purpose, need and relevant issues in the project area, and be compatible with Forest Plan
management direction. As a guide and reference in formulating reasonable alternatives,
the IDT team applied specific Design Criteria and Conservation Practices to all action
alternatives (see Appendix B). Additionally, "Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines to
Protect Water Quality, Best Management Practices (BMP'S) for Colorado," (Colorado
State Forest Service, February 1998) were applied to formulate action alternatives.
2.1 Alternatives
2.12 Alternative 2 -Proposed Action
This alternative was developed to improve lodgepole pine age class and size class
diversity, maintain scenic values, maintain forest health, maintain wildlife habitat,
maintain transportation system roads, reduce accumulation of natural fuels and provide
forest products to industry while meeting Forest Plan direction for all affected resources.
This alternative was designed to achieve a balance of resource objectives. This proposed
Page8ofl4
7/6/2004
action would manage the vegetative landscape in the project area through commercial
timber harvest. Proposed vegetation projects include approximately 1500-1840 acres of
commercial timber harvest treatments. Vegetation that would be treated includes
lodgepole pine and incidental amounts of sub-alpine fir, aspen and Engelmann spruce
associated with proposed treatment units, specified road reconstruction and temporary
road construction. Proposed activities would be initiated in 2005 and be completed by
2015. Four commercial timber sales would be implemented over the life of the project.
Approximately 30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of forest products would be
harvested. In addition, approximately 12.6 miles of Forest Service roads would be
reconstructed or reconditioned and 15-20 miles of temporary road construction would be
needed to access units for project implementation. Forest products from the project area
would be transported south and east towards Vail via FSR 700 (Red Sandstone road),
FSR 719 (Middle Creek road), FSR 720, FSR 729, FSR 734 (Red & White Mountain
road), FSR 786 (Lost Lake road), FSR 787 (Buffer road), the North Frontage road and
- --
- --
t en to I-7 - - - - - --- - - - -
The following are descriptions for each proposed vegetative treatment:
Approximately 1030-1240 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using
shelterwood seed cuts to create a regenerated even-age stand of lodgepole pine
over the next 10-20 years. This treatment is designed reduce the susceptibility of
lodgepole pine stands to mountain pine beetle infestations and move the
lodgepole pine landscape in the project area towards its desired condition by
creating a mosaic of age and size classes. This treatment would open the canopy
enough to create forest floor conditions. suitable for natural regeneration. In
general, 80 square feet of basal area would be retained (approximately 80 to 160
trees per acre). Upper cone bearing crowns would be left on site to initiate natural
regeneration. These treatments are designed reduce the susceptibility of -
lodgepole pine stands to mountain pine beetle infestations and move the
lodgepole- pine landscape in the project area towards its desired condition by
creating a mosaic of age and size classes. The shape and size of the proposed
harvest units are designed to blend with the current mix of natural openings
within project area. Proposed unit edges and shapes would be designed to retain a
variable mix of trees, densities and age/size classes. Natural regeneration in
cutting units would be monitored to assure required minimum stocking levels on
suitable lands are met as designated in the Forest Plan.
Approximately 260-330 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using
shelterwood preparatory cuts to create a regenerated even-aged stand of lodgepole
pine over the next 20 years. This treatment is designed reduce the susceptibility
of lodgepole pine stands to mountain pine beetle infestations and move the
lodgepole pine landscape in the project area towards its desired condition by
creating a mosaic of age and size classes. The shelterwood prep cut would test
windfirmness of trees and avoid the appearance of sudden changes in existing
stand conditions. In general, approximately 30%-40% of the overstory would be
removed. Based on inventory information, approximately 120 to 150 basal area
(120-250 trees per acre) would be retained.
Page9of14
7/6/2004
Approximately 150-190 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using
commercial thinning to reduce the susceptibility of lodgepole pine stands to
mountain pine beetle infestations and move the lodgpole pine landscape in the
project area towards its desired condition by creating a mosaic of age and size
classes. The commercial thinning is an intermediate cutting method used to
maintain desirable rates of growth on the retained trees. This harvest practices
does not attempt to establish natural regeneration. In general, the target leave
basal area is around 100 square feet (120-200 overstory trees per acre).
Approximately 60-80 acres of lodgepole pine would be treated using commercial
single tree selection to meet scenery management requirements by modification of
distinct edges between past clearcuts and current mature single story lodgepole
pine stands. A mix of variably spaced trees with scattered canopy gaps would be
-- created:- In general, spacing between leave trees would vary from 15 to 30 feet --
scattered between randomly selected small canopy openings varying from 'h
(40ft)to 1 '/z (120ft)tree lengths. The upper crowns would be left on site to retain
cones for natural regeneration. Natural regeneration in cutting units would be
monitored to assure minimum required stocking levels on suitable lands are met
as designated in the Forest Plan.
Reserve overstory and large tree retention would occur in nineteen of the
proposed units for scenery purposes, snag recruitment, down log recruitment, seed
source and to retain the large live tree component. These proposed units are 3, 5,
19, 21, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 55, 57 and 60.
Approximately 10-20 trees per acre of large mature overstory trees would be
retained over the rotation period and would not be cut at the final removal step of
the shelterwood seed and preparatory cuts. Species identified for retention are
lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir and sub-alpine fir.
Commercial harvest operations would be conducted using conventional ground based
logging systems. Approximately 12.6 miles of specified road reconstruction and
reconditioning would be necessary. This includes segments on FSR 719, FSR 786, FSR
787, FSR 720, FSR 720.1H, FSR 734, FSR 734,1C, FSR 734.1D and FSR 729. One
small gravel pit would be developed to provide materials for the specified road
reconstruction and spot reconditioning activities. This pit would be restored following
completion of the specified roadwork. Surface rock replacement and maintenance
deposits would be collected on FSR 700 for future maintenance needs. Approximately
15-20 miles of temporary road would be necessary to access proposed cutting units.
These temporary roads would be closed to the public for summer motorized use and
obliterated upon completion of harvest activities.
For public safety, signs informing the public of logging and harvest operations would be
placed where Forest System Roads enter National Forest System Lands and at or near
prominent road junctions. In addition, flaggers or road closure devices would be required
to temporarily delay all traffic when harvest operations (skidding and loading) are active
Page 10 of 14
7/6/2004
along FSR 700 to the Lost Lake Trailhead; and on FSR 786 to Unit 14. Temporary road
closures would not exceed 30 minutes. Flaggers would also be required on the Lost Lake
Trail when cutting and skidding operations are occurring within two tree lengths of the
Lost Lake Trail.
Management Actions and Outputs
Each alternative will be displayed in tabular format to illustrate management activities
analyzed in detail within this document. Table 2-2 illustrates Management Actions and
Outputs for the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2).
Table 2-2, Management Actions and Outputs for the Proposed Action Alternative 2
(units of measure are approximate)
Total Area Harvested 1500-1840 acres
Volume of Fiber Harvested 30-37 MCF
Commercial Harvest (Lodgepole Pine)
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Preparatory Cut
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Seed Cut
Commercial Harvest Thinning
Commercial Harvest, Sin le Tree Selection 1500-1840 acres
260-330 acres
1030-1240 acres
150-190 acres
60-80 acres
Area treated to reduce susc tibility to mountain ine beetle 1240-1510 acres
Wei ted Haul Distance from ro'ect area to I-70 at Wolcott, CO 27 miles
Weighted Haul Time from project area (round trip to I-70 at
Wolcott, CO) 116 minutes
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 786 and NF Bound -- 2975-3635 each
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 701 and FSR 786 2730-3340 each
Traffic Use on FSR 700 southeast of FSR 701 (low, medium, high)
Traffic Use on FSR 700 west of FSR 701 low, medium, hi )
Tem or Road Construction and Obliterated after use 15-20 miles
S ecified Road Reconstruction 12.6 miles
S ecified Road Reconditioning 0 miles
Gravel Pit Develo ment 0 each
Economic Revenues
Economic Costs -
Cost/Benefit Ratio $0
$0
0.0
Scenery resources, vegetation resources, heritage resources, transportation, wildlife,
recreation and watershed have design criteria and conservation practices that serve as
measures to avoid mitigation. These are located in Appendix B. Alternative 2 Map is
located in Appendix A.
Page 11 of 14
` 7/6/2004
2.13 Alternative 3
This alternative was developed to address transportation system public safety. In this
alternative,, forest products would be hauled from the project area via FSR 700 west to
Muddy Pass, then west on County Road 6, then south on State Highway 131 to I-70
(Wolcott). Vegetation treatment objectives in this alternative remain the same as the
proposed action and were developed to improve lodgepole pine age class and size class
diversity, maintain scenic values, maintain forest health, maintain wildlife habitat,
maintain transportation system roads, reduce accumulation of natural fuels and provide
forest products to industry while meeting Forest Plan direction for all affected resources.
This proposed action would manage the vegetative landscape in the project area through
commercial timber harvest. Proposed vegetation projects include approximately 1500-
1840 acres of commercial timber harvest treatments. Vegetation that would be treated
includes lodgepole pine and incidental amounts of sub-alpine fir, aspen and Engelmann
spruce associated with proposed treatment units, specified road reconstruction and
temporary road construction. Proposed activities would be initiated in 2005 and be
completed by 2015. Four commercial timber sales would be implemented over the life
of the project. Approximately 30 to 37 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of forest products
would be harvested. In addition, approximately xx.xx miles of Forest Service roads
would be reconstructed or reconditioned and 15-20 miles of temporary road construction
would be needed to access units for project implementation.
The following are descriptions for each proposed vegetative treatment:
Shelterwood seed cuts, shelterwood preparatory cuts, commercial thinning and
single tree selection harvest treatments would occur as proposed in Alternative 2.
Refer to Alternative 2 for vegetative treatments.
Commercial harvest operations would be conducted using conventional ground based
logging systems. Approximately xx.xx miles of specified road reconstruction and
reconditioning would be necessary. This includes segments on FSR 719, FSR 786, FSR
787, FSR 720, FSR 720.1H, FSR 734, FSR 734.1C, FSR 734.1D and FSR 729. One
small gravel pit would be developed to provide materials for the specified road
reconstruction and spot reconditioning activities. This pit would be restored following
completion of the specified roadwork. Surface rock replacement and maintenance
deposits would be collected on FSR 700 for- future maintenance needs. Approximately
15-20 miles of temporary road would be necessary to access proposed cutting units.
These temporary roads would be closed to the public for summer motorized use and
obliterated upon completion of harvest activities.
For public safety, signs informing the public of logging and harvest operations would be
placed where Forest System Roads enter National Forest System Lands and at or near
prominent road junctions. In addition, flaggers or road closure devices would be required
to temporarily delay all traffic when harvest operations (skidding and loading) are active
along FSR 700 to the Lost Lake Trailhead; and on FSR 786 to Unit 14. Temporary road
closures would not exceed 30 minutes. Flaggers would also be required on the Lost Lake
Page 12 of 14
7/6/2004
Trail when cutting and skidding operations are occurring within two tree lengths. of the
Lost Lake Trail.
Management Actions and Outputs
Each alternative will be displayed in tabular format to illustrate management activities
analyzed in detail within this document. Table 2-3 illustrates Management Actions and
Outputs for Alternative 3.
Table 2-3, Management Actions and Outputs for Alternative 3
(units of measure are approximate)
Total Area Harvested 1500-1840 acres
Volume of Fiber Harvested 30-37 MCF
Commercial Harvest (Lodgepole Pine)
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Preparatory Cut
Commercial Harvest Shelterwood Seed Cut
Commercial Harvest Thinning
Commercial Harvest, Single Tree Selection 1500-1840 acres
260-330 acres
1030-1240 acres
150-190 acres
60-80 acres
Area treated to reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle 1240-1510 acres
.Wei ted Haul Distance from ro'ect area to I-70 at Wolcott, CO 43 miles
Weighted Haul Time from project area (round trip to I-70 at Wolcott,
CO) 264 minutes
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 786 and NF Bound 60-70 each
Estimated number of loaded log trucks hauling on FSR 700 between
FSR 701 and FSR 786 2200-2680 each
Traffic Use on FSR 700 southeast of FSR 701 (low, medium, high)
Traffic Use on FSR 700 west of FSR 701 (low, medium, hi )
Tem or Road Construction and Obliterated after use 15-20 miles
S ecified Road Reconstruction 12.6 miles
S ecified Road Reconditioning 0 miles
Gravel Pit Develo ment 0 each
Economic Revenues
Economic Costs
Cost/Benefit Ratio ~$0
$0
0.0
Scenery resources, vegetation resources, heritage resources, transportation, wildlife,
recreation, and watershed have design criteria and conservation practices that serve as
measures to avoid mitigation. These are located in Appendix B. Alternative 3 Map is
located in Appendix A.
Page 13 of 14
7/6/2004
2.3 Proposed Sale Area Improvement Projects
As authorized in the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (KV), a portion of the timber
receipts from the proposed commercial timber harvests would be deposited in a
cooperative account for future use in improving existing structures and renewable natural
resources within sale boundaries. These proposed projects are listed in order of priority
in Table 2-4, Sale Area Improvement (KV) Projects. Accomplishment of these projects
is dependent upon KV collections and appropriated funding. These projects will be
included in the Sale Area Improvement Plan, which is required to receive and disperse
KV funds. 'They are a part of both action alternatives.
Table 2-4: Sale Area Improvement (KV) Projects
1. Re eneration surve s -1St, 3r , 5 ear all re eneration treatments
2. Site re aration for natural re eneration
3. Artificial reforestation fill in lantin
4. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement cut as en to induces routin
5. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement create sna s
6. Noxious Weed Control
7. Red S rin im rovement
8. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement create brush files for snowshoe bare habitat
9. Wildlife Habitat Im rovement construct wildlife zzlers
10. Trail Construction construct sin le tract trail from FSR 720 to Lost Lake Trail
Page 14 of 14
7/6/2004
Piney Timber Sale
Sample Silvicultural Prescriptions
July 6, 2004
Piney Unit 1 Shelterwood Seed Cut
2 Step (Cut/Entries) Shelterwood
St
Leave
The Shelterwood prescription in the lodgepole pine establishes an even age-single story forest of lodgepole pine
_ with minor amounts of Engelmann_spruce, subalpine fir and aspen.______
1St Shelterwood Seed Cut--Leave 80BA
1.. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 160 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. Young seedlings are established by either seed from the lodgepole pine cones or planted seedlings.
Seedlings are planted if a grass groundcover prevents the establishment of natural regeneration
from seeds
3. The number of established young seedlings could vary from 200 to more than 4,000 per acre
2na Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 201arge mature overstory trees
1. After the new forest of young seedlings grow for about 10 years (they are around 4-Sft tall) all or a
portion of the remaining overstory trees are cut and removed.
2. Some (10-20) to all of the overstory trees may be retained (reserved) to meet scenery, wildlife, soils,
or forest landscape diversity needs.
The four to five foot tall seedlings will mature into a single story self pruned forest of lodgepole pine.
Page 1 of 6 7/6/2004 4:50 PM
Shelterwood Seed Cut Prescription
Sand=Piney_Unit_#1 Year-2017 Beginning of cycle Sgntl=Piney_Uni[_#1 Year-2016 eeglnning of cycle
Unit 1 in 2017 Unit 1 in 2018
10 Years after Seed Cut After Final Removal
~ ,
~' ~ I 1 'I' y' f ' I i l I I Ib I I I\
~`I~ i I 7 ~ •1 I, IV , I 4 i ' I I 1~ I + I
1711 I, fl'~ i ~ +}~I Il l~ i, l l l i1 F h ~ I ~ Q +
'I I I I l i I I I I l i I 4,
`f IV I 1 , , ~ I +V II I i' i it i + ~ + 1
i
/I ' I I I'' I ~ ~ ~I ' 1 1 ' I I +I i ~ '' I , 11
Page 2 of 6 7/6/2004 4:44 PM
Piney Unit 19 Shelterwood Prep Cut
3 Step (Cut/Entries) Shelterwood
lst Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (step) Leave 60% to 70% of the mature trees
2nd Shelterwood Seed Cut (step) Leave 80BA
3rd Final Removal (step) Reserve 10-201arge overstory trees
The Shelterwood prescription in the lodgepole pine establishes an even age-single story forest of lodgepole pine
with minor amounts of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and aspen.
1St Shelterwood Preparatory Cut--Leave 60% to 70% of overstory trees
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
120 to 200 trees per acre
_ _ _ __ Average_distance between the_trunks of the trees. varies from.l5ft to 20ft_ _ _ _ _ _
2. This step is designed to check.an area for windfirmness and to avoid the appearance of a sudden
change in the mature overstory
3. Young trees are not established at this time. However during logging when feasible patches or areas
occupied by understory trees are protected.
2na Shelterwood Seed Cut--Leave 80BA
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 160 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. Young seedlings are established by either seed from the lodgepole pine cones or planted seedlings.
Seedlings are planted if a grass groundcover prevents the establishment of natural regeneration
from seeds
3. The number of established young seedlings could vary from 200 to more than 4,000 per acre
3`d Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 20 large mature overstory trees
1. After the new forest of young seedlings grow for about 10 years (they are around 4-Sft tall) all or a
portion of the remaining overstory trees are cut and removed.
2. Some (10-20) to all of the overstory trees may be retained (reserved) to meet scenery, wildlife, soils,
or forest landscape diversity needs.
The four to five foot tall seedlings will mature into a single story self pruned forest of lodgepole pine.
Page 3 of 6 7/6/2004 4:50 PM
Shelterwood Prep Cut Prescription
a rear=luuo
Unit 19
Existing Condition
Unit 19 in 2067
40 Years After Final
Removal Cut
Page 4 of 6 7/6/2004 4:44 PM
Piney Unit 3 Shelterwood Commercial Thinning
Commercial Thin followed by a 2 Step Shelterwood
1St Commercial Thinning--Leave l OOBA
2"d Shelterwood Seed Cut--Leave 80BA
3~ Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 201arge overstory trees
1St Commercial Thin-- Leave 100BA
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 220 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. This harvest activity is designed to maintain desirable growth rates on the retained mature overstory.
It may also be used to lengthen the rotation age by delaying the follow-up harvest prescriptions for 20 to
40 years and allow trees to reach ages beyond 160 years.
___ __ 3_, Young trees are not established at this time. However during logging when feasible patches or areas _
occupied by understory trees are protected.
2na Shelterwood Seed Cut-- Leave 80BA
1. Retains the larger healthy mature overstory trees
80 to 160 trees per acre
Average distance between the tree trunks varies from 15ft to 25ft
2. Young seedlings are established by either seed from the lodgepole pine cones or planted seedlings.
Seedlings are planted if a grass groundcover prevents the establishment of natural regeneration
from seeds
3. The number of established young seedlings could vary from 200 to more than 4,000 per acre
3ra Final Removal--Reserve 10 to 201arge mature overstory trees
1. After the new forest of young seedlings grow for about 10 years (they are around 4-Sft tall) all or a
portion of the remaining overstory trees are cut and removed.
2. Some (10-20) to all of the overstory trees may be retained (reserved) to meet scenery, wildlife, soils,
or forest landscape diversity needs.
The four to five foot tall seedlings will mature into a single story self pruned forest of lodgepole pine.
Page 5 of 6 7/6/2004 4:50 PM
Shelterwood Commercial Thinning Prescription
Stand=Piney Unit #3 Year=2000 Inventory conditions Stand=Piney Unit #3 Year-2007 Beainnina of cycle
Unit 3 Existing Condition Unit 3 After Commercial Thinning
; - ~
I 'I I ' 7 ' - I
i 1 ,~i i
~ , ' ,' ,
'
I
l
'
r
~
t ~ F}
i ,~
~y~ ,~ ~
' ~
~ ~~ ~
''
I ~ ~ .4 F
~" ., I ,''
I~ '~.
i ~ ~ ~ ~ „'~ I + I !
'il
I II ,
~~
l ~
;
~ I
'
,
I~~
l~r
'
~~ I I
i
,
t
~ 4 I ~ ~ it i ~~~
(; rl III. ~' f i l } i' ~
lulu ! a ~I ~ t 11 , , ' , ~ '
S 1 S ~1~}II I ~ III ~ I~ ~ + I i' li ~ ~ } i' I + r ~ ~ {~~
rryy11 t
:~,i i ry
I
~ V
I
~h
I '~
f V
~
MI I I
l I
I 1 ~I
I
l
~
h~
~
~ }
~ ~
i
4 r
~l i S,', y „ t, 'la I}
I - '~
t
' '
I
~
{
h A
~
i lil '} ~ i ~ I ~~~ I ~ ~ ' 1 ~, I
i ~
' .p t 1 I I ~.,
j,.
l
.~~ ~hf~li I
I
I `
V
i
lu
t
li
i
1
1
I
+
S ~.,`i l
t1 }
t tl !1 1~ tI'; A ~ ~' 1 ~ i i ~ I ~ I ~
l i~li) tI jS
r t I d ~7 1
l
II
IIII I! n~~VI II iI ~ tt I II It I
b S
4~
{
`t
I~
'. : ti5 f
~ H9 y I
} 1 I S
~
I
l
Itl
~
H
i
Page 6 of 6 7/6/2004 4:44 PM
:- ~,_r
~ ~-~ ~ ~
Yq,:. 1. M
~. ra,. * pi
~ r ~a y
. ~~:. ~ A `' ~~ ~~~ ~ . ail ~~~It 6 ~'i
RtF i ~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~ 6
r ~~
~~ ~ . _ ~„
~~ -~~
~, ,
~,~~ .'
{f
Y*
A
T
° I
a ~
~~ ~ ~ +' ~ ~ Y v.~s , a ~ p ~' `~k rte, :. ~.. + 4; , ~` '` ~ ~ ~`rR,` ~
V q ~, _ ~~ur ~ '~ t 1~, ~ ~ ti~~ k §y~Gy'~H M xifti-,
, M _ ~' i y, r .~A. ~~ J m ~ i ~~,.,i"#-c k~ _ yr, '~ ~ h
~ ! ~~ b^
„ ~ ~ id d ~ ~r ~ ~` ~ ~. ~ u p4~ k
4d'x uw~6 ~~'~ ~'~" r~ ~ €'~.h~ ~. ti ~~ ~~N j. `. s - rIY ,~.~~ ~~ r. ~5 I
~iAR ~ ~~ 4~ kft ~Cx P li d= xu ~. ~~,. d ~ ~ ~~ ire ~ ly j~((,~y ~} ~ i'~i ii
~~~(~ ~'•' ~... P t e ~ W- ~~~ ~~ilk f}~eg0 L; '~~ ~_ ~ is ~ ~~~i~1.~.~A'',~j `~~ N~ ~~i' ~x ,. ~~~ ~ ~. °j~~ ~I ~{ `-., f
~,~ ~ f'~ ~~~ "~ ~ ! ° ~ ~ y, ~~it~~ ~~ ~~~ pia a'~`~ wd'yy , ~~ ~~ r ~~~ ~ ° ~~ ^ i ~ °~~ x ~° ~ ~^ gg
~ ~~~~ d~ ~ ~ys ~ afl i~` t~p~ ~, b°"~~"~ ,illy, ~ ~~'~~ .4 s ~ ~ J ,R a y,,iP ~~` ~~~ ~~ ~d~` V `~
~ p ~ 49Y~~+ ~, ti~ ~ ~ P 1,~n ~' .ia ng` t s ~ h5 1 i~
LP j~~w~ ~ i r ,. a ~~ a ~ dP{ d ~~, ~ ~ ft rvr h:~'o~~w ~~'fe ~~
v~ ~' tEN ~ ~ i ;h}} i j,
',
7~ ~ti `I ~~~ §'` ~a ys ~~ y ,s it , '~ I ~.
,.
i ah ~~ ^~ 4. ~, ,y
t
r z~`, t
t
A
e',
f': ?F
H s ~~ ~^ ~ k t,E.,i
. ~!' .TW'~c° d
~~ __ ~ :.
~+ r• ,
,,, ;/
-~~
',
4:... V ~~~~.
1
~~
T
~i
~~r
~~ ~~
~rnberger
i
orstell
wHri. F.~em~x~=c.M.~
~'
~ '~ pe
`~~,_1 ~
``
~~
i
~:: _..,.
,_. ' z
--
~~ ~ .~~
VAIL CONFERENCE CENTER
TOWN OF VAIL
MORTERARCH ITECTS
!r
~~
~~~ Ian UMWIRAj al A~,eTiwrce
o.~». ca.....d, c«... ww
r.'
~'a`~ ''r4-~
a
~.
,~~~~~,
..........
VAIL CONFERENCE CENTER
TOWN O F VA! L
k ~ MORTERARCH ITECTS
::
~ . _. ~.,~
\~
~!~''°*-
'''~ ,
!, ~
';
,. ~...,...... c...«
-'~
~~ ~~
-:~
~. -
~~"~
a U'~l
- ~,
~' i
~r.r"a,(11
:C."-i;'!~'.)4F 4tAfJ\R:G !h'l:41UY5
n.. !.«un» C«a«.nc. c«.a. m nb sx.roa» ew.. ron ewe a m.,«.
I
TVS / VAg
TVS & Associates, Inc.
The leading conference /convention center
designer in the United States
AIA Architecture Firm Award ••2002
Two AIA National Design Awards for Conference /
Convention Facilities
Designers of over 50 conference /convention facilities
VAg Architecture, Inc.
The Vail Valley's most innovative and
responsive design firm
Work published in national magazines including
Mountain Homestyle, Colorado Homes and Lifestyles,
Traditional Home
Local involvement in Habitat for Humanity projects,
review boards and regulatory agencies, founded
5th Grade Excellence Awards
Over 12 projects in the Town of Vail and over 350
projects in the Rocky Mountains
Benchmark Hospitality
Worldwide consulting and management of
conference centers
Founding member of the International Association of
Conference Centers (IACC)
Manages 30 conference centers and resorts throughout
the US, Canada and Japan
Technical services provided for over 30 major projects
encompassing over 5 million sf
Consultants
Experienced regional consultant team
Monroe & Newell Engineering, Inc. (Structural)
Johnson Kunkel & Associates, Inc. (Civil)
M•E Engineers, Inc. (MEP/FP)
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Traffic)
Carl Walker, Inc. (Parking)
~_~ _~
ur Team Brings You
Deep experience in
Commitment to Vail's quality of life
Great listenerswho respect your vision
Skilled facilitators of a collaborative
process
Highly experienced key personnel
Innovative solutions inspired by your
vision & budget
Sustainabilityas acore value
Understandingof your customers and
H1gh quality design aesthetically and
Functionally