Loading...
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