HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-19 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Evening Meeting Agenda
VAIL TO W N C O U N C IL R E G U L AR ME E TIN G
Evening Agenda
Town Council C hambers and Virtual on Zoom
6:00 P M, April 19, 2022
Meeting to be held in C ouncil Chambers and Virtually on
Zoom (access H igh Five Access Media livestream day of the
meeting)
Notes:
Times of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time C ounc il will
consider an item.
Public comment will be taken on each agenda item.
Citizen participation offers an opportunity for citizens to express opinions or ask questions regarding town
services, policies or other matters of community conc ern, and any items that are not on the agenda. Please
attempt to keep c omments to three minutes; time limits established are to provide efficienc y in the c onduct of the
meeting and to allow equal opportunity for everyone wishing to speak.
1.Citizen Participation (10 min.)
1.1.Citizen Participation
1.2.Vail Resorts Handout given to Council during meeting
2.Any action as a result of executive session
3.Announcement of Grand Prize Winner of E-Bike Following Close of 2022
Town of Vail Community Survey
3.1.Announcement of Grand Prize W inner of E-Bike Following Close of 2022
Town of Vail Community Survey
5 min.
Presenter(s): Mayor Langmaid
The 2022 Town of Vail Community Survey was conducted between March
21 and April 18 with more than 1,000 participants taking part. As a thank
you to community members for their participation, respondents were eligible
to win an e-bike in a grand prize drawing on April 19, plus ten $100 Visa gift
cards from among the completed surveys. The e-bike grand prize is a Giant
Roam E+ thanks to generous support from Venture Sports. Results from the
survey will be presented to the Town Council and community on J une 7.
4.Proclamations
4.1.Proclamation No. 4, Series of 2022 50th Anniversary of the Vail
Symposium
5 min.
Presenter(s): Dale Mosier, Vail Symposium Board Chair, Rob LeVine, Vail
Symposium Treasurer, Kathy Kimmel, Vail Symposium Board Member, and
Karen Nold, Vail Symposium Board Member
April 19, 2022 - Page 1 of 569
Background: The Vail Symposium has continued for 50 years to create
year-round, thought-provoking programs encompassing topics such as
geopolitics, hot topics, environmental awareness, unlimited adventure, health
and well-being, economics, consciousness and more, all with respected and
recognized knowledgeable presenters; as such, as an accredited 501(c)(3)
non-profit organization, the Vail Symposium has played an important role in
the growth of our multi-cultural community.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Proclamation No. 4, Series of 2022 50th
Anniversary of the Vail Symposium
5.Consent Agenda (5 min.)
5.1.March 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes
5.2.March 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes
5.3.Resolution No. 16, Series of 2022, A Resolution Approving an
I ntergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Colorado
Department of Transportation regarding Sediment Control Disposal Area on
the North Side of I nterstate 70 at Approximately M.P. 178-179
Background: The Town and the Colorado Department of Transportation
wish to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the construction of a
sand/dirt storage facility on I nterstate 70 Right of W ay, in the Town Tracts A
& C and Town easement area, with the Bald Mountain Townhomes
Association for the purpose of sand/dirt storage and to provide aesthetic
and noise mitigation to the surrounding neighbors.
Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny
Resolution No. 16, Series of 2022.
5.4.Resolution No. 17, Series of 2022, A Resolution Approving an Agreement
between the Town of Vail and the Eagle County Sheriff's Office for the
Purchase of K-9 Echo
Background: The Vail Police Department hired an Eagle County Sheriff's
Deputy that is currently serving as a K-9 officer. The Vail P D would like to
buy the K-9 from E C S O to keep the K-9 in service.
Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny
Resolution No. 17, Series of 2022.
5.5.Resolution No. 18, Series of 2022, A Resolution of the Town of Vail to J oin
the United Nations Global Mountain Partnership
Background: The Town’s goals and values are aligned with the mission of
the Mountain Partnership, a United Nations voluntary alliance of interested
governments and organizations committed to working together with the
common goal of achieving Sustainable Mountain Development around the
world.
Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny
Resolution No. 18, Series of 2022.
5.6.Resolution No. 19, Series of 2022, Fire Free Five Funding
Background: At the April 5 Town Council Meeting, the Vail Town Council
approved funding for a financial assistance program to assist property
owners with creating a 5' non-combustible zone around their property.
Funding for this program was included in the second reading of the budget
April 19, 2022 - Page 2 of 569
supplemental. This Resolution formally establishes the Fire Free Five
Community Assistance Program.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 2022
establishing the Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program
5.7.Letters of I ntent and I nvitation to Visit Vail (to St. Moritz, Switzerland
Officials and St. Anton am Arlberg, Austria Officials) in support of Vail's
Peer Resort Exchange Program
5.8.Contract Award to Stone Security to Support the Milestone Camera
Software
Background: The Milestone camera software system is used to store and
review the video footage gathered by over 240 cameras positioned around
town. This video has been extensively used by the Police Department to
assist with investigations and by the Parking department to track various
issues in our structures. The Milestone system has become a critical tool in
their day-to-day operations, and this support agreement ensures that the
software is kept up to date and functioning effectively.
Staff Recommendation: Direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement
in a form approved by the Town Attorney with Stone Security, LLC in the
amount of $53,250 to support the town’s Milestone camera software system.
5.9.Contract Award to American Mechanical Services for Police Department
Rooftop Unit Replacement
Background: There are eight roof top units which provide heating and
cooling to the department interior spaces. Over the past two years four out
of the eight units have been replaced. This will be year number three and
the plan is to replace unit numbers five and six. The new units are state of
the art and are much more efficient than the existing units. They utilize
condensing cooling eliminating the outdated existing evaporative cooling.
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an
agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with American
Mechanical Services to replace the Police Department's rooftop unit in the
amount not to exceed $86,034.00.
5.10.Contract Award with Eagle Valley Events for the production of Vail America
Days Parade
Background: An RF P was published to find an event producer to execute
the Vail America Days Parade. Laurie Asmussen of Eagle Valley Events
submitted a proposal that was reviewed and approved by the Commission
on Special Events.
Staff Recommendation: Direct the town manager to enter into an
agreement, on a form approved by the town attorney, with Eagle Valley
Events for the production of the Vail America Days parade and
entertainment in an amount not to exceed $70,000.
6.Town Manager Report (10 min.)
7.Action Items
7.1.Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending
Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to Establish Setbacks from Gore Creek and
its Tributaries
45 min.
Presenter(s): Peter Wadden, Water Quality and Greg Roy, Senior Planner
Action Requested of Council:
April 19, 2022 - Page 3 of 569
Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2022, upon first reading.
Background: The Gore Creek Strategic Plan, adopted by Vail Town Council
in 2016, identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the
three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan
recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian zones,
vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and
maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).” The Planning and Environmental
Commission (P E C) heard this application at seven different meetings and
forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022.
Staff Recommendation: Approve first reading Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2022
7.2.E RW S D Temporary Construction License Agreement Extension 5 min
Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer
Action Requested of Council: Approve extension of Temporary Construction
License
Background:
Last year E RW S D began replacing a 50+ year old sewer main bridge that
crosses the Eagle River in Dowd J unction adjacent to the Gore Valley Trail
pedestrian bridge. The Town granted E RW S D a temporary construction
license agreement to allow E RW S D to use town property for access and
staging. T he license expired on November 15, 2021 and ERWSD is
requesting to extend the license through October 15, 2022.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving this request and directing the Town Manager
to extend the existing license agreement in a form approved by the Town
attorney.
7.3.2022 Ford Park Summer Managed Parking Program 10 min.
Presenter(s): Greg Hall, Public W orks Director, Steph Kashiwa Parking
Operations Manager
Action Requested of Council: I nput and approval requested
Background: Each spring the summer activities and events calendar is
reviewed by the Ford Park User Groups, including representatives from
Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation ( GRFA), Betty
Ford Alpine Gardens, Bravo! Vail and Walking Mountain Science Center as
operators of Vail Nature Center). The proposed managed parking program
calendar is attached.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the 2022 Ford Park Summer Managed
Parking Program
7.4.Contract Award with Fehr & Peers for Vail Mobility & Transportation Master
Plan
10 min.
Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Engineer
Action Requested of Council: Ask questions.
Background: The Town of Vail has budgeted to complete an update to the
2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. The new plan will ultimately provide
an updated Master Plan for Mobility and Transportation within Vail for the
foreseeable future. The Town received 3 proposals.
Staff Recommendation: Award the contract to Fehr & Peers in the amount
of $300,000 in a form approved by the Town Attorney
8.Public Hearings
April 19, 2022 - Page 4 of 569
8.1.Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022, Second Reading, An Ordinance
Amending Various Sections of the Vail Town Code Relating to Alcoholic
Beverages, to Reflect Changes in State Law
5 min.
Presenter(s): Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny
second reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022.
Background: The Colorado General Assembly recently passed, and the
Governor recently signed into law, House Bill 18-1023 and House Bill 18-
1025, which will move sections of Title 12 of Colorado Revised States into a
new Title 44, effective October 1, 2018 and the Town Council wishes to
update the Vail Town Code accordingly.
Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny second
reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022.
9.Adjournment
9.1.Adjournment 7:50 pm (estimate)
Meeting agendas and materials can be acc es s ed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail webs ite
www.vailgov.com. All town c ouncil meetings will be streamed live by High F ive Ac cess Media and available
for public viewing as the meeting is happening. T he meeting videos are als o posted to High F ive Ac cess Media
website the week following meeting day, www.highfivemedia.org.
P leas e c all 970-479-2136 for additional information. S ign language interpretation is available upon reques t with
48 hour notification dial 711.
April 19, 2022 - Page 5 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Citizen P articipation
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Citizen Participation
April 19, 2022 - Page 6 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Condemnation of Booth Heights Property
Date:Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:42:52 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe McHugh <mjoemchugh@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 3:46 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Condemnation of Booth Heights Property
Ladies / Gentlemen:
Please give your wholehearted support to the condemnation proceedings on the Booth Heights property. Clearly,
Vail Resorts has never negotiated with the TOV in good faith and the proposed action is entirely justified.
Joe McHugh
4014 Bighorn Road
Vail, CO 81657
970-331-9038
April 19, 2022 - Page 7 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: VR and employee housing
Date:Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:50:19 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Mike Beltracchi <mikebeltracchi@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:42 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: VR and employee housing
If VR is so fired up about building employee housing that is beneficial for everyone, then why don't
they build it where it's contiguous with other residential areas on land that they already own, Ever
Vail? Employees could walk to Lionshead and mountain jobs and the in town bus route could easily
be extended from the Marriott/Hythe to just a bit farther west.
--
Mike Beltracchi
Edwards, CO
970-471-3519 c
April 19, 2022 - Page 8 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights project support
Date:Thursday, April 14, 2022 5:03:56 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Michael Lange <michael.lange@vacasa.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:43 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights project support
Hello Vail Town Council,
I am writing to express support for the proposed Booth Heights employee housing project in East
Vail. As a lodging property manager in Vail, staffing is becoming more and more challenging and
expensive each year, due in large part to a lack of affordable housing for front line employees in the
Vail Valley. It's been a challenge in Vail since I moved to the valley 30+ years ago and we have now
reached a crisis stage. This was the first winter ever where we weren't able to be essentially fully
staffed despite offering great pay and benefits for our front line staff and I don't see it getting any
easier in the short term. In my opinion, VR is stepping up to improve the situation with this project.
This project, while not perfect from an environmental or wildlife perspective, is a positive step in
addressing the main issue and helping the overall business community by adding this new employee
housing inventory. My understanding is that it is on private land owned by VR and it seems like they
April 19, 2022 - Page 9 of 569
have followed all of the appropriate building plans and approval processes from the town. It
certainly needs to meet the DRB and building permit requirements as well.
This project will help from a transportation and environmental standpoint as well as the staff there
can ride a bus into town and minimize parking impacts vs. employees driving from downvalley
housing locations. The traffic on I-70 is beginning to feel like the front range during peak drive times
and it's only going to increase with more downvalley housing coming online. In addition, I was
personally one of hundreds of Vail workers stranded on I-70 this Tuesday for close to three hours
due to the Dowd Junction closure. Thankfully our occupancy is down this week as we approach the
ski season's end and we have a good base of employees at our property who live in Vail that were
able to get to work and service our guests and owners who were in house until the rest of our team
got to work around 10:30 am. When these accidents occur during the peak season, the impacts are
bigger and we end up with more dissatisfied customers as a result.
VR has been criticized on many fronts this winter, including not building enough employee housing,
not having enough on mountain staff to open up terrain early on this season, long lift lines and a lack
of staffing for the on mountain restaurants at a level that provides the high level of service that our
Vail Valley owners and guests in the community expect from a world class resort like Vail. This
investment, along with raising their front line staff payscale substantially next season is a good start
and commitment from Vail Resorts. I would suggest the town council work closely with Vail Resorts
to resolve any differences and make this project happen vs. denying this project and potentially
spending town dollars that could be used for more housing to condemn the land and keep it open
space. The valley is surrounded by national forest land. If there's truly other building sites more
appropriate for employee housing that I keep hearing about, please partner with Vail Resorts to
make it happen asap. It's time for action. There is too much at stake for the Town of Vail, the
business community and our Vail Valley owners and guests to deny this project at this time.
Between this project, the new Residences at Main Vail, the Vail Indeed program and other initiatives,
some measurable progress is being made. Much more work needs to be done, but every project
and housing unit matters. I realize this is a difficult decision with strong opposing views, but feel that
employee housing and ultimately guest service needs to be the highest priority at this time.
Thank you.
Mike
--
Michael Lange
Senior General Manager- Vacasa Vail & Beaver Creek
Lion Square Lodge
660 Lionshead Place
Vail, CO 81657
April 19, 2022 - Page 10 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Vail Resorts Housing Project - Formerly "Booth Heights"
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 9:39:24 AM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image013.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Ryan Kelsey <rkelsey@antlersvail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:59 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Vail Resorts Housing Project - Formerly "Booth Heights"
Dear Vail Town Council Members,
VRI’s contentious employee housing project in East Vail must move forward, regardless of the
impact on local East Vail residents’ inflated opinions and the bighorn sheep herd. This habitat has
been continually disrupted by said residents for over 60 years now, and again with routing the I-70
corridor through the area as the primary and overarching impact on the herd and range in this area
of East Vail.
Tuesday 4/12/22 was a prime example of what can happen when no employees are able to travel
April 19, 2022 - Page 11 of 569
past Dowd Junction during main business hours (“opening of the shop” no less) posted by nearly
every business in our town. Imagine if this occurred during a busy holiday or during the heart of
spring break business. We cannot continue to compete with other resorts communities if we cannot
offer the value and service levels demanded by our owners, clientele, and even locals on an
everyday basis. The overall value of our community derives from 3 main sources: our local
workforce, Vail Mountain, and our businesses. People do not specifically come to Vail to see our
bighorn sheep herd, and most have no idea they even exist.
As a conservationist, hunter, MBA graduate with a focus on sustainable management, and nephew
of the previous head of the US Fish and Wildlife department and current President of Wildlife
Management Institute, I find this argument completely ludicrous to continue as prime argument for
why not to build this project. Efforts have been made to further limit the impact from the
development and should be approved over condemnation.
Condemnation will do little but further reward VRI monetarily vs. achieving what our community
desperately needs…additional workforce HOUSING in Vail, NOW…not 5-10 years from now as the
current convoluted (and in my opinion broken) bureaucratic approval process requires.
I ask you to consider, are we more concerned about the future of humans living in Vail or an already
depleted and disbursed herd by the very folks who now claim they want to be their champions?
By the way, the “it’s the first thing folks will see” argument is baseless and simply silly after years of
having to stare at an ugly chain link fence vs. a nicely designed and valuable addition to the
landscape.
Please allow workforce housing on this parcel we need it more than ever.
Sincerely,
Ryan W. Kelsey, MBA
Director of Sales and Revenue
P: 970-476-2471 Ext. 129 | F: 970-476-4146
April 19, 2022 - Page 12 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth heights employee housing
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 9:42:33 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: kerry@skipperscout.com <kerry@skipperscout.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:30 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth heights employee housing
This is a too late issue as we have employees who want to come work here but have no where to live. You have
several vail resort shops that didn’t open this year because of lack of employees.
I am a local business owner paying the higher wages so my employees can live here. However non of them can
afford to move or buy a place so employee housing is critical to our survival.
As a business owner of a vail village based store since 2014, I may decide to close in the next few years as it gets
harder to keep employees each year. Paid parking, high rents, high grocery costs etc.
Thank you and please consider any and all employee housing!
Best,
Kerry R Roach
Owner/buyer
Skipper & Scout
@skipperscoutvail
Shop is online anytime www.skipperscout.com
970.306.5545
April 19, 2022 - Page 13 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: VR mission statement Letter to Rob Katz
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 10:26:36 AM
Attachments:Letter from Cindy Ryerson.pdf
image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Cynthia Ryerson <cindyvvss@mac.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:08 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: VR mission statement Letter to Rob Katz
Dear Members of the Town Council of Vail,
I am passing this information on as a reminder to please consider the insurmountable impact that building on the Booth Heights property could cause. Please note my letter to Rob Katz
with hyperlinks explaining the sensitive nature of this project. Also please note also that Vail Resorts has recently changed their mission statement taking all talk of respecting the
environment out of it. We all know there are other places where the desperately needed employing housing can be located. Please do the right thing for our town, it's culture, ethics
and everyones future and vote for condemnation/eminent domain on the extremely environmentally sensitive Booth Heights property.
Respectfully yours,
Cindy Ryerson
Old mission statement : cannot now be found on internet but please see hyperlinks in my letter to Rob Katz that explains their old core values.
New Mission statement :
April 19, 2022 - Page 14 of 569
Cindy Ryerson
4859 Meadow Drive
Unit B
Vail, Co. 81657
970-390-5759
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 15 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 16 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:16:46 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Frances Hartogh <frances.hartogh@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:13 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am a long-time Town of Vail resident and client of Vail Resorts - over 40 years! I am writing to oppose
development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn
sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Our iconic Rocky Mountain
bighorns - Colorado’s state animal - are under severe stress. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together
to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell
the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council
to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Thank you.
Frances Hartogh
4229 Nugget Lane, Vail
April 19, 2022 - Page 17 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:17:12 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Elizabeth rodriguez <erod8784@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:12 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose the development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact
it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as a wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 18 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: FOR Booth Heights
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:17:29 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: MacKenzie Hanna <mackenzie@craniologie.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:11 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: FOR Booth Heights
I am FOR the Booth Heights project! We as a business community need Vail to build more housing
and beds close to the mountain/villages for their employees. This will free up that many beds for our
non vail resorts employees. It would be a shame to see this be dismissed.
I've been running my stores at 60% staffed because of the HUGE housing shortage here. Please
understand how desperate the business community is for this to happen.
Thanks for your time.
--
MacKenzie Hanna
Operations Manager
Craniologie Vail and Beaver Creek
April 19, 2022 - Page 19 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 20 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:18:09 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Betz, Bill <BILL.BETZ@CUANSCHUTZ.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:52 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
You folks in Eagle County are hammering big ungulates. The elk and deer
populations in Vail mid-valley are down 65% in recent years, and Berlaimont
proposes further threats. Now comes this threat to critical bighorn sheep
winter habitat. Their voices must be heard! The beautiful Bighorn valley is
right out your door. Don’t harm the namesake species. Please do the right
thing and block the Booth Heights development.
Bill Betz
April 19, 2022 - Page 21 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 22 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:18:24 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Pam Bradley <bradleypoodles@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:50 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Pam Bradley
Breckenridge, CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 23 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:18:38 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Patrick Lienin <patrick.lienin@googlemail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:50 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Patrick Lienin
April 19, 2022 - Page 24 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24:20 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Michael Browning <mfbrowning1952@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am a 45 year resident of Vail and 45 year skier at Vail Mountain. I love both. The Town and VR
need to work together to figure out a way to both provide more affordable housing in the Valley for
its employees AND protect the Booth Heights parcel for the bighorn sheep. Smart people working
together CAN get this done.
Some additional points:
- This parcel is critical to the survival of our local bighorn sheep herd. Little or no other
winter range is available to them.
- In the summer the bighorn migrate into the Eagles Nest Wilderness and a key part of that
April 19, 2022 - Page 25 of 569
ecosystem
- Other parcels exist within the Town upon which VR can build affordable housing. No other
winter range is available to the bighorn
- VR didn’t even know it owned the parcel until several year’s ago and then they only paid
two year’s back taxes to get title.The bighorn have a better claim to use of the parcel since they have
grazed their for thousands of years
- VR says that it will only develop a portion of the property, but the remainder is the worst
habitat and the construction and residential activities will greatly reduce if not eliminate the viability
of the site as winter habitat. It is long past time we just give our local wildlife the dregs.
Please work together protect this site. If VR is willing to do so, the Town should condemn the parcel.
Thank you.
Mike Browning
4229A Nugget Lane
Vail
April 19, 2022 - Page 26 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24:34 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Straight Tail <c185td@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:22 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 27 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:24:49 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Eno <vailcarib@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:20 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Gary, Deborah, Kevin, Sean, Abby and Eva, The Eno’s P.O. Box 28 Vail, CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 28 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 12:25:24 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Cindy Levin <cynlevin@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:16 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would
have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd.
The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail
should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing.
It would be so refreshing to see Vail Resorts, for once, take a leadership position in regards to their
corporate responsibility to protectect the natural world on which their business depends. Of course there
could be a solution that does not come at the expense of these beautiful bighorn sheep which have every
right to stay on this piece of land and if Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange
the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for
permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 29 of 569
Cynthia Levin
Breckenridge, Colorado
April 19, 2022 - Page 30 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:30:53 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John Reimers <johnreimers@mac.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:30 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
John Reimers
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 31 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:31:11 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Bill Betz <betzw7@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:29 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 32 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:31:37 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: William Gottlieb <wgmd1@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:22 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Please do what you know to be the right thing and don’t sacrifice your morals for short term profits…..THE
WORLD IS WATCHING AND WON’T FORGET!
Sincerely,
William Gottlieb
3021 Booth Falls Road
Vail, Colorado
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 33 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: save the East Vail bighorns
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:31:51 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Andrea Andersson <andianderssonvail@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:16 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: save the East Vail bighorns
Dear Member of the Town Council,
Vail Resorts will cause great harm if not extinction of the East Vail bighorn sheep herd and we should
avoid building there at all costs.
We should look at Vail Resorts mission statement.
ZERO IMPACT TO THE FORESTS AND HABITAT.
Best Regards,
Andi Andersson
April 19, 2022 - Page 34 of 569
--
Andi
Life is good!
April 19, 2022 - Page 35 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:32:17 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Becki Vickers <beckivickers@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:11 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing in hopes you all can understand why this is so important. These sheep are part of our lives. We look
forward to seeing them and the smiles they bring to our faces. My children have watched them have babies their
herd grow over the last few years. What a treat!! They watch us fight to protect them as well. I want them to
understand and learn by this! Wildlife is precious and we must protect it to our fullest so we can pass it along for
generations to watch!!
We don’t have any wildlife left in this valley, so this is crucial you all do the right thing. All children deserve to
grow up watching wildlife evolve into bigger families and thriving in their habitat, mostly learning to protect them
from harm for all to enjoy in the future. It is our state animal we must think about the future of all!!
Thank you!!
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 36 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep habitat
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:32:39 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Malmborg <e.malmborg@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:10 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep habitat
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd.
Actually, I’m not sure how long the herd has overwintered on this small piece of land, but the fact remains, its where
they winter now. With increased development, there is little terrain for the herd as it is, and there is no where else
for them to go.
Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-
needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for
Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
I’d encourage Vail Resorts to get on the right side of this issue. Yes, you’ve realized that you haven’t provided
enough employee housing, but the answer isn’t to wipe out bighorn habitat to rectify a lack of foresight.
Good luck on a tough issue!
Eric Malmborg
April 19, 2022 - Page 37 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:33:08 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Gillett <rose.gillett@me.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:09 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 38 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:33:23 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: mike Halpert <mikehalpert79@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:01 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 39 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:33:49 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Marty Sophir <mesophir@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:01 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. Martin Sophir
April 19, 2022 - Page 40 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:34:01 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ANDREAS SHARI BOESEL <shariandreas@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Andre & Shari Boesel
PO Box 595
Vail, CO 81658
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 41 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:34:27 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: john nelson <johnfnelson56@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:49 PM
To: ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil
<publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 42 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:00 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Mary Kitchen <mgkitchen@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:29 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Mary
Mary Kitchen
Camber Realty
April 19, 2022 - Page 43 of 569
Cell / Text 303-520-5607
Mary@CamberRealty.com
Camber Realty
290 Fillmore Street, Suite #4
Denver, CO 80206
About Me | Resources | Neighborhoods
April 19, 2022 - Page 44 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:25 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: future1946 <future1946@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:40 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Please explore more creative solutions to the affordable housing crisis.
Respectfully
Howard Hallman
Silverthorne, CO
Long-time Epic pass holder
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 45 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights Proposal
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:40 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Tim Drescher <timdcy@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:39 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com
Subject: Booth Heights Proposal
I am disgusted to see that Vail Resorts is once again proposing to develop bighorn wintering habitat
in East Vail. This directly contradicts what Vail Resorts claims in their “Epic Promise” (net zero impact
on wildlife) and what the Town of Vail has been doing to protect the last wintering range for Bighorn
Sheep in the Gore Creek and Eagle River valley. With all the bad publicity that the “Vail” brand has
gotten, especially over the past year, I would have thought that Vail Resorts would have done the
right thing and protected this piece of land as open space to save some face. Shame on Vail Resorts
for pulling out of negotiations with the town to protect this parcel. It’s time for the Town of Vail to
stop being bullied by Vail Resorts and stand up and do the right thing and condemn this parcel of
land.
Tim Drescher
Avon, CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 46 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:35:49 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen E Anderson <karene@vail.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:37 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
As a 30-year East Vail resident, I am hopeful that we can work together to respect our environment and the love of
nature that brings our community together. We need employee housing, but there are better places to build. Thank
you, Karen Anderson
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 47 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 1:36:08 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: L G <lily.c.grisafi@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:28 PM
To: comments@vailresorts.com; PublicInputTownCouncil
<publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 48 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:02:37 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: greg padgett <padgett126@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:02 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Our Big Horn Sheep are a symbol of our state and the wonderful outdoors, the reason so many of us live here. It is
great when tourists and locals can catch a glimpse of these magnificent creatures. We have reduced their winter
grazing enough already so I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together
to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell
the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council
to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sincerely,
Greg Padgett
April 19, 2022 - Page 49 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:14:00 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ALAN DANSON <adanson@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:13 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Dear friends on the Town Council:
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Alan and Silvia Danson
April 19, 2022 - Page 50 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:14:28 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: David Brewster <david.l.brewster@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:06 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
I volunteer regularly in the Gore Range and Eagles Nest Wilderness and visit Vail summer and
winter. At a time when we are spending a lot of money to improve wildlife crossings, this
April 19, 2022 - Page 51 of 569
would be a crippling blow to the bighorn sheep population in the area. Our official state
animal is already threatened by disease from livestock and the introduction of mountain goats
into Colorado several decades ago. Even a partial development of the parcel will very probably
eliminate the sheep. Vail Resorts purchased this parcel for very little money. Certainly there
must be funding available to compensate Vail Resorts.
Thanks you for consideration
David L. Brewster
PO Box 5293, Dillon CO 80435
432-210-9524
April 19, 2022 - Page 52 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:14:50 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kaye Ferry <kaye@kayeferry.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:59 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Re: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
> On Apr 15, 2022, at 1:57 PM, Kaye Ferry <kaye@kayeferry.com> wrote:
>
> I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on
the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts
and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
>
> Kaye Ferry
1007 Eagles Nest Circle
Vail,Co 81657
>
April 19, 2022 - Page 53 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:06 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: BETTAN LAUGHLIN <bettan39@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:54 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 54 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:27 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Frank Lilly <copyfrank@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:52 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Dear Town Council and Vail Resorts. Please do not develop the Booth Creek parcel. It is the only
summer habitat of Bighorn Sheep in the Vail Valley. This development would give Vail, and Vail
Resorts a black eye around the world.
While employee housing is important, there are many other parcels in Vail that can be developed for
this purpose.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Frank Lilly
April 19, 2022 - Page 55 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 56 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:40 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Dowdle <nancy_dowdle@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:50 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.<BR>
Nancy Dowdle
4288 Nugget Lane Unit A
Vail, CO. 81657
Sent from my iPad
April 19, 2022 - Page 57 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15:54 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: KAY NORBY FIAL <knorbyfial@me.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:47 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
I urge the Town of Vail Council to do everything in their power to protect the critical bighorn sheep
winter habitat by acquiring the parcel, by a condemnation action if necessary, and dedicating it to
the Town’s open space program, specifying that the parcel will only be used for wildlife habitat
purposes.
April 19, 2022 - Page 58 of 569
Kay Norby Fial
April 19, 2022 - Page 59 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Against Vail Resorts East Vail Employee Housing
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:16:13 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Mark Porter <portermark27@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 1:40 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Against Vail Resorts East Vail Employee Housing
Vail Town Council,
I am against Vail Resorts building Employee Housing on the parcel in East Vail and encourage you to
condemn the property. I have 3 main reasons I believe they should not build in East Vail:
1. I am concerned about the Bighorn Sheep and this has been well documented. If
representatives from Vail Resorts ever rode the East Vail bus and saw how excited children
get when they see the Bighorn Sheep, they might have second thoughts about their site
choice.
2. East Vail is a neighborhood that has maintained a “Mountain Feeling” over the years through
all the growth. I believe entering the neighborhood with the size and scope of this project at
the entrance will negatively impact the whole neighborhood.
April 19, 2022 - Page 60 of 569
3. Vail Resorts has plenty of property west of Lionshead, within walking distance to the
mountain, to build employee housing. Obviously, their priority is high end development
versus solving their employee housing crisis.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mark Porter
East Vail Full Time Resident
April 19, 2022 - Page 61 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:16:50 PM
Attachments:image008.png
image012.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: John Seward <John.Seward@du.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:50 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Grateful,
John Seward
Researcher, Scrviner Institute of Public Policy
April 19, 2022 - Page 62 of 569
Assistant COVID Response Coordinator
University of Denver
(720) 682-4501
www.korbel.du.edu/scrivner
www.du.edu/coronavirus
April 19, 2022 - Page 63 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:17:00 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Karn Stiegelmeier <karnstieg@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:34 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Please, Please protect our fabulous Bighorn sheep, so special to Colorado, and this East Vail herd is iconic for Vail
and for Colorado. I don’t think Anyone would respect the development of this area, nor Vail Resorts or the Town of
Vail for allowing this to happen. This area has always been a special place for me and I have felt so lucky to hike up
near this area, but also assumed it was valued by all. It would be a travesty to see the devastation of our iconic
Colorado mammal. It is the opposite of what we all expect from the Town of Vail and from the Epic Promise to
protect our environment. Please take all actions to prevent this destructive action. This area is so very obviously in
need of permanent protection for wildlife.
Thank you for thinking of the future for All of us!
Karn
Karn Stiegelmeier
April 19, 2022 - Page 64 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:17:11 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: David Schimel <daveschimel@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:31 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat. We
have to change the heedless development approach and hold Vail Resorts to a higher standard, I completely support
employee housing but doing it on wildlife habitat feels almost like a direct challenge! What are they thinking?
David Schimel
1924 Pebble Creek Road
Silverthorne
April 19, 2022 - Page 65 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:17:26 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Dickie <jimdickie@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:26 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPad
April 19, 2022 - Page 66 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Condemnation
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:18:01 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Jenn Bruno <jennbruno3@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:15 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Condemnation
Vail Town Council:
We are in the middle of a housing crisis that is currently having negative effects on our guest
experience. Restaurants cannot accommodate our guests because they do not have the staff to
provide the necessary service. They are operating below capacity because of the employee shortage.
I have heard from multiple visitors that they will be skiing in Montana next year because Vail can no
longer provide the high value of service they pay for and expect. Eating at 5pm or 9pm because
there are no available reservations is not acceptable. Retail shops open late and close early because
of the employee shortage. Without greater action, these issues will continue to hurt Vail's guest
experience. Covid has given us short term record sales tax revenues. This will not last forever.
I am disappointed and shocked that condemnation of Booth Heights is being discussed in the Vail
April 19, 2022 - Page 67 of 569
Daily. This is big government at its worst. Property rights no longer matter in the face of personal
agendas. Why not include condemnation of the homes on Katsos Ranch Road . Those are not as
close to the highway and are certainly in a more valuable part of the habitat. This neighborhood
doesn't even need salt licks to attract the sheep. Who cares how much it costs?
Vail Resorts is lucky to have the Town of Vail negotiating with them. They will get millions for land
they have no intention of building on. I commend them on their astute handling of this situation.
They secured their master leases (7-0 vote) and have guaranteed even more money for their land in
East Vail. Unfortunately, the people of Vail will pay the price for these desperate negotiations. We
deserve better.
Please spend the 14 million dollars you planned to spend on the condemnation on habitat
rehabilitation above the Katsos Ranch and Vail Mountain School neighborhood. This is how you will
save the herd. You won't save the herd by condemning that parcel of land. You will save it by habitat
mitigation. I might also suggest demanding the CPW stop offering hunting tags for 2-3 of the bighorn
sheep each year. An obvious small solution.
Above all, please stop the sanctimonious bull that exists concerning housing in East Vail . We can
accommodate the sheep and our homeless community members. The Residences at Main Vail is one
small piece of the solution. 144 beds is not enough to keep our valuable middle class and working
class in Vail. Our community will soon be extinct if we don't make more of an effort. And unless the
sheep learn how to bus tables, so will our resort and business community.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Jenn Bruno
Vail, CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 68 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Support for Condemnation of Booth Heights Property
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:18:16 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: DREW ESSON <desson01@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:18 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Support for Condemnation of Booth Heights Property
Hello Town Council Members,
I'm writing to express support for proceeding with condemnation of the Booth Height
Property on which Vail Resorts is proposing to build Employee Housing. I've lived or owned
property in East Vail for nearly 35 years. I very much appreciate the need to increase the
inventory of employee/affordable housing in the Vail Valley but I believe there are many,
better options for projects that would help further this mission. I also believe that the Town
of Vail has really tried to work with Vail Resorts to engage in an equitable land swap to keep
Vail Resorts 'whole' on the project. For whatever the reason, Vail Resorts has not taken
advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to them. Perhaps they are doing so
to obtain more negotiating leverage against the town. Regardless, the Booth Heights project
is a horrible location for long term employee housing.
April 19, 2022 - Page 69 of 569
1. There a complete lack of supporting services for the employees. The East Vail Market is
tiny. Going to the West Vail stores would require two bus trips.
2. Ecologically this project will likely stress the Bighorn Sheep herd to the point of
extinction. In all honesty, I'm sure all of our residences in the Valley displaced some
kind of wildlife but can't we find already built out space that can support employee
housing versus building on virgin property that all scientific studies have shown will
likely kill off these beautiful animals?
3. The location of the property and the density of residents means that there will be a
significant amount of foot traffic on/near the frontage road and more crowded buses.
This could create a safety issue especially at night.
I know you have heard all of these arguments. I hope my voice as a Valley resident helps you
do the right thing in condemning this property and forcing Vail Resorts to engage with TOV to
find a better option.
Regards,
Drew Esson
April 19, 2022 - Page 70 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:27:23 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn santo to <lsanyoto@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:26 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Kind Regards,
Misro and Lynn Sanyoto
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 71 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Letter in Support of Employee Housing
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:55:30 PM
Attachments:image008.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Alison Wadey <alisonw@vailchamber.org>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:43 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Letter in Support of Employee Housing
Dear Vail Town Council Members,
I am writing today to urge you to give Booth Heights a chance to be built. We went through this a
couple years ago and it was both very exhausting and painful for our community to go through. I
think this season has done nothing but prove to us all that we are indeed in an employee shortage
crisis and being able to provide affordable housing will help set us up to combat this in the future.
There has been lots of talk of "better locations". Show me these locations, but if you do, show me
them quick because all those words mean to me is another excuse to put off taking any meaningful
action to attacking the problem and making gains.
I also caution you with any decisions regarding condemnation. This action would set a disturbing
precedent that would open the door to future councils being able to service their own agendas and
April 19, 2022 - Page 72 of 569
not what is best for our community. Also condemnation of property is very expensive, can't these
dollars be used more effectively to create a real home higher up in National Forest Service land
where they will be safe to grow and thrive? Having sheep on Frontage Road and I-70 is not a good
sanctuary habitat for them.
Booth Heights is the ideal for our employees because it is one bus stop away from town. It is right
on an existing bus route and stop. When I moved here 25 years ago and had three jobs, having a
place that close to Vail Village would have been amazing! To believe in the false pretenses that his
property is not convenient for our workforce is silly and untrue. We have been lucky enough to have
a steady influx of guests this past year, but we can't sit back and think that this is going to last
forever. We need to make tough decisions now that will secure our infrastructure so that we can
continue to provide world class customer service to our guests.
There is too much at stake for the Town of Vail, the business community and our Vail Valley owners
and guests to deny this project at this time. Between this project, the new Residences at Main Vail,
the Vail Indeed program and other initiatives, some measurable progress is being made. Much more
work needs to be done, but every project and housing unit matters. I realize this is a difficult
decision with strong opposing views, but feel that employee housing and ultimately guest service
needs to be the highest priority at this time.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter and for your service to our community.
Respectfully,
Alison C. Wadey
Executive Director
Vail Chamber & Business Association
241 South Frontage Road Suite 2 Vail, CO 81657
Office: (970) 477-0075 Mobile: (970) 376-1661
www.vailchamber.org
Community-Inspired Guest Experience
April 19, 2022 - Page 73 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:55:51 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard M. Leslie <richardmleslie@me.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:37 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
I argued before the Vail Council years ago, when Vail Resorts first discovered they owned these acres and had
forgotten about them. I begged the Council NOT to rezone, but rather to find out what Vail Resorts really planned,
why, the effect it would have on East Vail citizens, and of course the Sheep.Sadly, that Council did NOT listen, and
made the crucial mistake of rezoning. Please don’t make another mistake, instead CONDEMN the parcel by eminent
domaine. THANK YOU.
April 19, 2022 - Page 74 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:56:02 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Dowdle <stephen@dowdle.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:37 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Dear Vail Town Council,
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
I live in East Vail and observe the sheep regularly. It is callous and irresponsible behavior of Vail Resorts to have
no regard for this important habitat. Vail Resorts should know that once you “pave paradise and build a parking lot”
there is no longer a paradise. Instead of “ Vail, like nothing on earth” we will have “Vail, with no regard for earth”
Sincerely,
Stephen Dowdle
April 19, 2022 - Page 75 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 2:56:22 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: danwilsonuk@gmail.com <danwilsonuk@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:35 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 76 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 3:02:58 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: andreas boesel <caminopost@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 2:31 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
A very bad idea!!!
Please, reconsider this very shortsighted resolution to OUR housing shortage and OUR Bighorn sheep.
Thank you,
Andreas Boesel
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 77 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 3:25:07 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: hamfamtexas@hotmail.com <hamfamtexas@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:15 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
The proposed action does not support Vail Resorts’ stated commitment to protect the environment.
Sincerely,
Merry Lynne Hamilton
823 Hunters Circle
Frisco, CO
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 78 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 3:25:22 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Donaldson <mcdonaldson@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:17 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPad
April 19, 2022 - Page 79 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:34:57 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Cindy Monell <cindymonell@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 4:34:36 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Please protect the Bighorn Sheep and the environment!.
Cindy Monell
Vail, CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 80 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:35:38 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Mary Bolton <mary.bolton@lasp.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:54:11 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Mary Bolton
Vail CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 81 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:36:14 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Sally Eggleston <sallyeggleston9@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 3:59:51 PM
To: ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>;
PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Cherri Eggleston
PO Box 742
Frisco, CO
80443
305-823-0433
Sallyeggleston9@gmail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 82 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Booth Falls Construction project
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:36:51 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Brooke Chesnut <brooke@brookechesnut.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 4:05:50 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Falls Construction project
Dear Vail Town council -
As an owner in the Booth Falls neighborhood I would like to respectfully submit my complete
opposition to any development in the Big Horn sheep habitat. We are all against this development
for employee housing when there are other places in the Valley that can be used and NOT disrupt
the Big Horn sheep natural habitat.
If our long term goals are to protect the environment of the Vail Valley, then we must act upon what
we believe will be very harmful to the Big Horn sheep population.
Thank you in Advance,
Brooke Chesnut
April 19, 2022 - Page 83 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:37:22 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Rose Gillett <rose.gillett@me.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:12:35 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Dear Kim Langmaid and Vail Town Council,
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and theTown of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
The first day I came to Vail in the early 70’s I saw the herd of Bighorn Sheep and it is a treasured
memory. Our family lived across the interstate from their traditional wintering spot for many years
and the sighting of the Bighorn Sheep became a part of a regular anticipation that one of us would
see them the next day.
To knowingly destroy these magnificent animals that have wintered in the same place for so long is a
travesty at the very least. Vail Resorts, you can do better than this…there are other alternatives.
Concerned Citizens,
Rose and George Gillett
April 19, 2022 - Page 84 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:37:44 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: heather s <vailheather@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:14:09 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Dear Town Council Members
I am a 35 year local, and 32 of those years I’ve lived in East Vail. The development of Booth
Heights would not only be an eyesore at the “entrance” to Vail, but it would clog bus lines, create
more traffic during school pick ups and drop offs at VMS. Also it is also quite possibly in a
dangerous location for rockfall from the cliff above (a GSA), and the most important point being, it
will displace and kill our sheep herd.
Please keep one of out most precious natural areas, natural. Please deem this area open space and
stop this development from EVER happening.
Do the right thing!
Heather Schultz
5059 Gore Circle
Vail, 81657
April 19, 2022 - Page 85 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:38:20 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Diane Teal <tealinvail@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:26:58 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 86 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:38:43 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Maryann Stein <maryann.stein@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 6:59:11 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Maryann Stein
18224 Clear Lake Drive
Lutz, FL 33548
April 19, 2022 - Page 87 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:02 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Sharon Siler <ssileratremax@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:32:46 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Re: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail
Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property
under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent
protection as wildlife habitat.
Sharon Siler
110 Lupine Ln
Frisco, CO 80443
23 years in the High Country
15+ years volunteering with
Eagle Summit Wilderness
April 19, 2022 - Page 88 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:24 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Dave Hicks <dave.hicks505@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:04:45 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
My wife and I live in Frisco and have bought Epic season passes for the past ten years. We ski Vail
8-10 days a year on our passes. However, we love Copper, A-Basin, and Loveland too, and will shift
to them in protest, if Vail Resorts continues down this path.
Thanks,
Dave & Julie Hicks
April 19, 2022 - Page 89 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:50 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Sarah Moore <sarahm@swbell.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:48:12 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Thank you, Town of Vail
Sarah Moore
713-256-0891
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 90 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:40:16 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Martin Herre <hmartin50@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:21:37 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
The fact that VR is now claiming that this particular lot is needed to save the employee
housing crisis is a testimony of their ignorance and inability to establish a long_term plan
which would ensure some minimum level of employee housing.
Thx for listening
Martin Herre
April 19, 2022 - Page 91 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:41:27 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JACQUI BAGGALEY <jacquibaggaley@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 12:52:25 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. We own a vacation home in East Vail and it gives us great pleasure to spot the
herd as we travel on the TOV bus to ski in Vail. The rental visitors who also rent our property are
informed of the exciting presence of the herd in our guest information book. Many of them have
written in our guest reviews book about how much they enjoy spotting the herd rooting around for
food on their trips into town during their winter vacation. Surely Vail Resort’s pledge to be
sympathetic to nature is about to make an EPIC fail to nature in the Vail valley! We have supported
Vail Resorts for over 20 years prior to the Epic pass and lately in the past 3 years they don’t seem to
be being EPIC to anyone these days overselling the EPIC pass. Typical of anyone with a huge
majority. I know they need employee housing urgently but is this really the correct location?
Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development
of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or
exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn
the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Kind regards
Jacqui
Jacqui Baggaley
196 Ferry Road
Edinburgh
Scotland
EH6 4NW
United Kingdom
Tel Home 0044 131 476 6400
Mobile 00447785370322
jacquibaggaley@blueyonder.co.uk
April 19, 2022 - Page 92 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:41:51 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Christine Oppenheimer <chris81657@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 5:57:58 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Please do the right thing.
Build employee housing on a more suitable area for the employees and let our bighorn sheep have
their area.
Do the “epic” right thing. Please!!!!
Sent from my iPad
April 19, 2022 - Page 93 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:42:48 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Casey Parliament <cparliament@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 6:56:55 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd.
Under no circumstance should this development move forward. Vail has been provided with
reasonable alternatives which protect interests of all parties and has negotiated in bad faith by
exiting from prior discussion with TOV. Vail’s intent has been transparent from initial
recognition, regardless of impact or alternative.
Our town council has the ability and support from the broader community and visitors alike to
protect this precious herd for future generations.
Please act to provide permanent protection for the herd and ensure that Vail’s actions do not
sacrifice the natural beauty of our valley.
Casey Parliament
Vail resident
Get Outlook for iOS
April 19, 2022 - Page 94 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: East Vail Bighorn herd
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:43:25 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: THOMAS LAWSON <broccolliboy@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:12:28 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: East Vail Bighorn herd
Just a short note from a concerned local.
Please do your very best in trying to protect our local herd of sheep.
We desperately need more affordable housing.
There must be a better way than building on this current Booth Heights location.
Best regards
Tom Lawson
April 19, 2022 - Page 95 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:43:57 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Larry Wolff <rozziek@mac.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:20:32 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Larry Wolff MD.
2724 bald mountain road
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 96 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:44:56 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Carey Anderson Rash <careyanderson@me.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:05:10 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Carey and Todd Rash
April 19, 2022 - Page 97 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Save the Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:45:18 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Shelly Gruner <shschatzi@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:31:11 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Save the Sheep
Please do the right thing for our community!
The future generations are counting on you.
Please find an alternative place to build.
Thank you very much, Shelly, Hansi and Felix Gruner
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 98 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Please protect Booth Heights
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:45:42 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Led Gardner <lgardner@slifer.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:49:58 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Please protect Booth Heights
Dear Council,
I am writing to say thank you, and to offer my encouragement, regarding your stance
on protecting the Booth Heights property. Please stand firm in the face of Vail
Resorts’ bullying. The legacy that you leave for Vail’s future will be valued for
generations.
Thank you, and stay the course!
Led
Led Gardner
Branch Broker / Manager
Covered Bridge and Four Seasons Offices
Slifer, Smith & Frampton Real Estate, LLC
970-376-0223
lgardner@slifer.net
www.vailskiproperties.com
Please Note: Due to the growing challenges of email fraud as it pertains to real estate transactions, we do not email wiring
instructions. Please call me if you are ever asked to wire money. Thank you.
April 19, 2022 - Page 99 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:46:21 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Mark Cody <mwcody55@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:20:51 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Mark Cody
Kremmling, CO
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 100 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: sheep habitat
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:46:42 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: cbartmd@aol.com <cbartmd@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:39:55 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: sheep habitat
I am a full time resident of vail and live in the east vail area. I am shocked by the actions of Vail
Associates. Do they even consider themselves as residents of Vail? This is our town after all and I think it
is high time to put our foot (feet) down concerning the threat to our community. The sheep are and have
always been part of our community and we need to speak for them. We the citizens have spoken loudly
and rejected the Booth Heights concept! Enough. Please do whatever it takes to end this drama.
Sincerely Chris Bartlett 4034 Bighorn road
April 19, 2022 - Page 101 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Save Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep Habitat!
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:16:28 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Gina Grisafi <ginagrisafi@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 12:40:18 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Save Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep Habitat!
Dear Vail Town Council Members,
I support the procurement of the booth heights property by eminent domain or by whatever means
necessary to preserve Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep habitat in perpetuity.
The pittance payment of back taxes by VR and rezoning of booth heights was done with total
disregard of Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep and their habitat.
Housing has no place in destroying this unique wildlife habitat.
This land must be saved in perpetuity for Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep.
Regina Grisafi
Vail CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 102 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Save Vail’s Front Door
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:16:51 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Carolyn Smith <carolyndsmith8400@icloud.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 11:18:08 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Save Vail’s Front Door
What is we see when we first drive into the Vail valley from the east? Open green welcoming space
on both sides of the highway. The golf course on the south the green field on the north. So, take a
deep breath. We’re home in this irreplaceable valley. Please leave it that
way for us and for our children’s children.
Carolyn Smith
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 103 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:18:22 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Anne Esson <alesson055@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:46:05 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Anne Esson
April 19, 2022 - Page 104 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: The future of Vail
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:18:23 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jill Zimmerman Rutledge <jillzr@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:05:53 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: The future of Vail
Dear Vail Town Council Members,
We would like to express our support of using the RETT funds to purchase the ground that is the
natural habitat to our Bighorn Sheep. It could also be possible for individuals and organizations to
contribute this noble cause.
It is unconscionable that Vail Resorts be allowed to develop in this natural area when they have
options for development.
Please vote to do the right thing and save these grounds from development. Doing the right thing
may be out of the norm these days when there is so much money involved, but the thought of how
development will impact our glorious Vail environment will hopefully give you pause, and help you
vote to purchase the land instead of sell to Vail Resorts.
Jill and Bob Rutledge
4524 Meadow Drive, unit 902
Vail, CO 81657
April 19, 2022 - Page 105 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:18:24 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Helen Barker <habarker@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:48:21 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
I live in Summit cty, and am a volunteer ranger with the eagle summit wilderness alliance. I
regularly visit and hike in the vail valley.
Vail Resorts is not 'walking' the EpicPromise talk of protecting the environment if they
proceed with the proposed development!
sincerely
helen barker
April 19, 2022 - Page 106 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights
Date:Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:07:30 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Deena DiCorpo <ddicorpo@icloud.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:34:42 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Hello all.
As a resident of 41 years and a business owner, I am familiar with the problems surrounding
employee housing or the lack of…
In my opinion, one of the best ways we can spend the towns' money is to spend it on preserving open
space and wildlife habitat. Without our wonderful outdoors and the wildlife that makes it special, our
valley and quality of life would not be the same. You can purchase buildings and bedrooms until the
cows come home, you can never bring back a habitat. First and foremost, put our money where our
mouths are, preserve the Bighorn habitat. A great way to move on the path to carbon neutrality.
Thank you for your time.
Deena M. DiCorpo
April 19, 2022 - Page 107 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights
Date:Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:07:55 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Tom Vucich <vucicht@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:16:25 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
We fully support your decision to proceed with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel. You all
are surely aware of our intimate involvement in opposing this development from day one. In 2019
the request from council was for unanimous support of Middle Creek (Children’s Garden) as an
“alternative” site for Booth Heights. The community acted in good faith, albeit with reservations, in
that support.
Vail Resorts has now, as many in the community suspected when they walked away from those good
faith negotiations, shown what they truly are--disingenuous and deceitful—and unashamedly so.
They, all along, have not wanted a win (TOV)-win(VR), but rather a win(VR)-lose(TOV). It’s obvious
they are not to be trusted, but instead, adhere to the notion that the character Gordon Gecko in the
1987 movie Wall Street verbalized that “Greed is good”.
Vail Resorts has ignored seriously developing part of the Ever Vail parcel they own and control for
workforce housing while relying on taxpayer subsidized efforts instead. Time for us all to say “No
more!”
Please unanimously proceed with condemnation. You have much, much support from the Vail
community. And, preservation of the Bighorn sheep herd will confirm the goals of sustainability this
community has embraced.
Sincerely,
Tom and Blondie Vucich
April 19, 2022 - Page 108 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:52:17 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Trish Heisdorffer <cotrigirl@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 3:53:30 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because
of the adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep (EVBS)
herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia.
The Rocky Mountain Bighorn is Colorado's iconic official state animal. In
the summer, the EVBS herd migrates to the high alpine terrain of the Gore
Range, but their sole winter home in the Valley is restricted to the two
small, south-facing slopes adjacent to I-70 in East Vail. These sunny
slopes offer winter forage, and the cliffs which crown the slopes provide
these expert climbers protection from predators.
Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better
location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail
Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel
for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to
condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Patricia Heisdorffer
689A Meadow Dr
Frisco, CO 80443
April 19, 2022 - Page 109 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Access to Booth Heights public comments
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:52:19 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Frances Hartogh <frances.hartogh@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 3:45:25 PM
To: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com>
Subject: Access to Booth Heights public comments
Hi Tammy. I’m very interested in the Booth Heights/Bighorn Sheep topic that is scheduled for
Council’s consideration this Tuesday. Is there a way for me to view public comments that have been
received so far?
Thanks,
Frances Hartogh
4229 Nugget Lane, Vail
720-320-0749
April 19, 2022 - Page 110 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights Property
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:52:25 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: kbenysh@vail.net <kbenysh@vail.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 2:08:17 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights Property
I anticipate that Vail Resorts will mount an aggressive campaign for
approval of the Booth Heights project. I would like to see the Town
Council oppose it just as aggressively.
Development of the Booth Heights area will not only destroy our
beautiful Bighorn sheep habitat, but it will also put undue strain on
the East Vail bus system which is already overcrowded at peak times.
Furthermore, the Booth Heights property is not near any services and
businesses, so residents will most likely have to use cars to access
everyday needs. Allowing this property to be developed flies in the
face of everything that the Town and Vail Resorts profess to value.
The Ever Vail property is a very viable alternative given its proximity
to workplaces and services in an already developed area. Furthermore, a
large portion of the property is undesirable for development, namely the
Vail Professional Building and the adjacent uniform distribution
building which border I-70. These are perfect sites for developing a
convenient large-scale employee housing complex.
I urge you to do all you can to prevent development of Booth Heights and
to persuade, and perhaps even incentivize, Vail Resorts to build a
sizeable housing development on the Ever Vail property.
Kathryn Benysh
April 19, 2022 - Page 111 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:54:53 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Malin Johnsdotter <malin@vail.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 10:37:09 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Vail Town Council, Vail Resorts,
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Malin
Malin Johnsdotter
malin@vail.net
cell 970-376-6526
1779 Sierra Trail #A, Vail, CO 81657 USA
April 19, 2022 - Page 112 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Vail Visitors Love Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep!
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:54:57 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Gina Grisafi <ginagrisafi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 9:35:27 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Vail Visitors Love Vail’s Unique Big Horn Sheep!
Dear Mayor Langmaid, Mayor Pro Tem Coggin, Mr. Davis, Mr.Foley, Ms. Mason, Mr. Seibert, and Mr.
Staufer,
I support the procurement of the booth heights property by eminent domain or by whatever means necessary
to preserve Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep habitat in perpetuity.
The pittance payment of back taxes by VR and rezoning of booth heights was done with total disregard of
Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep and their habitat.
Housing has no place in destroying this unique wildlife habitat.
This land must be saved in perpetuity for Vail’s unique Big Horn Sheep.
Regina Grisafi
Vail CO
(I would have liked to email you each individually but the captcha feature would not allow sending to your
email links on vailgov.com)
April 19, 2022 - Page 113 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:55:01 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Victoria Keen <vek80544@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 8:46:25 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Victoria Keen, Colorado Native
April 19, 2022 - Page 114 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 6:55:05 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Peter Woods <pcwvail1@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 8:31:56 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Greetings from East Vail,
The Woods family-Kara, Peter, Parker and Barrett support your efforts to prevent Vail Resorts
from building ANYTHING on the parcel known as Booth Heights.
It's shameful that they would continue to move forward with developing anything on a site that
shelters our local wildlife and State animal.
Please take action! Please protect this land.
The Woods
970-470-1194
pcwvail1@msn.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 115 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights property plans
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:19:39 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: M Nelson <krischer.nelson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:45 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights property plans
To all Vail Town Council members:
I support the condemnation of the Booth Heights property, even though you will use TOV funds to
purchase.
This land should be protected to preserve the bighorn sheep habitat.
The property is also not suitable for employee housing due to the need for car ownership & lack of
pedestrian access even to the limited East Vail shopping. Also, I think that geological investigations
have shown that there is considerable rockslide danger.
The development of this property is not in keeping with TOV climate protection initiatives.
As a Vail voter, I hope you act to stop the current development plans.
Thank you for your ongoing & thoughtful service to Vail.
Margaret Nelson
4682 Meadow Dr, Vail
April 19, 2022 - Page 116 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:19:55 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Krista Hughes <krista.a.hughes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:38 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Thank you,
Krista Hughes
April 19, 2022 - Page 117 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:20:26 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Kathryn Middleton <katmidds@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:57 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Good morning Mayor Langmaid and Council Members,
I am writing over the concern and outrage I have regarding Vail Resort's (VR) latest
announcement to develop the Booth Heights property for so-called "affordable housing
investments" in Vail, and three other communities where they operate ski resorts. After all
the feedback VR has received against development on the Booth Heights property they
have turned a blind eye to what the local community in Vail wants to see, or doesn't want
to see on that site. Our natural environment and the bighorn sheep who inhabit the
proposed site have flourished of late, I've seen a larger herd there this winter season than
I've seen in many years past.
It seems obvious that EverVail is the appropriate site to build employee housing as it is an
eye-sore and has been primed since the "new dawn" for development. Is there a reason
VR doesn't want to build there?
I support you all, Mayor Langmaid and Vail Town Council, in condemning the Booth
April 19, 2022 - Page 118 of 569
Heights site and hope that VR will open their eyes to their impact on this valley and comply
with their value statement to "DO GOOD: Preserve our natural environments and
contribute to the success of our local communities".
Sincerely,
Kathryn Middleton
Vail, CO
April 19, 2022 - Page 119 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Supporting the effort to save Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:20:44 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Ifranberg <ifranberg@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:38 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Supporting the effort to save Booth Heights
I support the effort to condemn the Booth Heights land in order to never being built on.
Ingegerd Franberg
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
April 19, 2022 - Page 120 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:21:30 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Mary Wolf <marythewolf27@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:34 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Mary Merritt Wolf
Merritt Communication
marythewolf27@gmail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 121 of 569
303-817-2218
—
from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 122 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:22:26 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Kent Johnson <kent1johnson@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:15 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
To The Vail Town Council:
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Kent Johnson
East Vail Resident
April 19, 2022 - Page 123 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 124 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:07 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Owens <dave@djofrisco.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 9:51 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to strongly oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would
have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd! The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail
Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed
employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town
property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Sincerely,
Dave Owens
Frisco, Colorado
April 19, 2022 - Page 125 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:24 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Patricia Gunckel <psgunckel@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 9:37 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the
adverse impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has
overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of
Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-
needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or
exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Patricia Gunckel
April 19, 2022 - Page 126 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat..
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:44 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: John Gorsuch <jgorsuch@gorsuch.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:22 PM
To: comments@vailresorts.com
Cc: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat..
Dear Vail Resorts,
I am writing today to ask you all to do whatever it takes to negotiate a resolution with Town of Vail
that will avoid development on this parcel of land. As we look to the future of our community,
protecting this habitat is of the utmost importance.
This is an issue that has become a focal point of who we are as a community and what we stand for.
We have a chance to take a bold stand for protecting the natural environment that drew so many of
here so many years ago.
In your Epic Promise, you state your mission on many issues. I have pasted here your promise
April 19, 2022 - Page 127 of 569
regarding forests and habitat;
Managing the health and resilience of our forests and habitat takes sound, long-term planning for our critical
mountain environments.
To protect the beautiful environments we operate in, we are committed to:
Minimizing or eliminating the impact of any future resort development.
Planting or restoring an acre of forest for every acre of forest displaced by our operations, with the goal of
achieving improved species and age diversity—resulting in healthier, more resilient forests.
Continuing and expanding our existing commitments to partner with and fund local organizations focused on
the health of forests, habitat and wildlife. In 2016, for example, we contributed more than $1 million to 50
environmental stewardship projects through direct grants, to the $1 guest donation initiative, and to the 1
Percent for the Forests commitment—made in partnership with the National Forest Foundation and The
Nature Conservancy.
Vail Resorts has an opportunity now to boldly stand in that promise.
Please resume discussions addressing this vital natural habitat and allow these beautiful animals to
continue to grace our valley with their presence.
I thank you for your time and consideration!
John Gorsuch
Gorsuch
263 E. Gore Creek Dr.
Vail CO, 81657
www.gorsuch.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 128 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat...
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:23:57 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: John Gorsuch <jgorsuch@gorsuch.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:07 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights Project/Big Horn Sheep Habitat...
Dear Vail Town Council,
I am writing today to ask you all to do whatever it takes to negotiate a resolution with Vail Resorts
that will avoid development on this parcel of land. As we look to the future of our community,
protecting this habitat is of the utmost importance.
This is an issue that has become a focal point of who we are as a community and what we stand for.
We have a chance to take a bold stand for protecting the natural environment that drew so many of
here so many years ago.
We all realize this is a sensitive issue, however this is not the answer to the dire need of staff housing
in the Vail Valley.
April 19, 2022 - Page 129 of 569
I thank you for your time and consideration!
John Gorsuch
Gorsuch
263 E. Gore Creek Dr.
Vail CO, 81657
www.gorsuch.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 130 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:24:09 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Andries-Lumpe <jklumpe@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:20 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 131 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:52:49 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: holly holden <holdenholly@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 10:02 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 132 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: URGENT! Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:53:15 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Greg Kissler <gkissler@summitnet.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:08 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: URGENT! Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to urge the Town of Vail and others to support the preservation of the Booth Heights
property in East Vail as a permanent open space designated as a wildlife habitat. As full time
residents in Vail we are keenly aware of the need to preserve this land for the Bighorn Sheep. As a
skier and longtime pass holder at Vail for nearly 5 decades our family has been a part of and watched
the development of the town and the resort. I generally support the growth of the resort and the
development of our community. Over these years there has not been anything more important in
my view than balancing this growth with protecting our unique mountain environment.
As wildlife experts and others have studied the specific location of the Booth Heights property is
some of the last remaining winter habitat for the Bighorn Sheep. This habitat must be protected and
development moved to areas without significant environmental consequences. I agree with many
April 19, 2022 - Page 133 of 569
others that Vail needs more housing for those that work here to serve the many guests that visit this
special place. I commend the progress the Town of Vail has made including the Chamonix
neighborhood, Residence at Main Vail and the Deed Restriction program.
Vail Resorts has other property which could be developed for workforce housing which is better
located for employees and doesn’t have significant environmental impacts. I’m confident that both
the TOV and VR could work together with a common goal to balance the need for employee housing
with environmentally conscious development. The Bighorn Sheep that have been here for hundreds
of years are counting on us to do the right thing, preserve their remaining winter habitat!
Respectfully,
Greg Kissler
Annegret Kessler
April 19, 2022 - Page 134 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: vail bighorn land
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:53:16 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: christine frank <cefrank@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:03 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: vail bighorn land
Please do not let this revolting project go through. It is bad enough East Vail has become the
dumping ground for poorly chosen sculptures that the town no longer wants—let us get back to
being a mountain town—long live the bighorn!
Sent from Mail for Windows
April 19, 2022 - Page 135 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 9:53:20 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: wally frank <wbfrank@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:32 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
I vote in favor of the bighorns !
April 19, 2022 - Page 136 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Save our valley’s Big Horn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:00:52 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: mary ellen anderson <dezinz@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Save our valley’s Big Horn Sheep
Dear Council members,
It is imperative that you act effectively to stop VR’s plans to build in East Vail.
Debbie Ford, with continued backing from so many of us Vail residents, and Merv Lapin have stated to perfection
this issue and the solutions. Please Condemn the property.
Save the sheep.
Raise the bar of integrity!
Thank you.
With appreciation,
MaryEllen Douglas Anderson
April 19, 2022 - Page 137 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Save the Sheep; Condemn Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:01:08 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Susie Kincade <susie@ebcmarketing.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:50 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Save the Sheep; Condemn Booth Heights
To the Vail Town Council,
The Town of Vail is faced with choosing to knowingly exterminate the last population of wild bighorn
sheep, vs. standing up for our community and requiring Vail Resorts to spare the sheep habitat and
use their massive assets to provide abundant local housing elsewhere, such as in EverVail or
Minturn.
The Booth Heights land is and has always been designated as Open Space. Vail Resorts lost it, then
recovered it for pennies on the dollar – a good scheme. Now they want to build. Please say NO. If VR
won’t agree, then condemn the land for human use and return it to the bighorn sheep, who will
perish without it, according the wildlife studies.
April 19, 2022 - Page 138 of 569
I hope the Town Council has the courage to say enough is enough. Please stand up for the
wholeness of our community. Insist that Vail Resorts build ample employee housing elsewhere –
they have other more suitable property. If you must condemn the Booth Heights property, please do
that. I’m sure you will have support (financial and moral) from the community. You certainly have
mine.
Susie Kincade
Eagle, CO
Susie Kincade
Eagle County Wilderness Advocate
www.thecoreact.org
970-328-5472
April 19, 2022 - Page 139 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Save the Sheep - Condemn Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:01:56 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Susie Kincade <susie@ebcmarketing.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Save the Sheep - Condemn Booth Heights
Greetings,
The Town of Vail is faced with choosing to knowingly exterminate the last population of wild bighorn
sheep, vs. standing up for our community and requiring Vail Resorts to spare the sheep habitat and
use their massive assets to provide abundant local housing elsewhere, such as in EverVail or
Minturn.
The Booth Heights land is and has always been designated as Open Space. Vail Resorts lost it, then
recovered it for pennies on the dollar – a good scheme. Now they want to build. Please say NO. If VR
won’t agree, then condemn the land for human use and return it to the bighorn sheep, who will
perish without it, according the wildlife studies.
April 19, 2022 - Page 140 of 569
I hope the Town Council has the courage to say enough is enough. Please stand up for the
wholeness of our community. Insist that Vail Resorts build ample employee housing elsewhere –
they have other more suitable property. If you must condemn the Booth Heights property, please do
that. I’m sure you will have support (financial and moral) from the community. You certainly have
mine.
Susie Kincade
Eagle, CO
Susie Kincade
Eagle County Wilderness Advocate
www.thecoreact.org
970-328-5472
April 19, 2022 - Page 141 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Given the circumstances, highly inappropriate public comment.
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:27:38 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Pete Feistmann <feistmann@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:26 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Given the circumstances, highly inappropriate public comment.
https://coloradosun.com/2022/04/18/vail-resorts-mountain-affordable-housing-opposition/?
pico=clean
George Ruther, the director of the Town of Vail’s housing department, said rising
construction costs, interest rates and inflation have made the housing problem in his town
even more acute.
He’s glad to see Vail Resorts stepping up with a plan, noting that the last housing project built
by the resort operator is almost 20 years old.
“And that came about purely as an obligation to meet a housing mitigation requirement,”
Ruther said. “As the largest employer in Vail, housing solutions from Vail Resorts are much
needed and long overdue.”
April 19, 2022 - Page 142 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 143 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 11:27:52 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Joan Carnie <2vailcarnie@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:26 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat. Joan and Jack Carnie
April 19, 2022 - Page 144 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights/Bighorn sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 1:09:16 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Christie Hochtl <cjbhochtl@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 12:55 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights/Bighorn sheep
Vail Town Council,
Please preserve the Booth Heights parcel and save our herd of Bighorn Sheep. Please add our
names to Merv Lapin's letter today in the Vail Daily! Please do whatever you can to save the sheep
and this parcel of land.
Thank you,
Christie and Karl Hochtl
890 Red Sandstone Circle
Vail, CO 81657
cjbhochtl@gmail.com
970 476 1125 landline
April 19, 2022 - Page 145 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 1:10:05 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: rolvail@aol.com <rolvail@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:55 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Dear Town Council:
I would just like to reinforce what those of you who have been on the town council already know; as
a 35 year resident I believe the Booth Heights development project is a horrible idea for our town
and our neighborhood sheep. I am aware that this is obviously a difficult decision but urge you to
protect one of our most valuable wildlife resources which we view enjoy a majority of days during
the winter.
VR is urging hundreds of employees to pack tomorrow’s meeting and I hope this does not influence
the proper course of action, which is to condemn this selfish business proposition of one company at
the expense of our beloved town.
Thanks so much.
Respectfully,
April 19, 2022 - Page 146 of 569
Rol Hamelin
5167 Gore Cir.
Vail 81657
April 19, 2022 - Page 147 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Dealing with Vail Resorts
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:28 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Pete Feistmann <feistmann@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 4:48:08 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Dealing with Vail Resorts
Dear Council Members,
The town is probably at the most difficult point in history in its relations with Vail Resorts.
You are said to be considering condemnation of the Booth Heights and Ever Vail properties,
and there are serious concerns about parking, mountain crowding and safety. As you all
know, this will be a long, complex, and expensive process, one that requires the best possible
strategic and legal advice.
Harry Frampton, as a former president of Vail Associates and an immensely successful
developer, has the best background of anyone in the community for advising you in this
process. I know from frequent conversations with him that he is very willing to take that role.
We are lucky that he is willing to do that, so I urge you to involve him as extensively as
possible ASAP.
Pete
Pete Feistmann
PO Box 2438
Vail, CO 81658
feistmann@earthlink.net
April 19, 2022 - Page 148 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: vail bighorn land
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:31 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: christine frank <cefrank@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:02:58 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: vail bighorn land
Please do not let this revolting project go through. It is bad enough East Vail has become the
dumping ground for poorly chosen sculptures that the town no longer wants—let us get back to
being a mountain town—long live the bighorn!
Sent from Mail for Windows
April 19, 2022 - Page 149 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:33 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Georgia stout <geostout7@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:02:36 PM
To: ++comments@vailresorts.com <++comments@vailresorts.com>;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org <+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>;
PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Georgia Stout
April 19, 2022 - Page 150 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:36:36 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: wally frank <wbfrank@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 1:32:18 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
I vote in favor of the bighorns !
April 19, 2022 - Page 151 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:51:43 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Coralie Rogers <coralieerogers@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 4:51 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 152 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights support
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:53:01 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Mike D <garfsoffice@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 3:56 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights support
To Vail Town Council,
I am writing to express our support of the Booth Heights housing project in East Vail. As a multiple
restaurant food service operator since 1993 in Vail, we are now in critical condition in our employee
housing situation. Not allowing a project that will provide the hospitality workers housing for our
hospitality industry will be a regrettable mistake, while only leaving the legacy of a poorly executed
decision. The decision to only see the side of a small portion of our populus, full time or part time
residents, and having their needs put before the rest of the community is negligible at best. May I
remind you of the closed store fronts and partial openings we incurred during the past summer and
even this past winter due to lack of human resources? Situations of that sort are detrimental to
resort communities and their guests. Even though the argument stands that "they" (workers and
why we call them they is ridiculous) should be living down valley, we were reminded on April 12th
April 19, 2022 - Page 153 of 569
2022 of why that scenario is not an optimal situation. The impacts of this decision are larger than
just a few happy residents. The decision to stop this project will definitely pronounce your stance on
diversity, equity and inclusion in our community, which is a statement larger than life itself.
Please be rational and forward thinking, "the old days of Vail" ship sailed many years ago. Please
take us into the future, a better and well managed future. A future that ALL community needs are
taken into consideration and lead us to being a number one ski resort destination town again that
supports diversity, equity, inclusion and a chance that someone may be able to better their life here
just like the pioneers that came before them.
Sincerely,
The entire staff of Garfinkel's, El sabor and Colorado Mountain Events.
April 19, 2022 - Page 154 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Please condemn Booth Heights
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:56:19 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Viola <heatherlviola@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:35 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Please condemn Booth Heights
Dear Vail town council, Just want to be another voice to let you know we don’t approve of the Booth Heights
project. There are alternatives to employee housing but there are NOT alternatives to wildlife and open space. We
might as well be Denver if you add the Booth Heights project in the proposed big horn sheep habitat. And there’s
nothing special about that.
Please do the right thing and vote to condemn Booth Heights.
Thank you for listening,
Heather and Randy Viola
797 Potato Patch Dr, Vail
April 19, 2022 - Page 155 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:56:33 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Richard Buerman <rbuerman@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:32 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Richard Buerman
April 19, 2022 - Page 156 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 157 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:58:46 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Johnson <msjohnson820@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:02 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; ++comments@vailresorts.com;
+bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 158 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:59:28 PM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Cindy Ryerson <ryersoncindy@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 4:56 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Cindy Ryerson
4859 Meadow Drive
Unit B
Vail, Co. 81657
970-390-5759
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 159 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Big horn sheep
Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 8:58:03 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Joanne <joannewaring@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:08:14 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Big horn sheep
Dear Town Council,
Please add my voice to the objection of the Vail Resorts proposal to build employee housing on the
Booth Heights area. I am more interested in Vail resorts following its intent on mitigating
environmental impact and following the advice of the Colorado Department of Wildlife experts.
Please look elsewhere (EverVail?) as options that do not impose such a threat to our beautiful valley
and its natural inhabitants.
Thank you,
Joanne Waring
4862 Meadow Lane
Vail
Sent from my iPad
April 19, 2022 - Page 160 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: East Vail Housing
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:53:28 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Denise Cheng <denise.cheng@vailresorts.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:52 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: East Vail Housing
I’m in support of Workforce Housing in East Vail. Please approve housing plan in Booth Heights.
Denise Cheng
Sr. Referral Specialist-Epic Mountain Rentals
The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure,
or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender
immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail.
Thank you.
April 19, 2022 - Page 161 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Save the Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:54:12 AM
Attachments:Bighorn letter to TOV.txt
image012.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Grace Poganski <pogansg@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:59 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Save the Bighorn Sheep
April 19, 2022 - Page 162 of 569
Town of Vail Council
I applaud the town council for stepping up to try and prohibit Vail Resorts from building on the east Vail property
known as Booth Heights. Like the bully on the block who says "it's mine and I can do whatever I want", Vail Resorts
has once again defaulted on it's promises to have zero impact on wildlife habitat and their "special obligation" to protect
the environment. The facts on the ground have not changed since the first attempt to build on this site. The bighorn
sheep still claim it as their habitat. The geology of the land is such that it remains a danger to build on the site without
harm. We still see sheep on this hillside, sometimes on a daily basis. Vail Resorts selectively chose to listen to only one
misinformed biologist who claimed that the bighorn sheep were noctural and would therefore not be bothered by any
construction. The residents of Vail must speak for the sheep, as must the town council. Since Vail Resorts pulled out of
any land swap talks, it is time for the Town to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve some of the last
remaining natural space in the valley and to save our sheep from extinction. Thank you for going forward to preserve
the natural landscape.
Grace Poganski
April 19, 2022 - Page 163 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:54:35 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Liz Johnson <elizabethkjohnson@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:10 AM
To: ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil
<publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Liz Johnson
4238 Nugget Lane
Vail, Co 81657
--
April 19, 2022 - Page 164 of 569
elizabethkjohnson@gmail.com
Cell 303.478.1983
April 19, 2022 - Page 165 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:54:50 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: ldmontan@comcast.net <ldmontan@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:07 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse
impact it would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this
small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to
find a better location for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts
is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as
wildlife habitat.
Larry Montan
2875 Manns Ranch Road, A2
East Vail
April 19, 2022 - Page 166 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:55:08 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: thecarrotlady1@aol.com <thecarrotlady1@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:21 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Dear Vail Town Council,
Just condemn the Booth Heights property and be done with it already! I cannot believe it got this far.
So sad what has happened to this valley because of greed.
Save the bighorn sheep!
Sincerely,
Andi Saden
April 19, 2022 - Page 167 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:56:34 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Tony Ryerson <aryerson12@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:44 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sincerely,
Tony Ryerson
April 19, 2022 - Page 168 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:56:47 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Nixon <patnixon@vail.net>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:28 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 169 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Stop Booth Heights Development
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:57:05 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Rider <kimrider123@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:54 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Stop Booth Heights Development
Please stop the Booth Heights development.
Regards,
Kimberly Rider
4031 Bighorn Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Please excuse typos and brief communication. I’m typing from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 170 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:57:27 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Pegasus Rumaine <lecheval5457@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:45 PM
To: ++comments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil
<publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would
have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for
millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the
development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town
or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn
the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
The Booth Heights parcel on which Vail Resorts plans to construct high-density housing is critical winter
habitat for a herd of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep.
Our bighorns need all the protection we can provide them, especially during the challenging winter
April 19, 2022 - Page 171 of 569
season when food is scarce and female sheep are pregnant.
I urge the Town of Vail Council to do everything in their power to protect the critical bighorn sheep winter
habitat by acquiring the parcel, by a condemnation action if necessary, and dedicating it to the Town’s
open space program, specifying that the parcel will only be used for wildlife habitat purposes.
Sincerely and with respect,
Pegasus Rumaine
1063 Vail View Dr
Unit 1
Vail, CO
lechcheval5457@gmail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 172 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:57:37 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Mark Luzar <goskiwime@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:42 PM
To: ++coments@vailresorts.com; +bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org; PublicInputTownCouncil
<publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would
have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for
millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the
development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town
or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn
the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
The Booth Heights parcel on which Vail Resorts plans to construct high-density housing is critical winter
habitat for a herd of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep.
April 19, 2022 - Page 173 of 569
Our bighorns need all the protection we can provide them, especially during the challenging winter
season when food is scarce and female sheep are pregnant.
I urge the Town of Vail Council to do everything in their power to protect the critical bighorn sheep winter
habitat by acquiring the parcel, by a condemnation action if necessary, and dedicating it to the Town’s
open space program, specifying that the parcel will only be used for wildlife habitat purposes.
Sincerely and with respect,
Mark Luzar
1063 Vail View Dr
Unit 21
Vail, CO
goskiwime@yahoo.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 174 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel!
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:24:25 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Barbara Ruh <ruhskis9713@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel!
--
Bobbie Ruh
78 Mission Place
PO Box 1354
Edwards CO 81632
970 479-7333
bobbie@ruhskis.com
303 888-0209 Cell
In California:
1643 La Vista del Oceano
April 19, 2022 - Page 175 of 569
Santa Barbara CA 93109
805 899-3464
. . . Defenseless under the night our world in stupor lies;Yet, dotted everywhere, ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just exchange their messages:May I, composed like them of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same negation and despair,Show an affirming flame.
W.H. Auden-September 1, 1939
April 19, 2022 - Page 176 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel!
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:24:25 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Barbara Ruh <ruhskis9713@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Please follow through with condemnation of the Booth Heights parcel!
--
Bobbie Ruh
78 Mission Place
PO Box 1354
Edwards CO 81632
970 479-7333
bobbie@ruhskis.com
303 888-0209 Cell
In California:
1643 La Vista del Oceano
April 19, 2022 - Page 177 of 569
Santa Barbara CA 93109
805 899-3464
. . . Defenseless under the night our world in stupor lies;Yet, dotted everywhere, ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just exchange their messages:May I, composed like them of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same negation and despair,Show an affirming flame.
W.H. Auden-September 1, 1939
April 19, 2022 - Page 178 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Bighorns, April 18, 2022
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:25:13 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: CCC <14erhiker@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:03 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Fwd: Bighorns, April 18, 2022
>>>
>>> Dear Town Council Members,
>>>
>>> Please preserve the critical habitat for bighorn sheep between Booth and Pitkin Creeks. I have
counted them throughout the winter, and one day they numbered sixty-two.
>>>
April 19, 2022 - Page 179 of 569
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I took these photos on Monday, April 18th on the way to East Vail.
>>>
April 19, 2022 - Page 180 of 569
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you, and thank you for your service to the Town of Vail.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Charlyn Canada
>>> 2940 Manns Ranch Road
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 181 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:27:52 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sally Ryerson <sallyryerson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:46 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Thanks,
Sally Ryerson
Vail Resorts Employee
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 182 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:28:04 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Rosenbach <susanrosenbach@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:38 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
Susan Rosenbach
susanrosenbach@gmail.com
203-912-2450
April 19, 2022 - Page 183 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:28:23 AM
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Rev. Brad Langdon <revbradlangdon@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:21 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; comments@vailresorts.com;
bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it would have on the
East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of land for millennia. Vail Resorts and
the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location for the development of much-needed employee
housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under
reasonable terms, I urge the Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Animals need a place to live, too.
Sincerely,
Rev. Brad Langdon
April 19, 2022 - Page 184 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Creek Employee Housing
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:54:56 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Tim Hargreaves <tim@vailwillows.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:54 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Creek Employee Housing
Dear Town Council,
I strongly disagree with Vail Resorts decision to build employee housing on the Booth Creek Parcel.
The town allowed the current project to move forward at Children’s Garden as an alternative to this
location. Period.
Vail has other parcels in town – particularly the Ever Vail area that make much better sense as a
location – allowing seasonal employees to access their jobs easily, on foot, without impact to public
transport or public parking.
It is time to hold Vail Resorts accountable for things that are within their control that have negatively
impacted the Vail brand. These include employee housing, but the effects of the Epic Pass are
endemic for our Town and the quality of life to those that consider the Eagle Valley their home. The
Town needs to address what they can do to right this ship, and there are definitely actions available
to you!
April 19, 2022 - Page 185 of 569
Regards,
Tim
Tim Hargreaves
Willows at Vail General Manager
970.476.2233 x 107
April 19, 2022 - Page 186 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:21:00 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Drew Riley <drew@slopeenterprises.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:19 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Hi Town Council,
I am writing to give my full support to the new development at Booth Heights in East Vail. Yes I know
there is tons of controversy on this from Bighorn Sheep to buses to Vail being busier. I personally
think the pros weigh out the cons in this instance.
Vail is continuing to grow and if we want to keep Vail even remotely behaving how it is now we need
to continue development within East-West Vail. Yes this will mean some of the wildlife will be
displaced but where was that thought with all of the other developments beforehand? The buses
will be more crowded but this is going to happen regardless of if this development happens or not.
Again, in order to maintain the level of service Vail offers to the tourists (which support all aspects of
April 19, 2022 - Page 187 of 569
the Town) we need more affordable housing and ideally in East-West Vail. Employees are imperative
and without them you can say goodbye to Vail.
Finally, I own businesses in Vail and I can tell you all of my staff was pushed to their limits with how
busy it was this year. If we have more employees to work then we have better mental health for
everyone throughout the valley. I see it first hand and for my businesses, pay rate is not the issue as
the servers make roughly $50/hr.
This project should go through and move forward to ensure Vail remains the best ski town/resort in
the world.
Best,
Drew
--
Drew Riley
Slope Enterprises - Russell's - Los Amigos - Bridge Street Lockers
970.476.0080
April 19, 2022 - Page 188 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:46:54 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Diane Boyer <dianeboyer@skealimited.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:14 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
Cc: Jen Mason <jen@snowsportsmuseum.org>; Jonathan Staufer <jonathanstaufer@gmail.com>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Dear Vail Town Council,
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the parcel
to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the Town
Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Personally, I think it would be appropriate for Vail Resorts to donate the land in East Vail to the
April 19, 2022 - Page 189 of 569
Town of Vail open space program to show support of Vail Resort's EPICPROMISE to protect the
environment.
In my opinion, the former Ever Vail parcel West of Lionshead would be a perfect location for
employee housing--walking distance to town and on a short bus route. Vail Resorts owns that
parcel of land as well.
Thank you for your consideration.
Diane Boyer
Town of Vail resident for 45 years
804 Potato Patch Dr.
Vail
Diane Boyer
President, SKEA Ltd.
dianeboyer@skealimited.com
Cell 970-390-1311
Golden Office 303-371-5324
“Follow your passion to your dreams” -SKEA
April 19, 2022 - Page 190 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Open Letter to Town Council
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:50:59 AM
Attachments:Ltr tCouncil 44.19.22.pdf
image012.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: pamelas <carbonkopy2010@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:35 AM
To: vailtowncouncil@vailgov
Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com>
Subject: Open Letter to Town Council
Pamela Stenmark
pamelas@vail.net
(c) 970-376-1124
April 19, 2022 - Page 191 of 569
Open Letter to Vail Town Council
Dear Mayor Langmaid, Members of Council
This is to express my support to workforce housing on the EverVail site and NOT on the East
Vail Parcel known as Booth Heights. The EverVail location has many attributes that East Vail
does not. Sorry to restate what is probably obvious to Council but for clarity and newcomers
to the question, doing so seems appropriate.
EverVail is:
•Located close to jobs; an easy walk or short In-Town bus ride to all of Vail & Lionshead
•Near restaurants, entertainment, again within walking distance or on In-Town bus routes
•An easy one bus ride to West Vail shopping, restaurants, services, super market
•Easily part of the overall community, within walking distance and is not isolated
•Not creating an eyesore by bulldozing pristine land at the gateway to Vail
•Not requiring building a huge and unsightly berm that can never recover, according to
landscape experts
•Not destroying an iconic Bighorn Sheep population
•Owned by Vail Resorts (VR) for more than 13 years; the site gained development approval but
VR let those approvals lapse. Corporate goals change but workforce housing has been a
Vail issue since before VR acquired the EverVail site however VR chose to put building the
corporation ahead of building a workforce community
East Vail/Booth Heights is an inappropriate location because it is:
•At least one bus ride or vehicle trip to Vail/Lionshead jobs
•Two bus rides each way, or a vehicle trip to West Vail services, market, restaurants,
entertainment. With many employees having two or more jobs, who has time to ride two
busses each way from East Vail to West Vail for grocery shopping? Simms Market is
essentially an expensive convenience store and is not a substitute for a supermarket
•Not physically integrated into the Vail community; is isolated without a bus or vehicle trip
•Likely to exacerbate existing transportation and parking challenges along the East Vail route
and within the core area parking
•Controversial due to an approval process flawed by conflicts of interest
•Compromised by inaccurate or incomplete traffic and other studies, as revealed during PEC
hearings
•Creating an eyesore at the gateway to Vail with a huge berm, bulldozing a pristine hillside
•Dooming the Bighorn Sheep herd that has occupied the site since long before Vail was
developed
I call upon Town Council and Vail Resorts to do what is best for the Community long-term.
Digging up the East Vail site is destructive and can never be undone. VR should donate the
land to be permanently protected and uphold its epic promise to the environment. If VR
refuses to be a partner in preservation, The Town of Vail should be ready to act swiftly to
acquire the East Vail property by whatever means necessary, and forever preserve the land.
Thank you for your consideration and your service,
Pam Stenmark
April 19, 2022 - Page 192 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Letter from a 20 year Vail Hospitality Veteran in regards to housing
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:16:44 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Andreas Harl <andreas@vailbeverage.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:23 PM
To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Letter from a 20 year Vail Hospitality Veteran in regards to housing
Dear Town Council
Like most of us who’ve lived and worked in town for an extended period of time (20 years living in
Vail and working in town), I’ve been following the debate around the East Vail housing project rather
closely.
Rumor has it that the Town Council wants to approve a rather large amount of tax payers money to
condemn the East Vail housing project.
Any of you who know me, know what I haven’t used a plastic bag for groceries in 20 years. I refuse
to ever buy bottle water in plastic bottles. I eat a 98% plant based diet due to the environment and I
care for wildlife and animals more than most humans. Reality is though, that we live and work in a
community that is strapped to bare bones when it comes to employee housing. I’ve worked in
hospitality in town for almost 20 years and although, the restaurant I’m part of managing has an
April 19, 2022 - Page 193 of 569
easier time hiring than most, its not gone unnoticed who mediocre the level of service around town
has become due to staffing issues which solely relate to housing.
The make a long story short. Please find a way to build this East Vail housing unit. We all know it
doesn’t come without controversy but from everything I’ve seen and read, it seems entirely possibly
to move that herd of sheep up several hundred feet and get them off the highway and frontage
road. In fact, I think the council should find funding to employee somebody to pamper this heard.
Give them everything they need but also give us as people who run businesses what we need.
Housing!
The negative press around VR was deserved this year, but give credit where credit is due. The raised
their wages and finally commit to building the beds we so desperately need. And your decision is to
condemn it because of a heard of sheep that according to studies will live happily ever after if we
move them just a little bit and pamper them as suggested above.
We have heated streets, mega mansions and an influx of silicon valley buying up every property
there is. We the service industry will not be able to provide any kind of decent service in the
community and Vail will fall just as quickly as it rose. Or has it already, and last time I checked,
tourism is what matters here.
I think we agree this was the worst season in history in terms of service in the valley, but yet we’ll
take tax payers money, and a lot of it, to buy out VR to not build. The logic is beyond me and I hope
that you as our elected officials will come up with a better creative solution then condemning the
project. We all agree Ever Vail needs to turn into employee housing too, but East Vail needs to
happen also. Imagine being a hotel trying to hire room service servers. Good luck and I’m lucky im
not in that situation. It’s a terrible one to be in.
Again, please don’t condemn, build but find a great solution for that herd that all of us care just as
much about as we care about the housing project that needs to be built.
Furthermore, some ideas on making long term rentals more appealing. How about we take some of
the sales tax increase and promise everybody who rents long term to cut their property taxes in half
and pay the county back with the sales increase.
Also, increase the amount it costs to rent as VRBO. $2500 along with the above idea might just
encourage plenty of folks to rent long term instead of the hassle of renting nightly.
Your community is looking for bold and creative ideas to make it all work. The town and its service
industry is suffering badly, and its only going to get worse if rentals don’t come back on the market
soon.
Best,
Andreas Harl
Beverage Director Matsuhisa Vail
Owner, Vail Beverage Consulting
Advanced Sommelier
970-688-0515
April 19, 2022 - Page 194 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: East Vail Development & Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:19:56 PM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Chris Slaughter <chris.slaughter.bha@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:41 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: East Vail Development & Bighorn Sheep
Hi Town Council,
Mayor Langmaid suggested I reach out to you. I sent her a very similar email in support of
condemning the East Vail development. I am Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) Regional
Director of the Central Mountains of Colorado. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to the
preservation of wildlife and wildlands. See our website at www.backcountryhunters.org/.
We have been following Vail Resort's intention of building workforce housing along I-70 in East Vail
that will impact the local population of Bighorn Sheep. When will the town be voting to condemn
the property? Can we provide a public comment or help in any way to prevent the development
from moving forward?
April 19, 2022 - Page 195 of 569
We are sensitive to the need for affordable housing in our mountain towns but are very concerned
about the impact to wildlife. Thank you for your dedication and support of these animals.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chris Slaughter
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Regional Director - Central Mountains Colorado
chris.slaughter.bha@gmail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 196 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:Fwd: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:26:49 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Pat Nixon <patnixon@vail.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:53:32 PM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>;
comments@vailresorts.com <comments@vailresorts.com>; bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org
<bighorn@eaglesummitwilderness.org>
Subject: Protect the East Vail Bighorn Sheep
I am writing to oppose development of the Booth Heights parcel because of the adverse impact it
would have on the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The herd has overwintered on this small piece of
land for millennia. Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail should work together to find a better location
for the development of much-needed employee housing. If Vail Resorts is unwilling to sell the
parcel to the Town or exchange the parcel for Town property under reasonable terms, I urge the
Town Council to condemn the parcel for permanent protection as wildlife habitat.
Sent from my iPhone
April 19, 2022 - Page 197 of 569
From:Tammy Nagel
To:Stephanie Bibbens
Subject:FW: Booth Heights
Date:Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:21:00 AM
Attachments:image007.png
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970.479.2136
vailgov.com
From: Drew Riley <drew@slopeenterprises.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:19 AM
To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>
Subject: Booth Heights
Hi Town Council,
I am writing to give my full support to the new development at Booth Heights in East Vail. Yes I know
there is tons of controversy on this from Bighorn Sheep to buses to Vail being busier. I personally
think the pros weigh out the cons in this instance.
Vail is continuing to grow and if we want to keep Vail even remotely behaving how it is now we need
to continue development within East-West Vail. Yes this will mean some of the wildlife will be
displaced but where was that thought with all of the other developments beforehand? The buses
will be more crowded but this is going to happen regardless of if this development happens or not.
Again, in order to maintain the level of service Vail offers to the tourists (which support all aspects of
April 19, 2022 - Page 198 of 569
the Town) we need more affordable housing and ideally in East-West Vail. Employees are imperative
and without them you can say goodbye to Vail.
Finally, I own businesses in Vail and I can tell you all of my staff was pushed to their limits with how
busy it was this year. If we have more employees to work then we have better mental health for
everyone throughout the valley. I see it first hand and for my businesses, pay rate is not the issue as
the servers make roughly $50/hr.
This project should go through and move forward to ensure Vail remains the best ski town/resort in
the world.
Best,
Drew
--
Drew Riley
Slope Enterprises - Russell's - Los Amigos - Bridge Street Lockers
970.476.0080
April 19, 2022 - Page 199 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Vail Resorts Handout given to Council during meeting
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
V R Handout
April 19, 2022 - Page 200 of 569
Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Manns Ranch Rd Under Construction I :A-~,'. t ;, .. _ J..._,_J_, . ·"-.\;' Unit A-5,671 sq ft-$7,950,000 Unit B -4,284 sq ft -$6,500,000 I I Katsos Ranch Rd Built 2021 ~~:. Unit A -5,179 sq ft -$3,390,000 Unit B -4,312 sq ft-$2,999,56~:_ Bighorn Sheep Winter Concentration Area Colorado Parks and Wildlife Species Activity Mapping IOf·/cHtr1a:dv:emfnrun111'2Vk'51Wi1JtOM?IWfl!9'11WZ,.,, Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Development Sources: ColOflldo Path •nd Wildlifa, Eagle County Aue~1or'1 Office, Town of Vail. Zillow CBighom Sheep Winter Range O Bighom Sheep Winter Concentration Area ■Structures in Winter Range □Parcels in Winter Range 0 375 750 1,500Feet Total Structures Total Developed Acres Price Range Existing Approved Development Affordable Housing 107 95.6 acres $1.2 • $9.3 Mi!Hon• ·z-.•of1011-1nwi.....~~-2 acres -· April 19, 2022 - Page 201 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: A nnouncement of Grand Prize W inner of E -B ike F ollowing Close of 2022 Town
of Vail Community S urvey
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Mayor L angmaid
B AC K G RO UND: The 2022 Town of Vail Community S urvey was conducted between March 21
and April 18 with more than 1,000 participants taking part. A s a thank you to community members
for their participation, respondents were eligible to win an e-bike in a grand prize drawing on April
19, plus ten $100 Visa gift cards from among the completed surveys. T he e-bike grand prize is a
Giant Roam E+ thanks to generous support from Venture S ports. Results from the survey will be
presented to the Town Council and community on J une 7.
April 19, 2022 - Page 202 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Proclamation No. 4, Series of 2022 50th A nniversary of the Vail S ymposium
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Dale Mosier, Vail Symposium Board Chair, Rob L eVine, Vail S ymposium
Treasurer, Kathy K immel, Vail S ymposium B oard Member, and Karen Nold, Vail S ymposium
B oard Member
B AC K G RO UND: The Vail S ymposium has continued for 50 years to create year-round, thought-
provoking programs encompassing topics such as geopolitics, hot topics, environmental
awareness, unlimited adventure, health and well-being, economics, consciousness and more, all
with respected and recognized knowledgeable presenters; as such, as an accredited 501(c)(3)
non-profit organization, the Vail S ymposium has played an important role in the growth of our multi-
cultural community.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove P roclamation No. 4, S eries of 2022 50th Anniversary
of the Vail S ymposium
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Proclamation No. 4, Series 2022
April 19, 2022 - Page 203 of 569
PROCLAMATION NO. 4 SERIES OF 2022
Celebrating 50 Years of the Vail Symposium
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado was established in 1962 with the goals of providing a
carefully planned world-class outdoor recreation experience and of creating an environmentally
conscious multi-dimensional community;
WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium was founded in 1971 and conceived as a once-annual,
weekend “think tank” with the active leadership of Town Manager Terry Minger and supported by
Mayor John Dobson to formulate goals and ideals for the purpose of guiding future change in the
Town of Vail;
WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium transitioned from an annual program to 40-45 weekly
events designed to provide opportunities for the community to come together to learn, share and
stimulate discussion and cooperation;
WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium has continued for 50 years to create year-round, thought-
provoking programs encompassing topics such as geopolitics, hot topics, environmental awareness,
unlimited adventure, health and well-being, economics, consciousness and more, all with respected
and recognized knowledgeable presenters; as such, as an accredited 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization, the Vail Symposium has played an important role in the growth of our multi-cultural
community;
WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium has increased its outreach even further in the recent years
of the COVID-19 pandemic, with expanded technology including video webinars engaging
participation across the nation; such commitment of the Symposium (VailSymposium.org) to the
ongoing dialogue between individuals and our community and between our community and world
beyond Vail Valley, is exemplary of the goals of our town; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Symposium recognizes the contributions and support of the Town of
Vail, of the Symposium’s world-class expert presenters, its many donors, volunteers and participants
in Eagle County and beyond.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed, the Vail Town Council recognize the 50th Year
Anniversary of the Vail Symposium founded in 1971, with a mission to provide thought-provoking,
affordable, and diverse educational programs for the community, and acknowledge the Symposium's
long tenure and ongoing promotion of the stimulating culture of Vail. Therefore, the Mayor and Town
Council extend their sincerest thanks and appreciation to all those who have been part of the Vail
Symposium and its support of the Town of Vail’s vision “to be the premier international mountain
resort community.”
Dated this 19th day of April 2022.
Vail Town Council Attest:
Kim Langmaid, Mayor Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
________________________________ _________________________
April 19, 2022 - Page 204 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: March 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Meeting Minutes
April 19, 2022 - Page 205 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 1
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by
Mayor Langmaid.
Members present: Kim Langmaid, Mayor
Travis Coggin, Mayor Pro Tem
Barry Davis
Kevin Foley
Jen Mason
Pete Seibert
Jonathan Staufer
Staff members present: Scott Robson, Town Manager
Patty McKenny, Assistant Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Stephanie Bibbens, Deputy Town Clerk
1. Citizen Participation
Matt Morgan, owner of Sweet Basil and Mountain Standard, addressed council about the future
of canopies and structures at Mountain Standard. Morgan stated he would eventually like to see
the outdoor enclosures that were erected due to COVID become permanent, but in the
meantime asked for a year extension on his current enclosure at Mountain Standard.
William Schmick, a Vail resident, expressed his concern for the lack of available housing options
in the Town of Vail as well as the lack of opportunities for public comment and civic involvement
during Town Council afternoon meetings.
2. Any action as a result of executive session
Coggin moved to exercise the town’s right of first refusal and purchase the property known as
Vail East Lodging, Unit #16, located at 4123 Spruce Way, Vail, Colorado for a purchase price of
$565k, and authorized the town manger to execute any necessary documents to effectuate the
purchase on a form approved by the town attorney, and further moved to appropriate the
necessary funds to complete the purchase, Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0).
3. Proclamations
3.1. Proclamation No. 2 Series of 2022, In Recognition of Vail's Trailblazer Award
Recipient Terry Minger
Background: Terry Minger was chosen as the seventh recipient of the Vail Trailblazer Award
and was recognized with a proclamation at the evening meeting and during the Annual
Community Meeting. His vision and municipal leadership during Vail's early years was
instrumental in creating the formation of its government and the success Vail has seen over the
years.
April 19, 2022 - Page 206 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 2
Coggin made a motion to approve Proclamation No. 2, Series of 2022; Mason seconded motion
passed (7-0).
4. Appointments for Boards and Commissions
4.1. Art in Public Places (AIPP) Board Appointments
Coggin made a motion to appoint Suzanne Graf and Courtney St. John to serve on the Art in
Public Places Board for a one-year term ending March 31, 2023; Mason seconded the motion
passed (7-0).
Coggin made a motion to appoint Tracy Morrison, Kathy Langwalter, and Lindsea Stowe to
serve on the Art in Public Places Board for two-year terms ending on March 31, 2024; Mason
seconded the motion passed (7-0).
4.2. Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) Appointment
Coggin made a motion to appoint Kristin Kenney Williams to serve on the Vail Local Housing
Authority for a partial term ending May 31, 2023, Davis seconded the motion passed (7-0).
5. Consent Agenda
5.1. February 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes
Davis made a motion to approve the February 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes; Foley
seconded the motion passed (7-0).
5.2. February 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes
Coggin made a motion to approve the February 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes; Foley
seconded the motion passed (7-0).
5.3. Resolution No. 5 Series of 2022, A Resolution Approving a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Town of Vail and the State of Colorado Energy Office
Regarding the Energy Performance Contracting Program
Background: The Town of Vail and the State of Colorado Energy Office wanted to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding to provide the Town with access to the services and support of
the Colorado Energy Office’s Energy Performance Contracting Program.
Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Resolution No. 5, Series
2022.
Foley made a motion to approve Resolution No. 5, Series of 2022; Staufer seconded motion
passed (7-0).
5.4. Contract Award with Hallmark Inc. for Ford Park Pedestrian Bridge (Nature Center
Bridge) Rehabilitation
April 19, 2022 - Page 207 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 3
Background: The wood timber deck on the Ford Park Nature Center Bridge was damaged by
snow removal operations over the years and will need to be replaced. The wood timber deck
will be replaced by a steel pan/concrete deck which will better withstand snow removal
operations.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Council direct the Town Manger to enter
into a construction contract with Hallmark Inc in the amount of $108,000 for the Ford Park
Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation Project.
Coggin made a motion to direct the Town Manger to enter into a construction contract with
Hallmark Inc in the amount of $108,000 for the Ford Park Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation
Project; Davis seconded the motioned passed (7-0).
5.5. Funding Agreement with Resort Entertainment for Winter 2022 Ambient
Entertainment
Background: Beginning as a response to the challenges presented by the pandemic in 2020,
the Town of Vail began building on its tradition of providing outdoor après music throughout the
villages. Throughout 2020 and 2021 several booking agents and artists were engaged to
provide an enhanced experience in the villages during both winter and summer/fall to surprise
and delight our guests. Guests have been treated to après music in both Vail Village and
Lionshead at least three days per week. The entertainment is designed to create a warm and
welcoming atmosphere and leave a positive impression on our guests, who have been spending
more time outdoors.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the contract with Resort Entertainment for the 2022 Winter
Ambient Music
Davis made a motion to approve the contract with Resort Entertainment for the 2022 Winter
Ambient Music, Coggin seconded the motion passed (7-0).
6. Town Manager Report (10 min.)
6.1. Loading and Delivery Program Update
Robson informed the council that at the start of ski season 106west had been servicing 18
trucks from the 9 they started with at the beginning of the pilot program, which is about 40% of
overall volume. Robson also expressed the positive response the Town has received from the
business owners and the public. The sunset date for the pilot program was set for April 24,
2022. Robson suggested that council extend the program six months at an additional cost of
approximately $350,000 to be added into the first budget supplemental while staff continues to
evaluate funding models. Council was in favor of extending the Loading and Delivery Pilot
Program another six months and for the cost to be added into the budget supplemental.
6.2. Peer Resort Exchange Visit (St. Moritz Switzerland and St. Anton Austria)
The Town of Vail will send a delegation to St. Moritz, Switzerland and St. Anton, Austria in the
next couple of weeks. Robson explained that St. Moritz had been a sister city of Vail since 1994
and the last peer exchange took place in 2018 when a delegation went to Japan.
April 19, 2022 - Page 208 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 4
Robson also spoke about guest activation, specifically Vail America Days, employee end of the
year concert, and upcoming spring activation events.
Robson explained with fireworks becoming harder and harder to have for the Fourth of July
celebration, the Economic Development team explored drone shows. Robson explained 100
drones would cost $50,000.00 and 200 drones would cost $100,000.00. $35,000 was budgeted
for the fireworks and due to the drones being more expensive, Robson suggested to
supplement the drone show in the budget supplemental.
Council had questions regarding what the drone show would look like and asked if the drones
would be dependent on weather.
Robson stated the drones could operate in the rain but not high winds and offered to have the
Economic Development Team give a report during the following meeting with examples what a
drone show could look like as well as what their limitations might be.
Robson also stated the RFP for the employee celebration concert that had been discussed
would be published later in the week. CSE members would be invited the following week to
review proposals. The concert would be on April 25th, the day after the mountain was scheduled
to close. The concert would be jointly funded by Vail Resorts and the Town of Vail at Ford Park.
Robson also stated that the spring activation would kick off on Thursday later this week with a
ski movie on International Bridge from Teton Gravity Research, three different activations, one
on International Bridge, one at Eagle’s Nest, and the Arrabelle and Friday March 4th, debut
concerts with Hassel Miller on the International Bridge, a DJ up on Eagle’s Nest, and Courtney
Hampton would be at the Arrabelle ice arena.
Robson thanked High Five Access Media’s Arjen Kale for his production work with the Town of
Vail and wished him luck in his new endeavors.
Lastly, Robson shared the Russian flag will be removed from the Avenue of Flags on the South
Frontage Road due to the invasion of Ukraine.
7. Presentations / Discussion
7.1. Presentation on Kayak Crossing Deed Restriction Opportunity
Presenter(s): George Ruther, Housing Director, Gerry Flynn, Polar Star Properties and Eric Heil,
Town Manager Town of Avon
Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and provide instruction on whether to
continue to pursue an opportunity to acquire a deed restriction interest in the Kayak Crossing
Apartments, located at 41900 US Hwy 6 and 24, Eagle-Vail, Colorado.
Background: The Town of Vail Housing Department and Vail Local Housing Authority were
approached by Eagle-Bend/Dowd Affordable Housing Corporation, the ownership entity of the
Kayak Crossing Apartments, regarding an opportunity to acquire deed restrictions on the
property in furtherance of its adopted housing goal. In summary, the Board was offering the
sale of deed restrictions to the Town of Vail at the Kayak Crossing Apartments to fund a capital
improvements project and refinancing opportunity which ensures the long-term availability of
deed-restricted homes on the site.
April 19, 2022 - Page 209 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 5
Ruther presented the following three different options to council:
1. Acquire a deed-restriction interest: Ruther explained that this option would be similar
to the Solar Vail Project, in that the Town would purchase deed restriction interest on
the property in an attempt to fund the gap in the financing.
2. Acquire a deed-restricted interest and a co-municipal sponsor interest in partnership
with the Town of Avon: Ruther explained that if this option was chosen, the Town of
Vail would contribute 2.5 to 3 million dollars to make improvements in the project.
The town would still receive the deed restricted interest and would also share the
rights and interests the Town of Avon currently has which are the right to approve
any refinancing request, the right to pay off debt at any time and take immediate
possession and ownership of the improvements on the property and the right to take
ownership of the property once the debt is paid off. The Town of Vail and the Town
of Avon would then create a Regional Housing Authority that would be specific to
operations, ownership, and management of Kayak Crossing.
3. Acquire a deed-restricted interest as fee title owner of Kayak Crossing: Ruther stated
that the Town of Vail would pay off the 15 million of debt on behalf of the Town of
Avon and the nonprofit organization.
Staufer asked Heil if the initial refinance bond had been paid off by the Town of Avon.
Heil explained the 2014 refinanced bond was the current finance. Heil went on to express the
Town of Avon’s support for collaborating with the Town of Vail on this project that would share
50% interest and future ownership interest when debts were paid off. He explained this plan
gives staff time to come up with a long-range plan for the property and provided a steppingstone
to collaborate on more housing projects in the future.
Coggin stated he was excited for opportunity Kayak Crossing presented for the town and was
most excited about option 3. Coggin felt that the town owning the land and the improvements for
the property was the cleanest way to move forward with being sensitive to the Town of Avon’s
needs for housing and future participation.
Langmaid agreed with Coggin and stated that as improvements were made, she would like to
see the Environmental Sustainability Department be brought in to make a long-term transition
from gas to electrification.
Foley asked Finance Director Kathleen Halloran, if the town could afford to take on the project
at $15 million upfront.
Halloran stated the funds are there, however, there are many projects on the list that the Town
would like to accomplish in the near future, and council would need to make choices and
prioritize which projects they would like to see completed.
Coggin offered the option to put the money into the project now and refinance and pull-out cash
at the rate the town would feel comfortable.
Halloran responded that whether it was debt or cash finance, it would be up to council’s
priorities and what they would want to be accomplished.
April 19, 2022 - Page 210 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 6
Staufer expressed he would like engineers to take a closer look at the buildings to make sure
the town wouldn’t be taking on structural problems or mold, he would like to understand the
finances better, but also understood the housing issues were not going away and there were
opportunities for potentially more housing within the project but would want more information
before moving forward.
Seibert asked what the timing was on each of the options.
Flynn explained the project was 24 years old, and the commitment had been made to start the
improvements this upcoming summer. He told council that Eagle Bend Apartments had 3 million
surpluses that can be invested in affordable housing and would move forward regardless of
what the town decided to do. He stated with option 2 the Town of Avon would stay involved and
would be ideal, and that option 3 presented major hurtles that hadn’t been discussed. The Town
of Vail doesn’t have the right to pay off the current debt of 15 million dollars, the Town of Avon
does.
Heil stated the Avon Town Council wanted to see an appraisal with the partnership approach
and would ensure the money stayed within the housing arena. He also stated the Avon Town
Council had not discussed selling or transitioning their rights to take ownership and that would
need to occur before moving forward.
Langmaid stated council would like to move forward with more information with either option 2
or 3 and asked Ruther to come back with more information.
Steve Lindstrom, Vail Local Housing Authority Chair, asked council to think about the long-term
and how Kayak Crossing could be a similar scenario to Timber Ridge in that a tear-down rebuild
would be needed down the road. He asked council to keep the arrangement as simple as
possible.
7.2. Parking and Transportation Task Force Make up Discussion
Presenter(s): Greg Hall Director of Public Works and Transportation
Action Requested of Council: Staff requests Town Council provide direction regarding the Task
Force member make up and areas of focus.
Background: The purpose of this item was to provide information on the Parking and
Transportation Task Force current make up and previous council direction regarding goals,
objectives and guidelines, discuss with the Town Council options for possible revisions with
additional focus on mobility and receive Town Council direction regarding the Task Force
members.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended to modify the current Task Force member make up
and areas of focus as recommended in the staff memo.
Hall presented to council on the current Parking and Transportation Task Force and stated the
need of the task force had changed, and staff would like to start the solicitation process over for
the task force that manages the Vail Village and Lionshead Parking Structures that would
include a mobility piece. Hall explained staff would ideally like two representatives from the
restaurants and retail, one from Vail Village and one from Lionshead Village, one representative
from lodging, one from the community at large, one to two representatives from the sustainable
April 19, 2022 - Page 211 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 7
transportation community which could be selected or solicited two representatives from Vail
Resorts, one being the COO of Vail Mountain and two Vail Town Council members.
Coggin asked what the criteria for the community at large representative would consist of as
well as asked why Vail Mountain needed two representatives on the task force.
Hall responded that the community at large representative would have no ties to a business in
either the Vail or Lionshead Villages and explained there was a Manage of Peak Period
agreement that spoke to a community task force with two members from Vail Mountain and two
from the Town of Vail.
Robson spoke to his support of staff’s recommendation and stated the changes that were
presented explained the broader net that the task force needed to focus on.
Council members were in support of the proposed change make up in the task force as well as
the more clarifying name change from Parking and Transportation Task Force to Parking and
Mobility Task Force as well as modify the current Task Force member make up and areas of
focus that was recommended by staff.
8. Action Items
8.1. Contract Award with Icon Inc for the installation of the Booth Lake Trailhead
restroom facility
Presenter(s): Greg Barrie, Senior Landscape Architect
Action Requested of Council:
1. Express support for adding $61,000 to the existing restroom budget during the upcoming
budget supplemental process on March 15. Formal action will occur during that process.
2. Authorize the Town Manager to enter a contract with Icon, Inc in an amount not to
exceed $177,505 to perform the site work required to install a prefabricated restroom
facility for the Booth Lake Trailhead.
Background: The Booth Lake Trail is one of the busiest trailheads in the area with approximately
40,000 users each year. Given the popularity, the trailhead’s location in a residential
neighborhood, and the difficulty of providing clean portable toilet facilities throughout the
summer, installation of a toilet facility connected to domestic water/sewer is warranted in this
location.
Staff Recommendation: move forward with Option A – constructing the restroom facility as
designed at a total project cost of $466,00.
Moving forward with Option A requires two actions:
1. Supplement the existing restroom budget by adding $61,000 during the upcoming Budget
Supplemental process beginning on March 15.
2. Authorize the Town Manager to enter a contract with Icon, Inc in an amount not to exceed
$177,505 to perform the site work required to install a prefabricated restroom facility for the
Booth Lake Trailhead.
April 19, 2022 - Page 212 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022 Page 8
Barrie presented to council and stated the stie work that Icon Inc bid on would cost an additional
$61,000 dollars to complete which would bring the total project cost up to $466,000 dollars.
Barrie explained why the outlined option A in the memo would be the best option for the area.
Coggin asked if there was an environmental or economic benefit to for the bathroom to have a
flush-less urinal. Barrie explained a flush-less urinal would not change the valve size required
for the bathroom and that those type of urinals had a cartridge that would need to be replaced
frequently. Barrie also stated waterless urinals could save $2,000 dollars but there would be
more maintenance. Barrie mentioned there could be some water saved by using a waterless
urinal.
Langmaid felt there was more of a concern to save outside water. Inside water, which would be
used in the bathroom goes back into the system. Langmaid explained there was an expense to
pump that water back into the system both a monetary cost and cost in electricity, but it
sounded like the maintenance would be more expensive.
Staufer asked if this was the final budget. Barrie affirmed it was the final budget for this project.
There was no public comment.
Coggin made a motion to supplement the existing restroom budget by adding $61,000 during
the upcoming Budget Supplemental and to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract
with Icon, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $177, 505 to perform site work required to install a
prefabricated restroom facility for the Booth Lake Trailhead, Foley seconded the motion passed
(7-0).
There being no further business to come before the council, Coggin moved to adjourn the
meeting; Foley seconded the motion which passed (7-0) and the meeting adjourned at 7:35
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attest: __________________________________
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
___________________________________
Stephanie Bibbens, Deputy Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 213 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: March 15, 2022 Town Council Meeting Minutes
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Meeting Minutes
April 19, 2022 - Page 214 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 1
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by
Mayor Langmaid.
Members present: Kim Langmaid, Mayor
Travis Coggin, Mayor Pro Tem
Barry Davis
Kevin Foley
Jen Mason
Pete Seibert
Jonathan Staufer
Staff members present: Scott Robson, Town Manager
Patty McKenny, Assistant Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
1. Citizen Participation
Taylor Gardarian, Eagle County resident, showed a video about measuring time and distributed
a handout regarding the same.
Penny Wilson, Vail resident and Vail Rotary Club member, invited council to attend to the
Rotary Club meetings held on Wednesday mornings.
Stephen Connolly, Vail resident, expressed support for July 4th drone show; getting rid of the
Commission on Special Events (CSE); and he would support getting rid of the Vail Local
Marketing District (VLMDAC) too. He asked council where the town was on drafting an idling
ordinance and a banning of plastic bags ordinance.
Bill Hanlon, Vail resident, expressed support for the pilot loading and delivery program and
shared it was working well. He recommended council talk to the governor to explain the
urgency for the need of employee housing and the impact it has on a resort community.
Alison Wadey, Vail Chamber & Business Association representative and Commission on
Special Events (CSE) member, stated it would be a huge miss if the town didn’t move forward
with an end of season party to recognize employees.
2. Any action as a result of executive session
Foley made a motion to direct the Town attorney to work on an employee contract to be
approved at the April 5th meeting for Interim Town Manager Stan Zemler; Coggin seconded the
motion passed (7-0).
3. Appointments for Boards and Commissions
April 19, 2022 - Page 215 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 2
3.1. Design and Review Board (DRB) Appointments
Presenter(s): Kim Langmaid, Mayor
Action Requested of Council: Motion to appoint three members to service on the DRB for a two-
year term ending March 31, 2024
Coggin made a motion to appoint Kit Austin, Erin Iba and Kathryn Middleton to serve on the
Design Review Board for a two-year term ending on March 31, 2024; Foley seconded the
motion passed (7-0).
3.2. Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) Appointments
Presenter(s): Kim Langmaid, Mayor
Action Requested of Council: Motion to appoint four members to service on the PEC for a two-
year term ending March 31, 2024
Coggin made a motion to appoint Bill Jensen, Robert Lipnick, John Rediker and Henry Pratt to
serve on the Planning and Environmental Commission for a two-year term ending on March 31,
2024; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0).
4. Consent Agenda (5 min.)
4.1. Resolution No. 6, Series 2022, Approving a Release of Restrictive Covenant for
Lot 12, Spraddle Creek Estates, and an Amendment to Restrictive Covenant for Sunlight
North Condominiums Unit Number 8
Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 6,
Series 2022.
Background: The Rose F. Gillett Revocable Trust owns the properties described as Lot 12,
Spraddle Creek Estates, also known as 1315 Spraddle Creek Road and Sunlight North
Condominiums Unit #8, also known as at 2475 Garmisch Drive, Sunlight North Condominiums,
Unit #8. The Town and the Trust now desire to release the Restrictive Covenant associated with
the Lot and to amend the Restrictive Covenant to release the Unit from the requirement that it
cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the Lot.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 2022
Davis made a motion to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 2022; Mason seconded the motion
passed (7-0).
4.2. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2022 A Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental
Agreement Between the Town of Vail and Colorado Department of Transportation to
Support the Operation of Public Transportation Services
Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 7,
Series of 2022
April 19, 2022 - Page 216 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 3
Background: The Town of Vail receives State funding in the amount of $337,234.00 to assist
with maintaining of public transportation services. This funding provides support for public
transportation services for the performance period from January 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 2022
Mason made a motion to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 2022; Davis seconded the motion
passed (7-0).
4.3. Contract Award with A-1 Chipseal for 2022 Vail Slurry Seal Project
Background: Staff received 2 bids for the 2022 Slurry Seal Project. The project is budgeted with
the Capital Street Maintenance budget and is within the engineer’s estimate. Roads included in
this year’s asphalt preventive maintenance project are local streets in the Intermountain and
Matterhorn neighborhoods. The project is scheduled to be completed by June 17, 2022.
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form
approved by the Town Attorney, with A-1 Chipseal to complete the 2022 Vail Slurry Seal Project
in the amount not to exceed $173,675.00.
Staufer made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with A-1
Chipseal in an amount not to exceed $173,675; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-0).
4.4. Contract Award with GM Asphalt Repair LLC 2022 Vail Overlay Project
Background: Staff received 3 bids for the 2022 Vail Overlay Project from GM Asphalt Repair
LLC, 360 Paving LLC and United Companies. The project is budgeted with the Capital Street
Maintenance budget and is within the engineer’s estimate. Roads included in this year’s asphalt
overlay project include Arosa Dr, Davos Trl, Cortina Ln, Garmisch Dr, Vail Valley Dr from Gold
Peak to Ptarmigan Rd and the Spraddle Creek Trailhead lot. The project is scheduled to be
completed by June 17, 2022.
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form
approved by the Town Attorney, with GM Asphalt Repair LLC to complete the 2022 Vail Overlay
Project in the amount not to exceed $565,627.00.
Mason made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with GM
Asphalt Repair in an amount not to exceed $565,627.00; Foley seconded the motion passed (7-
0).
4.5. Contract Award with Rocky Mountain Custom Landscape for Ellefson Park/Lot 5
Turf Reduction Project.
Background: The Ellefson Park/Lot 5 Turf Reduction Project is the second major turf reduction
project in the Town of Vail. The project was put out to competitive bid on January 31, 2022 with
1 bidder responding on February 3, 2022. The bid of $225,755.11 was submitted by Rocky
Mountain Custom Landscape and has been identified as a responsible bid. The 2022 budgeted
amount in this account is $150K. The budget shortfall is approximately $76K. The current
Supplemental Budget presented to the Town Council includes an additional $41K in the Ellefson
Park project account and an additional $35K in the Capital Park Maintenance account.
April 19, 2022 - Page 217 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 4
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manger to enter into a construction contract with
Rocky Mountain Custom Landscape in the amount of $225,755.11 for the Ellefson Park/Lot 5
Turf Reduction Project.
Davis made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Rocky
Mountain Custom Landscape in an amount not to exceed $225,755.00; Staufer seconded the
motion passed (7-0).
4.6. Contract Award for Emerald Witch Productions for Spring Employee Concert and
Celebration
Background: An RFP was published for the production of an employee and locals concert.
Emerald Witch Productions was selected to produce the event.
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Emerald
Witch Productions LLC in an amount not to exceed $75,000
*This contract was not voted on due to afternoon discussion.
4.7. Contract Award for Vail Mountain School to place a Town of Vail School Resource
Officer at VMS Agreement Extension
Background: The Vail Police Department and the Vail Mountain School (VMS) will complete the
current three-year School Resource Officer contract effective June 2022. We are requesting a
one-year extension of this contract for the 2022-2023 school year. The new VMS Headmaster
will then determine if the School Resource Officer program will continue beyond June 2023
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Vail
Mountain School in an amount not to exceed $70,000
Mason made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Vail
Mountain School in an amount not to exceed $70,000; Coggin seconded the motion passed (7-
0).
4.8. Contract Award with ECOS Communications for the Welcome Centers Creative
Interpretive Display Installation
Background: The Vail Welcome Centers look to upgrade their current displays with new creative
and interpretive exhibits. Our Welcome Centers attract more than 158,000 guests annually and
are open 365 days a year for guests to relax and learn more about the town, Vail Mountain, and
surrounding areas.
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with ECOS
Communications in a form approved by the Town Attorney in an amount not to exceed
$200,000.
Davis made a motion to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with ECOS
Communications in an amount not to exceed $200,000; Coggin seconded the motion passed (7-
0).
April 19, 2022 - Page 218 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 5
5. Town Manager Report
Greg Hall, Public Works Director, spoke to council concerning parking and bus service being
extended due to Vail Resorts extending the ski season. Hall stated paid parking would remain in
the village structures through the end of the season and efforts would be made to maintain as
much bus service as possible. Parking at Red Sandstone Parking structure and Ford Park
fields would be free.
6. Presentations / Discussion
6.1. VVF presentation on Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater Capital Upgrade and Expansion
Presenter(s): Mike Imhof, Vail Valley Foundation
Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and provide feedback on steps moving
forward.
Background: The GRFA has gone through several major capital improvement projects since
1987. This presentation is the current vision the VVF would like to share with the Town Council.
Imhof presented a proposed capital upgrade and expansion of the Ford Amphitheater. He
stated the Foundation would return to Town Council at a later date to present a request for
funding assistance as part of the capital campaign. The upgrades and expansion would occur
on the concession stand, dressing rooms, box office to provide more space. The beginning of
the capitol program would consist of the addition of solar panels on the roof which the
Foundation estimated a return on investment within 7 years. Imhof stated the Foundation
would like the Town to consider contributing financially for the project.
Langmaid stated the project should be added to the Ford Park Master Plan that was currently
being reviewed.
Foley asked the Town of Vail to be added to the signage for example the box office. Foley
stated he would like to see the town get that recognition of owning the facility.
Council had no further comments.
6.2. Short-Term Rental Study - Part 3
Presenter(s): Alex Jakubiec, Town of Vail Revenue Manager; Kathleen Halloran, Town of Vail
Finance Director; and Andrew Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems Inc
Action Requested of Council: Please provide feedback to staff regarding the third phase of
short-term rental study.
Background: The purpose of this memorandum is to propose policy changes for consideration
based on the information gathered by RRC Associates and Economic & Planning Systems Inc.
(EPS) during their comprehensive study of the Vail short-term rental (STR) market and provide
an opportunity for Council to consider future regulations of STRs.
April 19, 2022 - Page 219 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 6
Staff Recommendation: Please provide feedback to staff regarding the third phase of short-term
rental study.
Jakubiec Knudtsen and Cares presented proposed short term rental policy recommendations.
Staff recommended the following
Violation: the town’s STR violation structure had four levels of enforcement, with the
fourth being a revocation of the STR registration for two years. Staff recommends changing this
policy by reducing the maximum number of violations from four to three, increasing the fine
amounts for each level and increasing the revocation period from two to three years.
Additionally, staff suggested imposing a significant fine of $2,650, the maximum jurisdictional
penalty, for any STR found operating without a valid registration.
Late Fees for Renewals: a $250 late fee for renewals not submitted by the annual
deadline of February 28 to increase registration renewal compliance.
Tiered Registration Fees: The proposed tiered structure was less impactful to local
residents who rent a portion of their property while living in their home/unit or rent their entire
home/unit for 30-days or less per year:
• Fractional Managed by Owner $25 Per Owner $2,000
• Fractional Managed by Front Desk $150 Per Unit $25,000
• Owner Occupied, Primary Residence
• 30-Day Registration $25 $2,500
• Owner Occupied, Primary Residence STR $150 $22,500
• Non-Primary Residence STR $150
Mitigation Fees to Fund Local Housing Initiatives: The calculation accounted for
the possibility that a home used as an STR could be occupied by a local resident, and the fee
was further based on the difference between the impact of guest spending in the local economy
and the baseline impact of local resident spending.
Registration Limits:
• Option 1: In Zone 2, no more than 20% of units in a multi-unit building or
complex governed by a common HOA with 6 or more units may obtain an STR registration –
unless the unit is a fractional property or in a building with a 24/7 front desk present.
Jakubiec stated this option would allow full-time local residents to obtain an unlimited STR
registration for rentals of individual rooms or approved accessory housekeeping units located
within their primary residence. The primary resident/owner would be required to be present
during all rentals. Or full-time local residents could obtain a limited 30-day STR registration for
the rentals of their entire property while the homeowner was not on site, but it would be required
the unit was their primary residence only.
• Option 2: Limit the overall number of registrations in Zone 2 (or in specific
neighborhood areas) to their current level.
Health and Life Safety Standards: requiring a periodic inspection of all short-term
rental units not located in buildings with on-site, 24/7 management and requiring proof of
inspection every three years. Additionally, requiring a number of other life safety items such as
fire alarms, emergency contact and no outdoor firepits etc.
Council asked about the process for STR violations. Jakubiec explained a homeowner and or
property managers have an opportunity to correct the complaint prior to receiving a violation
ticket.
April 19, 2022 - Page 220 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 7
Council asked about “caps” on STRs and how that would assist with creating long term rentals.
Jakubiec stated there would be incentives to encourage people to rent their home on a long-
term basis.
Some council members questioned that theory to help achieve the goal to convert STRs to long-
term rental.
Overall council was supportive of increasing fees to cover administrative expenses and fees to
offset housing impacts. Additionally, council was also supportive of the recommended l life
safety measures presented and increased insurance requirements as well as increased fines for
violations.
Jakubiec stated staff would come back to an upcoming meeting council with a draft ordinance
updating the policy recommendations for their review.
Public Comment:
Stephen Connolly suggested breaking the STR locations down to neighborhoods rather than
Zones. He also felt all STR’s business fees should be the same for all types of rentals.
Public comment was closed.
Mayor thanked everyone for the comments and looked forward to the next steps.
7. Action Items
7.1. Booth Creek Fuels Reduction Project NEPA Update
Presenter(s): Paul Cada Wildland Program Manager
Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and ask questions.
Background: In 2020 the Town of Vail signed a cooperative agreement with the USFS to fund
an environmental analysis for the Booth Creek Fuels Reduction Project. To date, the Town of
Vail has spent approximately $120,000 for the environmental analysis. The project is now in the
public comment phase.
Staff Recommendation: Approve comment letter supporting Booth Creek Fuels Reduction
Project
Cada reminded council in 2020 the town signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Forest
Service to fund an environmental analysis for the Booth Creek Fuels Reduction Project. Cada
stated the USFS proposed to use a variety of treatment types to reduce fuels on approximately
3,059 acres of national forest system lands within the study area such as mechanized logging
equipment, hand thinning with chain saws, pile burning and prescribed burning. He explained
the project was now in a 60-day public comment phase. Forest Service would host a public
meeting on the Project from 5 to 7pm on April 6 at Grand View.
Cada requested council to approve the letter supporting the Project and the additional $49,000
that was associated with the environmental analysis by SE Group.
Council had no questions and there was no public comment.
April 19, 2022 - Page 221 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 8
Davis made a motion to support the comment letter with a few edits and the $49,000; Foley
seconded the motion passed (7-0).
7.2. Ordinance No. 2, Series 2022 First Reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of
Title 5 of the Vail Town Code to Reduce the Risk of Wildfires in the Town
Presenter(s): Paul Cada Wildland Program Manager, Mark Novak Fire Chief
Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 2022
Background: In 2020 the Vail Town Council approved the Vail Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP). A primary goal of the CWPP was to reduce the risk of a wildland urban disaster
within the Town of Vail. An essential element in achieving this goal is to prevent the ignition of
structures. The most effective manner to achieve this goal is to require a non-combustible zone
around all structures.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2022 on first reading
Cada provided an overview of the ordinance to require a five-foot-wide zone of non-combustible
landscaping around all buildings in Vail over a 3-year period beginning in 2025. The wildfire
situation in the Western US is continuing to grow worse, fueled by climate change, community
development and excessive fuel loading. The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) released “WUI Structure/ Parcel/ Community Fire Hazard Mitigation Methodology” which
gathered the most recent research and post fire study of structure loss from wildfire. Cada
explained the report stated clear connections in shared risk between structures built within 30
feet of each other. Cada stated the ordinance would require residents to maintain an ignition
resistant landscaping from the foundation wall extending 5 feet from the structure. Trees and
shrubs would not be allowed to be planted (stem within 5’ zone) within the Fire Free Five area.
The Fire Free Five represented the largest area where embers may accumulate during a wildfire
and was the most critical part of defensible space. Cada mentioned if the ordinance passed it
would not be enforced for 3 years. During this time each property in the Town of Vail would
be evaluated, and educational information describing compliance options will be provided to
each owner.
Novak acknowledged the department had received a mix of support and concerns from
community members about the proposed ordinance.
Council expressed concern about the cost to the homeowner to remove trees and the removal
of heritage trees. Council suggested the application for heritage trees be extended to
homeowners and not limited to the villages.
Public comment:
Penny Wilson explained how their complex worked with the Fire Department for wildfire
mitigation. She stated it would be beneficial to have all properties participate
Stephen Connolly said he supported the ordinance. He felt there was a resistance to change in
the community and the Town Council needs to lead and govern.
April 19, 2022 - Page 222 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 9
John Rediker, Vail resident, suggested some modifications to the ordinance. He felt the
ordinance shouldn't be one size fits all and that some trees, like aspen, are more fire resistant
than other trees. He would like to see a variance or exemption process be incorporated.
Susan Bird, Eagle County resident, suggested the Fire Free Five proposal be embraced by
Eagle County, not just Vail, and should be a joint effort.
Public comment was closed.
Langmaid would like to see more recognition of the financial resources offered the homeowners.
She suggested more community outreach and education.
Davis inquired if the fire dept has gone through certain areas in town that might be more of a
“hot spot.” Cada stated there had been outreach to those neighborhoods, but there were issues
with educating the homeowners in those areas due to second homeowners not being in town.
Coggin stated he struggled with the cost burden on the community associated with the
ordinance. He was also interested in exploring some of Rediker's ideas. Novak suggested
creation of a homeowner match rebate program funded from the town and other sources.
Staufer felt the current ordinance being presented was not flexible. He would like to see a
revised ordinance at the next meeting.
Foley made a motion to table Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2022 be tabled to the April 5th Town
Council meeting; Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0).
7.3. Ordinance No. 3, Series 2022, First Reading, An Ordinance Making Adjustments to
the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund,
Housing Fund, Marketing Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Residences at Main Vail Fund
and Dispatch Services Fund
Presenter(s): Carlie Smith, Deputy Finance Director
Action Requested of Council: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 3, Series
2022.
Background: Please see attached memo.
Staff Recommendation: Approve or approve with amendments Ordinance No. 3, Series 2022.
Smith started by providing council with a high-level review of 2021 financial results and stated
this ordinance was to re-appropriate funds for capital projects budgeted in 2021 and are
continuing into this year, or projects that did not begin as planned. There was also
adjustments needed to reflect events or decisions that have occurred since the 2022 budget
was finalized.
General Fund: $43.3 million estimated fund balance by the end of 2022, or 87% of annual
revenues in a normal year. The supplemental reflects the staff’s recommendations:
$1,250,000 increase reflected the town’s shift in compensation strategy to reflect a more
competitive pay structure
April 19, 2022 - Page 223 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 10
$10,000 for additional Economic Development staff time needed for the Destination
Stewardship Management Plan.
$65,000 for Town Manger recruitment.
$374,000 to continue the Loading and Delivery pilot program in the villages throughout
the summer months.
$32,782 for the short-term rental study crossing years but was budgeted in full in 2021.
$7,500 of Economic Development marketing SWAG budgeted in 2021 but delivered in
2022 due to supply chain issues.
Capital Projects Fund: an estimated fund balance of $30.2 million by the end of 2022. Staff
requested the new adjustments include:
$6,000,000 to move forward from the 2023 budget to order six electric buses for delivery
in 2023.
$312,000 to contract for a 5-year subscription with Fischer, the town’s new parking
management software.
$100,000 to explore outcomes of the Civic Area Plan.
$100,000 to be moved forward from the 2023 budget to begin design of the Big Horn
Road Bridge rails and culvert so that construction can begin in 2023.
$50,000 to move forward from the 2023 budget to beginning planning for new
roundabout lighting
$11,000 for police department records management software.
$6,824,698 to the Residences at Main Vail Fund to cover project expenditures
exceeding the $25.1M in bond proceeds.
$565,000 to the Housing Fund to purchase East Vail Lodging Unit #16 for town
employee housing as approved by Council on March 1st.
$25,000 to the Housing Fund for town employee unit capital maintenance and upgrades.
Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund: an estimated fund balance of $17.1 million at the end
of 2022. Staff was proposing:
$100,000 per year over five years to update town owned facilities to be in compliance
with the new program.
$61,000 of additional funding for the Booth Falls restroom project.
$41,000 of additional funding for the turf reduction project at Ellefson Park and the Town
Manger residence.
$35,000 of sidewalk repairs at Ellefson Park to corresponding with the turf reduction
project.
$25,000 Solar and Storage Feasibility Study.
$8,000 to analyze the engineering and electrical infrastructure needs for the Electric
Vehicle Readiness Plan with a goal of 30% town-wide electric vehicles by 2030 and
100% by 2050.
$5,000 to supply propane for the winter heaters that were added during 2020 and 2021
to allow for more outdoor gatherings during the pandemic.
$250K decrease of AIPP funds to be used towards the Ford Park Art Space
Housing Fund: Estimated fund balance of $4.1 million at the end of 2022.
A carryforward of $1,329,334 allocated to the InDEED program.
$25,609 carryforward balance in the Buy Down Housing program.
$2,000,000 for Residences at Main Vail developer fees
$2,000,000 placeholder for the potential purchase of the CDOT owned parcel in east
Vail.
Marketing Fund:
April 19, 2022 - Page 224 of 569
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2022 Page 11
$63,935 of additional funding for a 4th of July drone light show to replace a traditional
fireworks display.
25,000 for the end of season employee celebration
Heavy Equipment Fund:
$45,900 for a loader tire chain.
Davis requested more information regarding the collection of lift tax.
Foley inquired if Vail Resorts budgeted for the Gore Valley Trail alignment. Smith stated VR
has not budgeted for that project.
Council had no further questions or comments.
There was no public comments.
Davis made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2022; Foley seconded the motion
passed (7-0).
There being no further business to come before the council, Foley moved to adjourn the
meeting; Davis seconded the motion which passed (7-0) and the meeting adjourned at 9:43
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attest: __________________________________
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
___________________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 225 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 16, S eries of 2022, A Resolution Approving an I ntergovernmental
A greement between the Town of Vail and the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding
S ediment Control Disposal Area on the North Side of I nterstate 70 at Approximately M.P. 178-179
B AC K G RO UND: The Town and the Colorado Department of Transportation wish to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement for the construction of a sand/dirt storage facility on I nterstate 70
Right of Way, in the Town Tracts A & C and Town easement area, with the B ald Mountain
Townhomes Association for the purpose of sand/dirt storage and to provide aesthetic and noise
mitigation to the surrounding neighbors.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 16,
S eries of 2022.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
resolution No. 16 Series 2022
exhibit A
April 19, 2022 - Page 226 of 569
RESOLUTION NO. 16
Series of 2022
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION REGARDING SEDIMENT CONTROL DISPOSAL AREA ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 70 AT APPROXIMATELY M.P. 178-179
WHEREAS, the Town and the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”)
wish to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the construction of a sand/dirt
storage facility on Interstate 70 Right of Way, in the Town Tracts A & C and Town
easement area, with the Bald Mountain Townhomes Association pursuant to the terms
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (the
“IGA”), for the purpose of sand/dirt storage and to provide aesthetic and noise mitigation
to the surrounding neighbors.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the IGA in substantially the
same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and in a form approved by the Town
Attorney, and authorizes the Town Manager to execute the IGA on behalf of the Town.
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town
council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April, 2022.
Kim Langmaid
Town Mayor
ATTEST:
Tammy Nagel
Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 227 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 1 of 8
($0.00 Maintenance and Operations) Project Town of Vail Sand Storage
REGION 3 - SMW
CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT is made this day of 20 by and between
the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (“State” or “CDOT”), and the Town of Vail (“Local Agency”) 1309
Elkhorn Drive, Vail, CO 81657, CDOT Vendor #: 2000003, which may also be referred
to herein individually, as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."
RECITALS
1. Required approval, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate
agencies.
2. Pursuant to 43-2-104.5 C.R.S. as amended, the State may contract with Local Agencies to
provide maintenance and construction of highways that are part of the state (or local agency)
highway system.
3. The parties desire to enter into this Contract to delineate each Parties’ responsibilities for maintenance
of (short description of project area), and surrounding area detailed in Exhibits A and B;
4. The State and the Local Agency have the authority, as provided in Sections 29-1-203, 43-1-106, 43-
2-103, 43-2-104, and 43-2-144 CRS, as amended, and in applicable ordinance or resolution duly
passed and adopted by the Local Agency, to enter into this Contract with the Local Agency for the
purpose of maintaining the I-25 bridges over the Union Pacific Railroad, bus rapid transit access
pathways, future Kendal parkway, bus rapid transit parking lot, local transit loop and plaza, temporary
roadway connection from LCR 24, and surrounding area ROW as hereinafter set forth; and
5. The Local Agency and State agree to construct a Sand/Dirt Storage Facility with allocations
of 30,000 cubic yards, "cy", for the Town and 41,000 cy for CDOT on Interstate 70 Right of
Way (ROW), in the Town of Vail on Tracts A & C, as shown in Exhibit A.
6. All labor, material and equipment costs associated with the modification and/or demolition to
the Right of Way or Parcel shall be at the requesting Party's expense without any cost or
liability to the other Party.
7. The State and the Local Agency have the authority, as provided in Sections 29-1-203, 43-1-
106, 43-2-103, 43-2-104, and 43-2-144 CRS, as amended, and in applicable ordinance or
resolution duly passed and adopted by the Local Agency, to enter into this Contract with the
Local Agency for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a sand/dirt storage area in
the Town of Vail.
April 19, 2022 - Page 228 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 2 of 8
THE PARTIES NOW AGREE THAT:
Section 1. Scope of Work
The work under this contract shall consist of construction of a sand/dirt storage area in the
Town of Vail, Colorado, as more specifically described in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Order of Precedence
In the event of conflicts or inconsistencies between this Contract and its exhibits, such conflicts or
inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in the following order of priority
1. This Contract
2. Exhibit A (Scope of Work)
3. Exhibit B (Local Agency Resolution)
Section 3. Term
This Contract shall be effective upon approval of the Chief Engineer. The term of this Contract shall run
until it is modified or terminated in writing by one or both parties, or until December 31, 2022, whichever
occurs first.
Section 4. State and Local Agency Commitments
CDOT and the Local Agency shall be responsible for "highway maintenance and operations" for specific
structure and highway segments described herein. Such responsibilities are detailed in Exhibit A.
Section 5. Permission to Enter
The State grants, bargains and conveys to the Local Agency and its agents permission to enter, occupy, then
exit the State’s ROW as necessary for the purpose of maintaining the areas and structures described in
Exhibit A to ensure proper working condition as provided herein. The Local Agency grants, bargains and
conveys to CDOT and its agents permission to enter, occupy, then exit the Local Agency’s ROW as
necessary for the purpose of constructing and inspecting to ensure their proper working condition as provided
herein.
Section 6. Record Keeping
The Parties shall each maintain a complete file of all records, documents, communications, and other
written materials, which pertain to the maintenance and operations plans under this Contract. The Parties
shall make such materials available for inspection at all reasonable times and shall permit duly authorized
agents and employees of the State to inspect the project and to inspect, review and audit maintenance and
operations project records.
Section 7. Termination Provisions
A. This Contract may be terminated by either party upon written notice thereof sent by registered,
prepaid mail and received by the non-terminating party.
Notwithstanding the above, this Contract may also be subject to:
April 19, 2022 - Page 229 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 3 of 8
B. Termination for Cause. If, through any cause, the Local Agency shall fail to fulfill its obligations
under this Contract, or if the Local Agency shall violate any of the covenants, Contracts, or
stipulations of this Contract, the State shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Contract for
cause by giving written notice to the Local Agency of its intent to terminate and at least ten (10) days
opportunity to cure the default or show cause why termination is otherwise not appropriate.
Section 8. Legal Authority
Both Parties hereto warrant that they possess the legal authority to enter into this Contract and that they
have taken all actions required by their respective procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable law to exercise
that authority, and to lawfully authorize its undersigned signatories to execute this Contract and to bind
their respective entities to its terms. The person(s) executing this Contract on behalf of each Party
warrants that such person(s) has full authorization to execute this Contract.
Section 9. Representatives and Notice
All communications relating to the work shall be exchanged between representatives of the State’s
Transportation Region 3 and the Local Agency. Said Region Director will also be responsible for
coordinating the State's activities under this Contract and will also issue a "Notice to Proceed" to the
Local Agency for commencement of the Work. All communications relating to the day-to-day activities
for the work shall be exchanged between representatives of the State's Transportation Region 2 and the
Local Agency. All communication, notices, and correspondence shall be addressed to the individuals
identified below. Either party may from time to time designate in writing new or substitute
representatives.
If to State:
Kane Schneider
Deputy Maintenance Superintendent
606 S. 9th Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970.250.0401
kane.schneider@state.co.us
If to the Local Agency:
Chad Salli
Senior Town Engineer
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CO 8 I 657
970.479.2169
csalli@vailgov.com
Section 10. Successors
Except as herein otherwise provided, this Contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the
Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Section 11. Third Party Beneficiaries
The waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Contract shall not be construed or
April 19, 2022 - Page 230 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 4 of 8
deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision, or requirement, or of any other
term, provision or requirement.
Section 12. Governmental Immunity
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract to the contrary, no term or condition of this Contract
shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits,
protection, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §24-10101, et seq., CRS,
as now or hereafter amended. The Parties understand and agree that liability for claims for injuries to
persons or property arising out of negligence of the State of Colorado, the Local Agency and their
respective departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials and employees is controlled and limited
by the provisions of §24-10- 101, et seq., CRS, as now or hereafter amended and the risk management
statutes, §§24-30-1501, et seq., CRS, as now or hereafter amended.
Section 13. Severability
To the extent that this Contract may be executed and performance of the obligati ons of the Parties may
be accomplished within the intent of the Contract, the terms of this Contract are severable, and should
any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for any reason, such invalidity or
failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereof.
Section 14. Waiver
The waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Contract shall not be construed or
deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision, or requirement, or of any other
term, provision or requirement.
Section 15. Entire Understanding
This Contract is intended as the complete integration of all understandings between the parties. No prior
or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect
whatsoever, unless embodied herein by writing. No subsequent novation, renewal, addition, deletion, or
other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless embodied in a writing executed and
approved by both parties.
Section 16. Survival of Contract Terms
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties understand and agree that all terms and
conditions of this Contract and the exhibits and attachments hereto which may require continued
performance, compliance or effect beyond the termination date of the Contract shall survive such
termination date and shall be enforceable by the State as provided herein in the event of such failure to
comply by the Local Agency.
Section 17. Modification and Amendment
This Contract is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or State law, or
their implementing regulations. Any such required modification shall automatically be incorporated into
and be part of this Contract on the effective date of such change as if fully set forth herein. Except as
provided above, no modification of this Contract shall be effective unless agreed to in writing by both
April 19, 2022 - Page 231 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 5 of 8
Parties in an amendment to this Contract that is properly executed and approved in accordance with
applicable law.
Either party may suggest renegotiation of the terms of this Contract, provided that the Contract shall not
be subject to renegotiation more often than annually, and that neither Party shall be required to
renegotiate. If the Parties agree to change the provisions of this Contract, the renegotiated terms shall not
be effective until this Contract is amended/modified accordingly in writing.
Section 18. Disputes
Except as otherwise provided in this Contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under
this Contract which is not disposed of by agreement will be decided by the Chief Engineer of the
Department of Transportation. The decision of the Chief Engineer will be final and conclusive unless,
within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of a copy of such written decision, the Local Agency
mails or otherwise furnishes to the State a written appeal addressed to the Executive Director of the
Department of Transportation. In connection with any appeal proceeding under this clause, the Local
Agency shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. Pending
final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Local Agency shall proceed diligently with the performance of
the Contract in accordance with the Chief Engineer’s decision. The decision of the Executive Director or
his duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals will be final and conclusive and
serve as final agency action. This dispute clause does not preclude consideration of questions of law in
connection with decisions provided for herein. Nothing in this Contract, however, shall be construed as
making final the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board on a question of law.
Section 19. Does not supersede other agreements
This Contract is not intended to supersede or affect in any way any other contract (if any) that is currently
in effect between the State and the Local Agency for other “maintenance and operations services” on
State Highway rights-of-way within the jurisdiction of the Local Agency.
Section 20. Sub-Local Agencies
The Local Agency may enter into a subcontract for any part of the performance required under this
Contract, subject to advance written notice to the State. The State understands that the Local Agency may
intend to perform some or all of the services required under this Contract through a Sub-contract. The
Local Agency agrees not to assign this Contract without the express, written consent of the State which
shall not be unreasonably withheld. Except as herein otherwise provided, this Contract shall inure to the
benefit of and be binding only upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Section 21. Colorado Special Provisions apply to all Contracts except where noted in italics
1. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS §24-30-202(1). [Not applicable if CDOT is not paying the
Local Agency for the work and the Parties are each responsible for their own work]. This Contract
shall not be valid until it has been approved by the Colorado State Controller or designee.
2. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS §24-30-202(5.5). Financial obligations of the State payable after the
current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and
otherwise made available.
April 19, 2022 - Page 232 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 6 of 8
3. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. No term or condition of this Contract shall be construed or
interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or
other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq., or the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C. §§1346(b) and 2671 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended.
4. INDEPENDENT LOCAL AGENCY. Local Agency shall perform its duties hereunder as an
independent Local Agency and not as an employee. Neither Local Agency nor any agent or employee
of Local Agency shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the State. Local Agency and its
employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers compensation benefits
through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for Local Agency
or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be available to Local
Agency and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Local Agency or a
third party. Local Agency shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and
local head taxes incurred pursuant to this Contract. Local Agency shall not have authorization,
express or implied, to bind the State to any contract, liability or understanding, except as expressly
set forth herein. Local Agency shall (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and
unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide proof thereof
when requested by the State, and (c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its employees and
agents.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Local Agency shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and
State laws, rules, and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws
applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices.
6. CHOICE OF LAW. Colorado law, and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be
applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of this Contract. Any provision included or
incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be null
and void. Any provision incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other
Special Provision in whole or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at
law, whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by
the operation of this provision shall not invalidate the remainder of this Contract, to the extent capable
of execution.
7. BINDING ARBITRATION PROHIBITED. The State of Colorado does not agree to binding
arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person. Any provision to the contrary in this contact or
incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void.
8. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION. Governor's Executive Order D 002 00. State or other
public funds payable under this Contract shall not be used for the acquisition, operation, or
maintenance of computer software in violation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing
restrictions. Local Agency hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Contract and
any extensions, Local Agency has and shall maintain in place appropriate systems and controls to
prevent such improper use of public funds. If the State determines that Local Agency is in violation
of this provision, the State may exercise any remedy available at law or in equity or under this
Contract, including, without limitation, immediate termination of this Contract and any remedy
consistent with federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions.
9. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST/CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CRS §§24-18-201 and
24-50-
507. The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal o r
beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Contract. Local Agency has
no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or
April 19, 2022 - Page 233 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 7 of 8
degree with the performance of Local Agency’s services and Local Agency shall not employ any
person having such known interests.
10. VENDOR OFFSET. CRS §§24-30-202 (1) and 24-30-202.4.[Not Applicable to intergovernmental
contracts] Subject to CRS §24-30-202.4 (3.5), the State Controller may withhold payment under the
State’s vendor offset intercept system for debts owed to State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support
debts or child support arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of tax, accrued interest, or other charges
specified in CRS §39- 21-101, et seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to the Student Loan Division of the
Department of Higher Education;
(d) amounts required to be paid to the Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid
debts owing to the State as a result of final agency determination or judicial action.
11. PUBLIC CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES. CRS §8-17.5-101.[Not Applicable to contracts relating
to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities, investment advisory services or fund management
services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental contracts, or information technology services or
products and services] Local Agency certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly
employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this Contract and will confirm
the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States
to perform work under this Contract, through participation in the E-Verify Program or the
Department program established pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5)(c), Local Agency shall not
knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract or enter into
a Contract with a sub-Local Agency that fails to certify to Local Agency that the sub-Local Agency
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract.
Local Agency (a) shall not use E-Verify Program or Department program procedures to undertake
preemployment screening of job applicants while this Contract is being performed, (b) shall notify
the sub-Local Agency and the contracting State agency within three days if Local Agency has actual
knowledge that a sub-Local Agency is employing or contracting with an illegal alien for work under
this Contract, (c) shall terminate the subcontract if a sub-Local Agency does not stop employing or
contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving the notice, and (d) shall comply with
reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to CRS §8 - 17.5-
102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Local Agency participates in the
Department program, Local Agency shall deliver to the contracting State agency, Institution of
Higher Education or political subdivision a written, notarized affirmation, affirming that Local
Agency has examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other
requirements of the Department program. If Local Agency fails to comply with any requirement of
this provision or CRS §8- 17.5-101 et seq., the contracting State agency, institution of higher
education or political subdivision may terminate this Contract for breach and, if so terminated, Local
Agency shall be liable for damages.
12. PUBLIC CONTRACTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. CRS §24-76.5-101. Local Agency, if a
natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under penalty of perjury
that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal
law, (b) shall comply with the provisions of CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has produced one
form of identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Contract.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
April 19, 2022 - Page 234 of 569
OLA # 331002746
Routing # 22-HA3-XC-00056
Page 8 of 8
Section 22. SIGNATURE PAGE
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS CONTRACT
THE LOCAL AGENCY
Town of Vail
Scott Robinson
Town of Vail Manager
*Signature
Date:
STATE OF COLORADO
Jared S. Polis, GOVERNOR Colorado
Department of Transportation Shoshana M.
Lewis, Executive Director
By: Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer
Date:
* Persons signing for The Local Agency hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on The Local
Agency’s behalf and acknowledge that the State is relying on their representations to that effect.
April 19, 2022 - Page 235 of 569
Project – Town of Vail Sand Storage Facility
REGION 3 – WMA
EXHIBIT A – SCOPE
SCOPE OF WORK
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY TO WEST BERM
SEDIMENT CONTROL STORAGE I-70 MP 178.0 – 179.0
CDOT and the Town of Vail are entering into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the construction of
the additional capacity of the West berm area on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate
milepost 178-179. The East berm is completed. The West berm will be located on CDOT right-of-way,
Tract C, and an easement that was granted to the Town of Vail through a separate agreement with the
Bald Mountain Townhome Association and will be shared between CDOT and Town of Vail. The work for
the additional capacity of the West Berm area will not be on the easement.
East Phase – Completed
Initial West phase – Completed
West Phase – Additional Capacity
•Total additional capacity approximately 17,000 cubic yards
o Approximately 16,500 cubic yards (CDOT) in the berm on Tract C and I-70 ROW
o Approximately 500 cubic yards (Town of Vail)
•The Town will obtain all necessary Town of Vail clearances. No additional CDOT clearances are
necessary since the West Phase additional capacity is within the same footprint as the original
West Phase work, but outside of the easement area which has been completed.
•The Town may not access the berm from I-70 except the Town may haul material in conjunction
with CDOT’s operations with prior approval on a limited schedule with Town equipment and
forces only.
•The construction of the additional capacity within the West Phase will follow the design of the
Initial West Phase berm and the work shall remain within the same footprint, but outside of the
easement area which has been completed.
•CDOT will be responsible for obtaining a construction storm water discharge permit from the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).
•CDOT will be responsible for all labor, materials and equipment for revegetating the berm per
the approved plans and CDOT’s construction storm water discharge permit and stormwater
management plans.
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work
Exhibit A Page 1 of 2
April 19, 2022 - Page 236 of 569
EXHIBIT A Scope of WorkExhibit A Page 2 of 2April 19, 2022 - Page 237 of 569
EXHIBIT B
Local Agency Resolution
Exhibit B - Page 1 of 1
April 19, 2022 - Page 238 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 1 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 239 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 2 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 240 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 3 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 241 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 4 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 242 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 5 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 243 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 6 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 244 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 7 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 245 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 8 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 246 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 9 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 247 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 10 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 248 of 569
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 11 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 249 of 569
PO #: 351001301
Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0002
Document Builder Generated
Rev. 12/09/2016
Page 1 of 2
STATE OF COLORADO AMENDMENT
Amendment #: 1 Project #:
SIGNATURE AND COVER PAGE
State Agency
Department of Transportation
Amendment Routing Number
16-HA3-XE-00090-M0002
Local Agency
Town of Vail
Original Agreement Routing Number
16-HA3-XE-00090
Agreement Maximum Amount
Initial term
State Fiscal Year
Extension terms
State Fiscal Year
State Fiscal Year
State Fiscal Year
State Fiscal Year
Total for all state fiscal years
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Agreement Performance Beginning Date
The later of the effective date or July 20, 2016
Initial Agreement expiration date
July 19, 2021
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT
Each person signing this Amendment represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this
Amendment and to bind the Party authorizing his or her signature.
STATE OF COLORADO
Jared S. Polis, Governor
Department of Transportation
Shoshana M. Lew, Executive Director
___________________________________________
Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer
Date: _________________________
LOCAL AGENCY
Town of Vail
___________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________
By: (Print Name and Title)
Date: _________________________
LOCAL AGENCY
(2nd Signature if Necessary)
___________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________
By: (Print Name and Title)
Date: _________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: A80EE855-E9C6-488E-9162-89916E40BF59
Scott Robson Town Manager
6/26/2020
6/26/2020
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 12 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 250 of 569
PO #: 351001301
Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0002
Document Builder Generated
Rev. 12/09/2016
Page 2 of 2
1)PARTIES
This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Original Agreement shown on the Signature and Cover Page for
this Amendment (the “Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Local Agency and the State.
2)TERMINOLOGY
Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, all terms used in this Amendment that are defined in the
Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Agreement.
3)EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEABILITY
A.Amendment Effective Date
This Amendment shall not be valid or enforceable until the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature
and Cover Page for this Amendment. The State shall not be bound by any provision of this Amendment before
that Amendment Effective Date, and shall have no obligation to pay the Local Agency for any Work performed
or expense incurred under this Amendment either before or after the Amendment term shown in §3.B of this
Amendment
B.Amendment Term
The Parties’ respective performances under this Amendment and the changes to the Agreement contained herein
shall commence on the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment
and shall terminate on the termination of the Agreement.
4)PURPOSE
CDOT and the Town of Vail entered into an Agreement for the Design and Construction of the West berm
area, on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate Milepost 178-179. The original Agreement listed the
Total fill for the project approximately 71,000 cubic yard. CDOT was responsible for approximately 41,000
cubic yards and Town of Vail was responsible for approximately 30,000 cubic yards. The parties now wish to
change the amount each party will be responsible for filling. Vail will be responsible for filling approximately
44,600 cubic yards and CDOT will be responsible for filling approximately 26,400 cubic yards for a total of
approxima tely 71,000 cubic yards.
5)MODIFICATIONS
Exhibit A, Scope of Work is removed and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit A-1, Scope of Work
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Upon execution of this Amendment, all references in
the Agreeme nt to Exhibit A will be replaced with Exhibit A-1.
6)LIMITS OF EFFECT
This Amendment is incorporated by reference into the Agreement, and the Agreement and all prior amendments
or other modifications to the Agreement, if any, remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified
in this Amendment. Except for the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement, in the event of any conflict,
inconsistency, variance, or contradiction between the provisions of this Amendment and any of the provisions
of the Agreement or any prior modification to the Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall in all
respects supersede, govern, and control. The provisions of this Amendment shall only supersede, govern, and
control over the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement to the extent that this Amendment specifically
modifies those Special Provisions.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DocuSign Envelope ID: A80EE855-E9C6-488E-9162-89916E40BF59 EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 13 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 251 of 569
Exhibit A-1 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A-1
SCOPE OF WORK
SEDIMENT CONTROL STORAGE 1-70 M.P. 178.0 - 179.0
CDOT and the Town of Vail are entering into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and
Construction of the West berm area, on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate Milepost 178-179. The
East berm is completed, the West berm will be located on CDOT right-of-way, Tract C (see Exhibit C) and an
easement that was granted to the Town of Vail through a separate agreement with the Bald Mountain
Townhome Association and will be shared between CDOT and Town of Vail.
East Phase- Completed
West Phase
•The Town will be responsible for the design of the West berm including drainage, utilities, and
retaining walls. CDOT will not participate in the cost, shown on Exhibit B.
•Total fill approximately 71,000 cubic yards:
o Approximately 26,400 cubic yards (CDOT) in the berm on Tract C and I-70 ROW
o Approximately 44,600 cubic yards (Town of Vail)
•The Town will obtain all necessary Town of Vail and CDOT clearances. CDOT will assist the Town
with the CDOT environmental, ROW, and utility clearance.
•The Town cannot begin construction until the design is approved by CDOT.
•The Town will conduct operations during one of those years at an accelerated schedule and will be
responsible as outlined in the SOW. CDOT can work in conjunction with the town of Vail's operation
on a limited schedule.
•FHWA will only grant Town access across the A-Line for one construction season. Prior to granting
approval, an operational analysis of the traffic impacts caused by the MHT will be completed.
•An approved MHT plan must be in place prior to the start of construction.
•At any time unsafe traffic operations are brought to the attention of CDOT, Town access across the A-
line will be revoked until an appropriate traffic control plan is developed by the Town and CDOT
approval is granted.
•The Town can work in conjunction with CDOT’s operations on a limited schedule with prior approval.
•The Town will conduct operations during one year at an accelerated schedule. CDOT can work in
conjunction with the Town’s operation on a limited schedule. Planting trees and all irrigation work
shall be accomplished on the 5°' year of this contract. The Town shall only break the A-line during one
construction season and only for the purpose of this project.
•CDOT will be responsible for all the labor, materials and equipment for grading the berm to the
approved plans.
•CDOT will be responsible for obtaining a construction storm water discharge permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).
•CDOT will be responsible for all the labor, materials and equipment for revegetating the site per the
approved plans and CDOT’s construction storm water discharge permit and storm water management
plans.
•Work will begin on the Bald Mountain Townhome Association easement portion of the berm in 2016
and be completed prior to placement of material on Tract C.
•CDOT will be responsible for all labor, materials, and equipment to complete the embankment traffic
control, storm water management, rough grading, topsoil and seeding of the West Phase as shown on
the grading plan.
•CDOT will conduct operations up to a five (5) year time. The Town can still haul material in
conjunction with CDOT’s operations on a limited schedule.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A80EE855-E9C6-488E-9162-89916E40BF59 EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 14 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 252 of 569
OLA #: 351001301
Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0005
Document Builder Generated
Rev. 12/09/2016
Page 1 of 2
STATE OF COLORADO AMENDMENT
Amendment #: 2 Project #: N/A
SIGNATURE AND COVER PAGE
State Agency
Department of Transportation
Amendment Routing Number
16-HA3-XE-00090-M0005
Local Agency
TOWN OF VAIL
Original Agreement Routing Number
16-HA3-XE-00090
Agreement Maximum Amount $0.00 Agreement Performance Beginning Date
July 20, 2016
Agreement expiration date
December 31, 2021
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT
Each person signing this Amendment represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this
Amendment and to bind the Party authorizing his or her signature.
STATE OF COLORADO
Jared S. Polis, Governor
Department of Transportation
Shoshana M. Lew, Executive Director
___________________________________________
Stephen Harelson, P.E., Chief Engineer
Date: _________________________
LOCAL AGENCY
TOWN OF VAIL
___________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________
By: (Print Name and Title)
Date: _________________________
LOCAL AGENCY
(2nd Signature if Necessary)
___________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________
By: (Print Name and Title)
Date: _________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9994399A-40EF-492A-A599-2BDDFE7CB5C9
7/15/2021
Town ManagerScott Robson
7/15/2021
EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 15 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 253 of 569
OLA #: 351001301
Routing #: 16-HA3-XE-00090-M0004
Document Builder Generated
Rev. 12/09/2016
Page 2 of 2
1) PARTIES
This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Original Agreement shown on the Signature and Cover Page for
this Amendment (the “Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Local Agency and the State.
2) TERMINOLOGY
Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, all terms used in this Amendment that are defined in the
Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Agreement.
3) EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEABILITY
A. Amendment Effective Date
This Amendment shall not be valid or enforceable until the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature
and Cover Page for this Amendment. The State shall not be bound by any provision of this Amendment before
that Amendment Effective Date, and shall have no obligation to pay the Local Agency for any Work performed
or expense incurred under this Amendment either before or after the Amendment term shown in §3.B of this
Amendment
B. Amendment Term
The Parties’ respective performances under this Amendment and the changes to the Agreement contained herein
shall commence on the Amendment Effective Date shown on the Signature and Cover Page for this Amendment
and shall terminate on the termination of the Agreement.
4) PURPOSE
CDOT and the Town of Vail entered into an Agreement for the Design and Construction of the West berm
area, on the north side of Interstate 70 at approximate Milepost 178-179. The parties now wish to extend the
Agreement Expiration Date.
5) MODIFICATIONS
This Amendment will extend the Agreement Expiration Date to a new Agreement Expiration Date of
December 31, 2021.
6) LIMITS OF EFFECT
This Amendment is incorporated by reference into the Agreement, and the Agreement and all prior amendments
or other modifications to the Agreement, if any, remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified
in this Amendment. Except for the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement, in the event of any conflict,
inconsistency, variance, or contradiction between the provisions of this Amendment and any of the provisions
of the Agreement or any prior modification to the Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall in all
respects supersede, govern, and control. The provisions of this Amendment shall only supersede, govern, and
control over the Special Provisions contained in the Agreement to the extent that this Amendment specifically
modifies those Special Provisions.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9994399A-40EF-492A-A599-2BDDFE7CB5C9 EXHIBIT C
Expired IGA
Exhibit C - Page 16 of 16
April 19, 2022 - Page 254 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 17, S eries of 2022, A Resolution Approving an Agreement
between the Town of Vail and the E agle County S heriff's Office for the Purchase of K-9 Echo
B AC K G RO UND: The Vail P olice Department hired an E agle County S heriff's Deputy that is
currently serving as a K -9 officer. The Vail P D would like to buy the K -9 from E C S O to keep the
K -9 in service.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 17,
S eries of 2022.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Res. 17 series 2022
exhibit A
April 19, 2022 - Page 255 of 569
RESOLUTION NO. 17
Series of 2022
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL
AND THE EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FOR THE PURCHASE OF K-9 ECHO
WHEREAS, the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office (“ECSO”) owns a German Shepard
dog known as K-9 Echo (“Echo”);
WHEREAS, Rebecca Anderson was a Deputy with the ECSO (“Anderson”) and
was assigned as Echo’s handler, and was given the care, custody, and control of Echo.
Echo has been specially trained to assist officers in law enforcement tasks and to respond
to commands issued specifically by Anderson;
WHEREAS, Anderson’s employment with the ECSO ended on April 6, 2022, and
Anderson is employed as a police officer by the Town of Vail effective April 11, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the ECSO desires to sell, and the Town desires to purchase Echo
from the ECSO pursuant to the terms set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a
part hereof by this reference (the “Agreement”), so that Echo can accompany Anderson
in her service as a police officer for the Town.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the Agreement in substantially
the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and in a form approved by the Town
Attorney, and authorizes the Town Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the
Town.
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town
Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April 2022.
_________________________
Kim Langmaid, Town Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 256 of 569
K-9 PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO AND
THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO
This K-9 Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made effective this __ day of April 2022, by
and between the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office, Eagle County, Colorado, and the Town Vail, a
municipal corporation (“Town”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Eagle County Sheriff’s Office (“ECSO”) owns a German Shepard dog
known as K-9 Echo (“Echo”); and
WHEREAS, Rebecca Anderson was a Deputy with the ECSO (“Anderson”) and was
assigned as Echo’s handler, and was given the care, custody, and control of Echo (“Anderson”).
Echo has been specially trained to assist officers in law enforcement tasks and to respond to
commands issued specifically by Anderson.
WHEREAS, Anderson’s employment with the ECSO ended on April 6, 2022, and
Anderson is employed as a police officer by the Town of Vail (“Town”), effective April 11,
2022.
WHEREAS, the ECSO desires to sell, and the Town desires to purchase Echo from the
ECSO so that Echo can accompany Anderson in her service as a police officer for the Town.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual rights and obligations as
set forth below, the parties agree as follows:
1. The ECSO hereby sells Echo to the Town for the sum of $2,000.00, payable at the
time this Agreement is executed. ECSO warrants that it is the lawful owner of Echo and that
Echo is free and clear from all liens and encumbrances as of the date hereof.
2. The Town shall be the owner of Echo as of the effective date hereof and payment
to ECSO of the sum of $2,000.00.
3. The ECSO makes no promises concerning the physical or mental health of Echo
and the Town’s purchase of Echo is strictly “as is”. The ECSO will provide the Town with
copies of documentation evidencing Echo’s certifications and training, upon request from the
Town.
4. The Town is fully aware of the nature of the training Echo received and the nature
of the work that Echo performed during the period of ownership by the ECSO, and understands
April 19, 2022 - Page 257 of 569
the need to provide Echo with suitable shelter and reasonable surroundings in keeping with its
training and work experience. The Town hereby agrees to assume ownership and full
responsibility for the care, maintenance, food, housing, training, certifications, medical, and any
and all other expenses that result from or arise out of Town’s ownership of Echo. The ECSO
will have no further responsibility or liability for Echo or Echo’s care following the execution of
this Agreement.
5. The Town accepts full responsibility for and agrees to defend and hold harmless
the ECSO and Eagle County and its officers, employees, representatives, and agents with respect
to any loss, damage, claim, injury, or liability that arises out of, is caused by or is in any way
related to, Echo or Deputy’s actions with Echo after the transfer of ownership, which is effective
as of the date listed above, and the Town shall reimburse the ECSO and/or Eagle County for
reasonable attorney fees and costs, legal and other expenses incurred by the ECSO and/or Eagle
County in connection with investigating or defending any such loss, damage, claim, injury or
liability.
6. The Town further agrees to release and forever discharge the ECSO and Eagle
County, its officers, employees, representatives, and agents from any and all claims for injury,
disability, loss, or property destruction that may occur to anyone, as a result of contact with or
actions by Echo.
7. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise modify
any governmental immunity that may be available by law to either party, its officials, employees,
contractors’ or agents, or any other person acting on behalf of either party and, in particular,
governmental immunity afforded or available pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity
Act, Title 24, Article 10, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This paragraph shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
8. No modification or waiver of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or
provision herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be
charged therewith.
9. This written Agreement embodies the whole agreement between the parties hereto
and there are no inducements, promises, terms, conditions, or obligations made or entered into
either by the ECSO or the Town other than those contained herein.
10. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon or grant to any
third party any right to claim damages or to bring any lawsuit, action or other proceedings
against either the Town or the ECSO or Eagle County because of any breach hereof or because
of any terms, covenants, agreements or conditions contained herein.
April 19, 2022 - Page 258 of 569
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year
first above written.
THE EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE
OF COLORADO
By: ______________________________
James Van Beek,
Eagle County Sheriff
TOWN OF VAIL
By:__________________________________
Attest:
By: _____________________________
Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 259 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 18, S eries of 2022, A Resolution of the Town of Vail to J oin the
United Nations Global Mountain Partnership
B AC K G RO UND: The Town’s goals and values are aligned with the mission of the Mountain
P artnership, a United Nations voluntary alliance of interested governments and organizations
committed to working together with the common goal of achieving Sustainable Mountain
Development around the world.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 18,
S eries of 2022.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Memo
resolution No. 18 Series 2022
April 19, 2022 - Page 260 of 569
MOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP
GOVERNANCE and STRATEGY
2018-2021
I. Background and History
In 1992, the heads of state or government of most of the world’s nations at the UN Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED or ‘Rio Earth Summit’) signed a plan for action, ‘Agenda 21’.
Its Chapter 13 is entitled ‘Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development’.
Sustainable Mountain Development (SMD) is generally described as “a regionally-specific process of
sustainable development that concerns both mountain regions and populations living downstream
or otherwise dependent on these regions in various ways” (Price and Kim, 1999).
Following the inclusion of Chapter 13 in ‘Agenda 21’, awareness and understanding of the global
importance of mountains for the services they provide, but also of the vulnerability of mountain
ecosystems and communities increased, particularly through a series of important global and
regional meetings (see Appendix 4) among scientists, development agencies and other key
stakeholders. A specific outcome was the declaration of the UN General Assembly, in 1998, that
2002 would be the International Year of Mountains. In that year, many activities recognizing the
diverse values of mountains and the importance of SMD took place worldwide. In addition, at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 in Johannesburg, the International Partnership
for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions was established, with essential support from the
governments of Italy and Switzerland, UNEP, and FAO (the UN Lead Agency for mountains). This
partnership, now known as the “Mountain Partnership” (MP), is a “Type II” Partnership, i.e., a
voluntary trans-national umbrella alliance of mountain actors (governments, inter-governmental
organizations, civil society and private organizations) who are committed to collaborating to advance
mountain-specific goals. Like other “Type II” Partnerships, the MP is not a legal entity. FAO was
tasked with hosting and implementing a Secretariat to support the MP.
Over the 15 years of the existence of the MP (2002-2017), its membership has grown to more than
300 members (as of September 2017), including 57 national governments, 15 inter-governmental
organizations, and over 225 civil society and other organizations of great diversity in every respect.
Many actions in support of SMD have been accomplished at all levels from global, such as the
inclusion of mountains in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to local. The Mountain
Partnership Secretariat (MPS) has played an important role in creating an enabling environment for
key actors to work together towards joint goals.
The basic elements of the governance of the MP are defined in the document entitled “Mountain
Partnership – Organization, Membership and Governance”. This document was drafted after the
launch of the MP through a consultative process, finalized in July 2004 and officially endorsed by the
MP members during the second Global Meeting in September 2004 in Cusco, Peru. The main
principles expressed in the Governance chapter refer to “participation of all members,
April 19, 2022 - Page 261 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
2
accountability, responsiveness, consensus, transparency and flexibility”. The Steering Committee is
the supreme governing body of the MP to which the MPS plays a supportive role. From 2004 to
2013 (4th global meeting in Erzurum, Turkey), the MP operated through an informal governance
mechanism, the MP Advisory Committee (later renamed the MP Consortium) in which key mountain
stakeholders were represented. With the increasing membership and visibility of the MP it was
recognized that a more formal and representative governance mechanism was necessary.
Accordingly, a Governance and Strategy document for the period 2014-2017 was developed through
a step-wise and participatory process, and was approved on the occasion of the 4th global meeting of
the MP in Erzurum, Turkey along with the election of the members to the 16 seat Steering
Committee. The present Governance and Strategy document covers the period 2018-2021 and
consists of a revision of the previous document based on the experiences and lessons learned since
the Erzurum conference.
II. Vision and Mission
VISION: The members of the MP envision a world with increasing public and private sector
attention, commitment, engagement and investments in SMD that:
Maintain and enhance the conservation, health, vitality and stewardship of mountain
ecosystems for their inherent value and for the benefit of mountain communities and those
who live in the surrounding lowlands;
Improve the social and economic well-being and livelihoods of, and opportunities for, both
mountain people – particularly the most vulnerable – and those who live in the surrounding
lowlands; and
Empower and enable mountain people to be fully engaged in the decision-making processes
that determine the future of mountain communities and ecosystems, particularly in light of
global climate change and globalization processes.
MISSION: The MP is a vibrant voluntary alliance of interested governments and organizations
committed to working together with the common goal of achieving SMD around the world. By
tapping the wealth and diversity of resources, knowledge, information and expertise of and between
its global membership, the MP engages in advocacy and stimulates concrete initiatives at all levels to
address threats, improve quality of life and sustain healthy environments in the world’s mountain
regions.
III. Guiding Principles
Activities, events and projects that take place under the auspices of the MP are guided by the
following principles:
Mission-driven – MP activities focus on achieving the MP's mission;
Membership-driven – MP members determine the MP's goals and objectives;
April 19, 2022 - Page 262 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
3
Mutual responsibility, inclusiveness and engagement – Membership of the MP comes with
responsibilities (see Section V.C) and requires reliability in keeping agreed-upon
commitments;
Balanced and representative participation in governance – Balanced and representative
participation is achieved both geographically in terms of major mountain regions and with
regard to the diverse types of organizations that are MP members;
Transparency and collaboration – MP members vow to operate their partnership in an
open, transparent and collaborative manner, including transparency on financial matters
related to the MP and collaboration not only between and among MP members but also
with entities that are committed to advancing SMD that are not members of the MP;
Consensus-based decision making – MP members strive to make decisions about the future
direction of their partnership by consensus (defined in Section VI);
Balance of flexibility and focus – MP members strive to balance the desire to be flexible and
result-oriented with the need to stay focused on achieving consensus-based goals and
results; and
Building on existing activities -- While defining the bi-annual work plans, MP members strive
to maximize synergies, building on current activities/initiatives and member strengths.
IV. Functions and objectives (outcomes)
The members of the MP intend their partnership to be an active and critically important platform for
advancing the global agenda on SMD. As such, membership in the MP should be an added value and
not a burden – the MP should enable members to implement their specific mountain-related
mandate and initiatives more effectively, visibly and collaboratively and to embed them into the
global “mountain agenda”. Below, several functions are listed for which the Partnership has a
comparative advantage and which require joint action to be achieved. The specific objectives
enumerated under each of these functional areas in section VII.A are fulfilled through projects,
events and activities that are undertaken in the context of the MP by members acting independently
or jointly, either with other MP members or with non-MP entities. These functions include:
Advocacy -- global attention and awareness for SMD raised and tangible commitments from
the international community made to achieve SMD and for mainstreaming SMD into policy
processes.
Joint action –joint initiatives which have impact on the ground fostered, and collaborative
action among MP members and others on themes of relevance to SMD facilitated.
Knowledge management and communication – (a) growing evidence and body of
knowledge and experience about SMD, including traditional/indigenous knowledge as well
as scientific and technical knowledge generated, validated and shared to support MP
members in contributing to decision-making processes that lead to actions that foster SMD;
-(b) information and key messages about activities, events, projects, reports, etc. relevant to
SMD effectively communicated to the relevant target audiences (general public, policy
makers, media, private sector, scientists) who have the potential to advance the mountain
agenda and the larger goal of SMD.
April 19, 2022 - Page 263 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
4
Capacity development and technology transfer –activities and projects fostered aimed at
developing, increasing and sharing the capacity of MP members, mountain communities,
mountain people, and institutions; activities and projects (such as South-South Cooperation
mechanisms) fostered aimed at transferring beneficial technology that can assist other MP
members, mountain communities, mountain dwellers, and institutions to achieve SMD.
Innovation –a platform provided for informed and inspiring dialogue, particularly in the face
of emerging challenges, so that new ideas can evolve, priorities can be better identified, and
innovative solutions can be found and fostered.
Resource mobilization -- critical funding needs, gaps and opportunities for the achievement
of the MP’s mission and the larger goal of SMD identified, strategic advice provided and
potential resource partners such as governments, donor agencies, private foundations and
corporations for financial and in-kind resources actively engaged.
In view of the number and diversity of MP members, the expectations and perceptions about what
the MP should be and do are equally diverse. It is clear that not all functions have the same
importance for all the MP members. This challenge needs to be recognized and requires flexibility
and openness for compromise among the MP members.
V. Membership
A. Criteria
The MP is a self-governed voluntary alliance that is open for membership to governments,
subnational authorities, and intergovernmental, civil society and private organizations that are
actively engaged in and committed to achieving SMD. As such, individuals cannot be members.
Governments and organizations that are members of the MP must be committed to advancing SMD.
They must also be willing and able to engage in dialogue and collaboration with representatives of
other MP members to further SMD.
The criteria for establishing and maintaining membership of the MP include:
Endorsement of the vision, mission and guiding principles of the MP;
Active involvement in SMD;
Being a formal entity with a proven level of stability in terms of funding and organizational
capacity, and nominating a Focal Point and Alternate Focal Point for regular interaction with
members and the MPS;
Willingness to join forces and cooperate with other MP members;
Capacity to fulfill the membership roles and responsibilities, as defined below;
Access to the required information and communication technologies (e.g. computer, e-mail and
Internet) to participate effectively in MP activities; and
April 19, 2022 - Page 264 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
5
Access to resources (financial, in-kind or both) within the organization to invest in SMD and to
play an active role in the MP.
Interested governments and institutions may apply to become members of the MP by submitting a
request for membership to the MPS with a brief presentation of the purpose/mission and activities
of the government or institution related to SMD, along with a description of the contribution that
the organization or governmental unit intends to make for achieving the mission of the MP. The MPS
shares the applications received with the relevant Steering Committee members.
B. Categories
The following is a list of the current categories of MP membership. This list is intended to serve as a
guide for ensuring the representativeness of MP members in the governance and other activities of
the Partnership, and not to limit the types of organizations that may apply for membership. These
categories are not identical to the electoral groups for the Steering Committee, which follow a
simpler clustering (see Appendix 5).
• Governments
– National
– Subnational (Provinces, Municipalities, etc.)
• Intergovernmental Organizations
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)
– International NGOs
– Regional Level (Multi-Country) NGOs/CSOs
– National Level NGOs/CSOs
– Subnational Level NGOs/CSOs
– Foundations
• Private Sector Entities and Associations
– Large Multi-National Corporations
– Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
– Industry Associations
• Research / Education Organizations
– International Research Organizations
– National Level Research Organizations
– Universities / University-based Research Centers
– Research Networking/Facilitation Organizations
– Training Organizations
In addition to these different types of organizations, the MP seeks to have representation from all of
the major mountainous regions of the world, including but not limited to:
1. North & Central America and the Caribbean;
2. South America;
3. Europe;
4. Asia and Pacific;
April 19, 2022 - Page 265 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
6
5. Central Asia
6. Sub-Saharan Africa; and
7. Middle East and North Africa
The clustering of the current members according to the seven regions is available in Appendix 5.
C. Responsibilities
The members of the MP contribute collaboratively to the achievement of the functions of the MP
(see Section IV). They communicate their anticipated engagements for advancing the mission of the
MP among the MP members and ensure, as a matter of solidarity and reliability, the implementation
of these engagements. This approach to “accountability” to the overall cause is an essential feature
of a self-governing voluntary alliance, especially one that includes members that are as diverse as
those of a “Type II” Partnership such as the MP. In particular, representatives of MP members are
expected to fulfill to the extent possible the following core roles and responsibilities:
Participating in national and international fora, dialogues and negotiations related to SMD;
Raising attention about the importance of prioritizing SMD in national policies and
international agreements and of making the voices of mountain communities heard;
Sharing relevant information, expertise and experiences through various channels, including
providing links to the websites of MP members and of the MPS;
Contributing success stories, case studies, good practices and/or lessons learned to the MP
members and databases, also through the MPS, and participating in virtual discussions and
electronic conferences;
Engaging in capacity development activities on SMD in their sphere of influence, both as
providers of training and as beneficiaries of capacity development opportunities;
Engaging in brainstorming events, think-tank processes and dialogues on innovation in SMD
in response to ongoing changes and in preparation for emerging challenges;
Engaging in the identification and, whenever possible, the mobilization of funds to promote
investments in mountain areas;
Raising awareness about the need to prioritize SMD in national budgets; and
Initiating and/or participating in collaborative activities and joint initiatives with other MP
members and engaging in technology transfer.
If members are inactive for more than one year, the MPS can request the authorization of the
relevant SC representatives to inform the member that it will be cancelled from the MP
membership.
Since individuals cannot be members of the MP, NGOs have a special responsibility in facilitating the
participation of informal mountain community groups, such as indigenous people, and ensuring that
community voices are heard and receive the required attention.
April 19, 2022 - Page 266 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
7
The Steering Committee during its meeting in Uganda in October 2016 requesThisted the MPS to
develop a “membership fees option paper” to analyze the different potential fee options for
membership in the MP. The paper has been prepared and will be discussed at the Global Meeting in
Rome in 2017. The MP Governance document approved at the 4th Global Meeting (2013, Erzurum
Turkey) stated that: “MP members are required to indicate their commitment and contribution to
Mountain Partnership activities -- financial, in-kind contributions, or both -- the form of which is at
the discretion of each member. Organizations from developed countries are invited to pay a
membership fee and are expected, to the extent possible, to make a financial contribution to a
Mountain Partnership Facility (see section VII.A) which is being established to provide seed money
support to collaborative initiatives by MP members. In-kind contributions can include the costs
associated with the participation in MP activities and events, hosting of events by providing local
support, providing staff time for capacity development, editorial or translation services, etc.
Members are invited to regularly communicate their contributions and engagements to the MPS
which in turn will publicise these contributions through the appropriate channels.” Therefore this
paragraph will be finalized once a decision will be taken by members at the Global Meeting.
VI. Governing Philosophy and Mechanisms
A. Philosophy
As a self-governed voluntary alliance of governments and organizations committed to SMD, MP
members recognize the need for some degree of supporting structure to fulfill the MP’s mission. MP
members seek to establish the minimum degree of structure that is consistent with the guiding
principles, functions and objectives enumerated above, and necessary to effectively and efficiently
achieve the outputs and activities described below. The cost associated with establishing and
implementing these governance mechanisms are kept to a minimum in order to ensure that
resources devoted to SMD are, to the greatest extent possible, directed towards projects and other
activities that are of direct benefit to mountain communities and the ecosystems on which they, and
many others, depend.
B. Mechanisms
The principal mechanisms for governing MP activities, events and projects include: meetings of the
full membership of the MP, hereafter referred to as the Global Meeting (GM); a Steering Committee
(SC) made up of a representative and balanced subset of MP members; and a Secretariat (the MPS).
The roles and functions, composition and lines of accountability of each of these mechanisms are
described below.
1. MP Global Meeting
Role and Function: GMs serve as the means by which the full membership of the MP develops and
expresses its intentions regarding the future direction of the MP. Typically, this is accomplished
through the ratification of a four-year Strategy and a biannual overall agenda for the MP prepared
by the MPS under the leadership and guidance of the SC. A GM is held at least once every four years
April 19, 2022 - Page 267 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
8
with all members generally expected to participate in person. In case of funding or travel
restrictions, every effort will be made to enable virtual participation by members in key decision
making sessions of the GM. Every effort is made to ensure that a GM includes not only agenda items
to ratify governance and planning documents, such as this Strategic Plan and any future updates to
it, but also a wide variety of knowledge sharing and networking activities designed to advance the
mission of the MP.
Composition: GMs are open to participation from all members of the MP. Consistent with the
function of GMs to advance the mission of the MP and SMD in general, as well as the guiding
principle of collaboration with entities that are working on SMD who are not MP members, GMs are
also open to entities that are not members of the MP. However, only entities that are members of
the MP can participate in decisions about the future of the MP.
Funding: Members are encouraged to contribute to the organization of GMs and to mobilize
resources to support their own and other members’ participation. MPS will also seek resources to
ensure that members with financial constraints will be able to participate.
2. Steering Committee
Role and Function: The SC serves as a representative body of MP members that oversees the
preparation of a four-year Strategy and a two-year general agenda for the MP. The SC also monitors
and oversees the work of the MPS and reviews and approves its specific biennial budget and Work
Plan which derives from the general agenda of the MP. The Strategy as well as the general agenda
are presented to the full MP membership for ratification at a GM. The members of the SC do not
represent their own institutions but their regions and/or electoral groups. In addition, they should
have the capacity to understand other regions and, accordingly, have a global perspective. The SC
meets in person at least once per year and can meet virtually at the discretion of the Chair, or Vice
Chair in the absence of the Chair.
Composition: The SC shall include no more than 18 people who are representative of the diverse
membership of the MP, both in terms of the types of governments and organizations that are
current MP members as well as a balanced representation of the world’s numerous mountainous
regions (see Section V.B.). The composition of the SC (18 members) is proposed as follows (for the
clustering of the current members according to the six regions and electoral groups please refer to
Appendix 5):
1 representative of the national government members from each major mountain region (7
members);
1 representative of the civil society from each major mountain region (7 members);
1 representative of Intergovernmental Organizations (1 member);
1 representative of Global Civil Society Organizations (1 member);
1 representative of the donor organizations to the MPS (1 member); and
1 representative of the host institution of the MPS (1 member);
April 19, 2022 - Page 268 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
9
Members who are donor organizations to the MPS move automatically to the donor cluster. They
retain observer status in their original electoral groups but do not have voting rights. Similarly, the
host institution of the MPS, which automatically receives a place on the SC, may act as an observer
in its original electoral group but does not have voting rights.
The MPS Coordinator will participate in the SC meetings as Observer. Other Observers (e.g., experts,
resource persons) might be invited to SC meetings as required by the agenda of a particular session.
The selection of the SC members takes place in the preparation for the GM and the composition of
the SC is approved at the GM. The nomination process is carried out within the different electoral
groups and may be facilitated, on request, by the MPS. The members within each electoral group are
invited to express their interest in becoming a member of the SC. The selection will then be made
through a voting system within each electoral group. The SC members will serve for four years and
can be re-elected for a second four-year term. The SC members select a Chairperson and one or two
Vice-Chair(s). These positions rotate on a two-year basis to ensure active engagement of new
leaders and to avoid extended over-reliance on the willingness of just a few MP members to commit
the time, energy and resources that are required to fulfill these roles. The Chair is responsible for
conducting the meetings of the SC. The Vice-Chair(s) will conduct SC meetings in the absence of the
Chair. The detailed ToR of the SC are available in Appendix 1.
Accountability: The SC is accountable to the MP members.
Funding: Members are encouraged to mobilize their own resources to participate in these meetings
also by requesting support to the respective electoral groups. The MPS will seek resources to
support the participation of those members with financial constraints.
3. MP Secretariat
Role and Function: The MP Secretariat plays an active and supportive role to the MP membership as
a whole, and to the SC, providing services that link MP members and initiatives, fostering synergies
and complementarities to promote closer collaboration and achieve greater coherence in MP
efforts. In this role, the main tasks of the Secretariat are to promote advocacy and capacity
development activities, and provide communication and information services, knowledge
management and brokering functions by acting as a networking and liaison point for MP members.
In addition, the MPS promotes the identification and mobilization of resources and investments for
SMD, providing MP members with information about the availability of funds for SMD from all
possible sources on an on-going basis.
Composition: The staff composition of the MPS is reviewed and, if necessary, revised every two
years by the SC. The MPS is managed by a coordinator appointed and funded by FAO who will be
ratified by the SC every two years. The detailed ToR of the MPS are available in Appendix 2, the ToR
of the MPS Coordinator in Appendix 3.
Hosting: The MPS is currently hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), building on its formally designated role as the U.N. Lead Agency for mountains and
benefiting in particular from support from FAO Technical Departments and extended network of
April 19, 2022 - Page 269 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
10
regional, sub-regional and national offices. In its current hosting arrangement, the MPS is required
to coordinate with FAO with regard to its formal roles, functions and operations. The hosting
arrangement of the MPS is reviewed every four years by the SC.
Accountability: The MPS is accountable to the SC and ultimately to all MP members.
Funding: It is funded through financial and in-kind contributions from MP members.
VII. Putting the Mountain Partnership into practice
A. Outputs and activities
The outputs and activities stated below follow the logic of the functions and objectives of the MP
which are presented in section IV. The outputs and activities are for the Mountain Partnership as a
whole and are valid for the entire period of this strategy. They provide the key elements for the
development of the bi-annual agenda of the MP and the specific work plan of the MPS respectively.
The latter typically includes activities and responsibilities for only a subset of the outputs and
activities listed below according to the decisions by the MP Steering Committee. Elements which are
not covered by the work plan of the MPS might be taken on board by members or group of
members who have a particular interest and expertise in those issues. The list of outputs and
activities listed below is neither comprehensive nor follows any order of priority.
1. Outputs and activities for function “advocacy”
a) Develop a succinct, focused and practical advocacy strategy for SMD;
b) Work towards mainstreaming the principles of SMD contained in Chapter 13 of Agenda
21 and the Rio+20 outcome document in global multilateral environmental agreements
and their implementation;
c) Promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and of
the Paris Agreement in mountains;
d) Prepare MP members for active participation in UN processes (especially Conventions)
and other global and regional mechanisms and work towards the mainstreaming of
SMD issues in relevant processes;
e) Develop key messages, reports, briefs, other promotional and advocacy materials, and
tools related to SMD and provide them to member countries to use when formulating
their positions for important negotiations, e.g. in the context of the UN Conventions or
other international processes;
f) Establish and implement ad hoc awareness campaigns for SMD;
g) Identify and bring on board well known personalities who are ready to act as “Goodwill
ambassadors” or “champions” for SMD; and
h) Ensure global support to regional advocacy initiatives.
April 19, 2022 - Page 270 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
11
2. Outputs and activities for function “joint action”
a) Develop communities of practice for key mountain challenges (e.g., ecosystem-based
climate change adaptation, natural hazard risk management, watershed management,
biodiversity conservation, food security, migration) including linkages to existing centers
of excellence, networks, etc., to enable MP members to proactively develop and
undertake collaborative projects and other activities;
b) Promote strategic collaboration among MP members to contribute to SMD and
develop joint programmes including several MP members by building on their
respective strengths;
c) Develop strategies to address the lack of networks in certain regions to work toward MP
goals, including fostering regional communities of interest; and
d) As an alternative to organizing many low-profile side meetings, collaborate and join
forces in the preparation and implementation of single and powerful mountain-specific
events at regional and global meetings (e.g. COPs of conventions) which create visibility
and impact.
3. Outputs and activities for function “knowledge management and
communication”
a) Develop and implement a comprehensive and well-structured knowledge management
and communications strategy for the MP;
b) Undertake analyses and quantitative assessments of mountain natural resource
management and conservation issues, and of socio-economic development challenges
for mountain societies, as well as of their interactions and wider linkages (e.g.,
ecosystem services, climate change, poverty reduction, food security, migration), and
develop solutions for these challenges (e.g., Eeosystem-based adaptation);
c) Facilitate the collection of new and emerging scientific and technical knowledge, as well
as traditional knowledge, that can be used to increase the attention to mountains and to
work towards SMD, and carry out gap identification and needs assessments;
d) Prepare, on a regular basis, national or regional reports on the state of SMD;
e) Implement an informative, reliable, and interactive global entry point for mountain-
related information (knowledge hub/gateway/portal) and link with the Mountain Forum
information portal (and others) to fulfill the needs of MP members from all mountain
regions as well as for other users;
f) Convene and facilitate exchanges, conferences, fora and other information-sharing
mechanisms between MP members and with other stakeholders;
g) Mobilize contribution of MP members to global processes, especially those which FAO is
tasked by the UN General Assembly to coordinate, such as the International Mountain
Day and the preparation, every three years, of the UN Secretary General report; and
h) Promote media coverage of SMD and key solution-oriented policy messages (e.g. by
undertaking targeted campaigns linked to major events highlighting the Mountain
Agenda, creating a network of mountain journalists both at global and regional level,
tapping into the UN media, etc.).
April 19, 2022 - Page 271 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
12
4. Outputs and activities for function “capacity development and
technology transfer”
a) Promote the development of curricula on SMD for different stakeholder groups (school
children, high school and university students, project managers, government
technicians, etc.) by tapping into and linking the vast experience and initiatives available
within the membership of the MP and beyond;
b) Develop capacity on SMD (scientific, technical, thematic, negotiation, etc.) among MP
members and other stakeholders interested in SMD to enhance their effectiveness and
impact, e.g. through the organization of training courses, summer schools, online
forums and learning platforms;
c) Organize education campaigns on SMD for media in order to increase the effectiveness
and impact of communication and outreach activities related to SMD; and
d) Identify and share effective technologies, methods (including traditional knowledge)
and capacities regarding the management of mountain natural resources and
environments, e.g. through South-South cooperation, implementation guidance for
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
5. Outputs and activities for function “resource mobilization”
a) Act as a platform to facilitate donor contacts for MP members who require funds for
projects and other initiatives related to SMD;
b) Operationalize a Global Mountain Facility (or similar) to which investors (including from
the private sector) can contribute in order to support a diverse portfolio of SMD
projects from individual members or by a group of members;
c) Undertake a campaign to extend the membership of the MP to influential/strategic
partners, especially governments from globally important mountainous countries,
foundations and the private sector which might be in a position to provide funding for
MP activities or to contribute financially to the Global Mountain Facility;
d) Work toward ensuring that a portion of climate change adaptation funds are used to
support SMD (e.g., by promoting the establishment of a programme of work on
mountains within the UNFCCC and submitting proposals to the Green Climate Fund and
the Global Environment Facility);
e) Advise staff of MP member countries on how to negotiate and earmark national budget
allocations for specific mountain-related needs and priorities; and
f) Develop innovative ways for members to provide in-kind contributions to MP activities,
e.g. through the provision of staff time for translations, graphic designs, hosting of
events, technical assistance, etc.
April 19, 2022 - Page 272 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
13
B. Geographical scale of MP action
The membership of the MP consists of global, regional, national and local stakeholders. Accordingly,
the mandate and action of the MP articulates itself at all these geographical scales. An important
role of the MP is to ensure dialogue, negotiation, information flow and exchange of experiences
within and across these different levels. How dynamic the MP is within and across these scales
depends on the willingness and proactivity of the partners to engage in collaborative action and to
promote exchange of information and experiences. The role of the MPS is to facilitate this exchange,
negotiation and information flow process.
The national level is a key bridging scale for the functioning of the MP. It allows for decentralizing
action down to the sub-national and local levels and, at the same time, bringing local and national
experience to regional and global attention.
The coordination of MP activities at regional level is very challenging. Each region has to develop its
own mechanism, possibly including the establishment of sub-regional structures, which best fits to
the specific regional circumstances, needs and institutional “landscape”. Whatever coordination
mechanism is developed needs to have maximum legitimacy in convening/building more action,
exchange and collaboration among partners. Members in a specific region should be involved in
regular coordination, information/experience sharing and mutual support so that the regional
representatives in the Steering Committee (the representative of the national government members
and the representative of civil society members, see section VI.B) can adequately advocate for the
interests and realities of the region as well as of their respective electoral group. Regional or sub-
regional structures are not only important for the coordination within the regions but also for the
support and reinforcement of the outreach activities of the MPS.
The main focus of work of the MPS is at the global level. However, the MPS provides support, on
request, to regional and national level processes and initiatives and, if the human resources allow,
also to local level action. As a service provider, the MPS interacts regularly with all members
independently of the geographical scale with which they are engaged. In order to ensure high-
quality support to all these needs and processes, liaison staff (e.g. Junior Professional Officers,
seconded staff from national agencies, etc.) may be stationed, on request, in offices of MP members
at regional or national level. Members are encouraged to provide in-kind or cash contributions to
allow for the setup of these regional or sub-regional MP structures.
C. Monitoring and evaluation
Given the nature of partnerships, the monitoring and evaluation of impacts and the quantification of
results are very difficult and challenging. A “light” monitoring and evaluation system for the MP will
be strengthened under the responsibility of the SC members, based on a number of criteria and
indicators. The objective of this system will be to ensure that the MP fulfills its mission and that MP
April 19, 2022 - Page 273 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
14
members contribute to its achievement. This system will also include templates and guidelines for
members for the reporting process on activities and contributions (in-kind and financial). Finally, it
will provide for a regular review of the existing membership in order to ensure that the MP includes
only partners that wish to actively contribute to its goals.
D. Language policy
At the global level, English is the communication language for the MP. To the extent possible, key
MP communication products will be made available in English, French, Spanish and Russian. At the
regional level the most commonly understood language will be used. At the national level members
are encouraged to reach out to members and other stakeholders as much as possible in local
languages. Support of members for translating key documents from English into other relevant
languages is encouraged.
E. Use of the Mountain Partnership brand
Not every mountain-related initiative of MP members is automatically a MP activity. As a general
principle, an initiative should only be marked with the MP brand if it clearly derived from the MP.
More specifically, an activity or initiative can be labeled as being implemented within the MP if the
following criteria are met:
At least two partners are involved in or contribute to the initiative; and
The initiative is clearly related to SMD and contributes to the MP mission and objectives.
It is important that all initiatives which are being implemented under the MP label are reported to
the MPS in order to ensure proper communication to the entire membership. Simple visual brand
guidelines will be provided in the communication strategy.
April 19, 2022 - Page 274 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
15
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: ToR Steering Committee
Appendix 2: ToR MP Secretariat
Appendix 3: ToR Coordinator of the MPS
Appendix 4: Key milestones in the history of the MP
Appendix 5: List of MP members
April 19, 2022 - Page 275 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
16
Appendix 1
Terms of Reference
Steering Committee of the Mountain Partnership
The Steering Committee provides programmatic orientation to the Mountain Partnership and serves
as a representative body of its members. Each member of the Steering Committee represents a larger
group of members and, accordingly, they are responsible for providing well prepared and consolidated
input to the work of the Steering Committee – input which is based on a thorough consultation process
with their constituency groups. Whenever possible, the SC will make decisions on the basis of
consensus. However, if needed, the Steering Committee will vote and decisions will be approved by a
simple majority. For efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the Steering Committee works in English and
therefore elected members should have a working knowledge of this language. The Steering
Committee carries out the following main responsibilities and tasks:
Elect a Chair and one or two Vice-Chairs of the Steering Committee with a two-year
mandate;
Oversee the preparation of a four-year Strategy and a two-year general agenda for the MP;
Monitor the implementation of the MP agenda, the achievements and the impacts of MP
activities;
Monitor and oversee the work of the MPS (technical, administrative, financial) and approve
its specific biennial Work Plan which derives from the general agenda of the MP;
Ratify the selection of the Coordinator of the Mountain Partnership Secretariat, who is a
FAO staff (See appendix 3);
Oversee the recruitment of officers at the Mountain Partnership Secretariat at all levels;
Meet in person at least once a year, preferably in conjunction with any other suitable event
to increase synergies, and interact on a regular basis through electronic communication as
needed and requested by the Chair;
Define criteria for new membership and review, on a regular basis and with support from
the MPS, the current members; and
Address commitment issues of MP members and accountability matters of MPS if and when
such issues arise.
April 19, 2022 - Page 276 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
17
Appendix 2
Terms of Reference
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
The MPS plays an active and supportive role to the MP membership as a whole, and to the SC, providing
services that link MP Members and foster synergies and complementarities to promote closer
collaboration, avoid duplication, and achieve greater coherence in MP efforts. The work plan of the
MPS, which is being developed on a bi-annual basis, derives from the general agenda of the MP and is
approved by the Steering Committee. The Secretariat is led by a Coordinator who ensures the
functioning of the Secretariat. The Coordinator participates in the meetings of the Mountain
Partnership Steering Committee as an observer and supports the Chair of the SC in the organization of
the respective meetings. The staff composition in the MPS is reviewed and, if necessary, revised every
two years upon approval of its bi-annual work plan. The MPS carries out the following main
responsibilities and tasks:
Develop and maintain linkages and provide a supportive structure for MP members and
regional initiatives and act as a networking and liaison point for them;
Provide conceptual input to the MP and coordinate and facilitate its activities;
Provide brokerage, capacity development, knowledge management, communication and
information services in complement with other MP member’s efforts;
Promote the identification and mobilization of resources for SMD and provide MP members
with information about the availability of funds from all possible sources on an on-going
basis;
Prepare bi-annual/annual work plans and progress reports as required by the Steering
Committee and by donor organizations to the MPS;
Provide technical, administrative and logistical support to the preparation and
implementation of meetings (including the meetings of the Steering Committee);
Promote and provide advocacy for SMD and support the representation of MP at key events;
Analyse, on a regular basis, the commitment of MP members and communicate the results
to the SC; review new applications for membership and process them according to the
criteria defined by the Steering Committee;
Solicit contributions from MP members to the reporting to UN General Assembly (UNGA),
the UN Secretary-General, and any other relevant process;
Provide inputs, as requested, to UNSG report and UNGA resolutions on SMD;
Engage MP members in International Mountain Day celebrations;
April 19, 2022 - Page 277 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
18
Liaise with Secretariats of global conventions (e.g. United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity (UNCBD), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)) and other global initiatives
(e.g. in relation to natural disasters, water, forests, etc.); and
Engage MP members in following up actions on the RIO+20 process regarding the mountain
paragraphs.
April 19, 2022 - Page 278 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
19
Appendix 3
Terms of Reference
Coordinator of the Mountain Partnership Secretariat
The MPS is managed by a coordinator provided to the MP as an in-kind contribution by the host
organisation. The Coordinator will be endorsed by the SC every two years and will be recruited
under the rules and procedures of the host organisation. The Coordinator plans and supervises the
implementation of the work of the MPS by carrying out the following main responsibilities and tasks:
Provide leadership to the MPS staff and conceptual input and support on SMD to the MP as
a whole;
Participate in developing Terms of Reference for MPS staff and in their selection process;
Coordinate and supervise the work of MPS staff;
Guide the preparation of bi-annual/annual work plans and progress reports in support of the
SC;
Provide financial and budgetary oversight for the funds which are established to fund the
MPS or which are channeled through the MPS, including carrying out budget holder
responsibilities;
In consultation with the Chair of the SC, organize, convene and ensure reporting for regular
meetings of the Steering Committee;
Lead resource mobilization activities within the Secretariat, including developing and
maintaining linkages with potential donors of Mountain Partnership activities;
Promote, provide advocacy for and support the representation of the MP at key events by
MP members;
Provide liaison functions services within the host organisation and ensure full collaboration
and integration with related technical services.
April 19, 2022 - Page 279 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
20
Appendix 4
Key Milestones in the History of the MP
1992: UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or Rio Earth Summit includes
Chapter 13, ‘Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development’ in ‘Agenda 21’,
which is signed by heads of state or government of most of the world’s nations.
1993: FAO designated as the Task Manager of Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 and, accordingly, as the UN
‘Lead Agency for mountains.’
1994-96: Inter-governmental consultations held in Africa, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America,
involving representatives of 62 countries and the European Union.
1995: International non-governmental consultation in Lima, Peru, leading to establishment of the
Mountain Forum (MF) in 1996.
1998: Resolution for an International Year of Mountains supported by 130 countries in the UN
General Assembly (the largest number ever to support such a resolution).
2002: International Year of the Mountains includes national committees in 78 countries and
numerous events and other activities worldwide. The Plan of Implementation of the World Summit
for Sustainable Development (WSSD) includes Paragraph 42 which is focused on sustainable
mountain development. The Mountain Partnership1 established as a "Type II" partnership, with an
Interim Secretariat housed at FAO.
2002: Bishkek Global Mountain Summit (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan).
2003: First Global Meeting of the MP (Merano, Italy); Interim MPS established at FAO.
2004: Second Global Meeting of the MP (Cusco, Peru) with establishment of various thematic and
regional ‘Partnership Initiatives.’
2005: MP Secretariat (MPS) established at FAO.
2007: tri-partite external evaluation of the MPS.
2008: MPS regional hub for Latin America established at CONDESAN; MPS regional hub for
Asia/Pacific established at ICIMOD (until 2009)
2010: MPS regional hub for Central Asia established at University of Central Asia (UCA)
2011: Lucerne World Mountain Conference (Lucerne, Switzerland)
1 Initially called the International Partnership for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions; the shorter
name has been used since 2004.
April 19, 2022 - Page 280 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
21
2012: Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development: paragraphs 210-212 of ‘The Future We
Want,’ the outcome document, focus on sustainable mountain development. The third Global
Meeting of the MP is held on the margins of Rio+20.
2015: the UN adopts three mountain related targets under 2 of the 17 SDGs. These are:
Target 6.6.
By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands,
rivers, aquifers and lakes.
Target 15.1
By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland
freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in
line with obligations under international agreements.
Target 15.4
By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to
enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development.
April 19, 2022 - Page 281 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
22
Appendix 5
Mountain Partnership members (320)
6 December 2017
Governments (59)
Asia and the Pacific
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Indonesia
Kyrgyzstan
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Europe
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
France
Georgia
Italy
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Romania
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Ukraine
Middle East and North Africa
April 19, 2022 - Page 282 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
23
Algeria
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Jordan
Morocco
Tunisia
Yemen
North and Central America and the Caribbean
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Jamaica
Mexico
South America
Argentina
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Sub-Saharan Africa
Burundi
Cameroon
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Ghana
Guinea
Kenya
Lesotho
Madagascar
Malawi
Swaziland
Togo
Uganda
Subnational authorities (7)
April 19, 2022 - Page 283 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
24
Asia and the Pacific
Philippines
Province of Negros Occidental
Russian Federation
Altai Republic
Europe
Spain
Municipality of Dénia
Municipality of Campoo de Yuso
North and Central America and the Caribbean
United States of America
City of Aspen
City of Basalt
City of Orem
Intergovernmental Organizations (16)
African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN)
Carpathian Convention
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations University (UNU)
World Bank (WB)
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
Major Groups (238)
April 19, 2022 - Page 284 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
25
Asia and the Pacific
Australia
CarbonLab, University of Queensland
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland
Bangladesh
Bangladesh Mountaineering Federation (BMF)
Kothowain
China
Guizhou University of Finance and Economics (GUFE)
Journal of Mountain Science
Pendeba Society
Plateau Perspectives
India
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE)
Central Himalayan Environment Association (CHEA)
Centre for Environment Education (CEE Himalaya)
Central Himalayan Institute for Nature and Applied Research (CHINAR)
Council for Green Revolution (CGR)
Global Himalayan Expedition (GHE)
Go Green & Go Organic
Institute for Sustainable Development and Research (ISDR)
Institute of Himalayan Environmental Research and Education (INHERE)
Integrated Mountain Initiative (former Indian Mountain Initiative)
Nilgiri Documentation Centre
Pan Himalayan Grassroots Development Foundation
Prakriti
Society for Conserving Planet and Life (COPAL)
Society for Natural Resource Management and Community Development (SNRMCD)
Switch ON – Onergy
Kazakhstan
Avalon Historico-Geographical Society
Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC)
Kyrgyzstan
April 19, 2022 - Page 285 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
26
Agency of Development Initiatives (ADI)
AgroLead Public Association
Aigine Cultural Research Center
Alliance of Central Asian Mountain Communities (AGOCA)
Association of Forest and Land Users of Kyrgyzstan (AFLU Kyrgyzstan)
“Bio Service” Public Foundation
BIOM Ecological Movement
CAMP Alatoo
Center for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Development (CREEED)
Central-Asian Institute for Applied Geosciences (CAIAG)
ElEco Youth Environmental Movement
EKOIS
Farmer Cooperative Alysh Dan
Federation of Organic Development Bio-KG
Global and Local Information Partnership (GLIP)
Institute for Sustainable Development Strategy Public Fund (ISDS)
Kyrgyz Association of Fruit Growers
Mountain Societies Development Support Programme
Muras Bashaty
Public Foundation "Ergene"
Rural Development Fund
“Topchu” Art Group
UNISON
University of Central Asia (UCA)
Yrystan Public Foundation for Sustainable Community Development
Mongolia
Snow Leopard Conservation Foundation
Nepal
3 Sisters Adventure Trekking
Dalit Welfare Association (DWA)
EcoHimal Nepal
ForestAction Nepal
Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environment Nepal
Karnali Integrated Rural Development and Research Centre (KIRDARC)
Organic World and Fair Future Pvt Ltd. (OWF)
Pragya Seeds Nepal (PGSI)
Resources Himalaya Foundation
New Zealand
April 19, 2022 - Page 286 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
27
New Zealand Alpine Club
Pakistan
Development Communications Network (DEVCOM-Pakistan)
Focus Humanitarian Assistance Pakistan
Mountain Areas Conservation and Development Services
Mountains & People
National Integrated Development Association (NIDA-Pakistan)
New World Hope Organization (NWHO)
Swat Youth Front
Philippines
Broad Initiatives for Negros Development (BIND)
Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education (TEBTEBBA)
Russian Federation
Foundation for Sustainable Development of Altai (FSDA)
Mountain Territories of Dagestan
Russian Geographical Society (RGS)
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS)
Sustainable Development of Mountain Territories "Mountains" (IISTC "Mountains")
Tajikistan
CAMP Kuhiston
Centre for Climate Change and Disaster Reduction (CCDR)
Little Earth
Public Organization “Kuhhoi Pomir”
Tajik Social and Ecological Union
Thailand
Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI)
Europe
Albania
AlbaForest
Albanian Alps Alliance
Armenia
April 19, 2022 - Page 287 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
28
Convivium Ararat
Austria
Federal Institute for Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas (BABF)
Institute for Interdisciplinary Mountain Research (IGF)
Azerbaijan
Environmental Research Center of the Khazar University (ERCKU)
Belgium
Euromontana
European Association of Elected Representatives from Mountain Areas (AEM)
Bulgaria
Association for Development of Mountain Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria
(ADMMRB)
Bulgarian Association for Development of Mountain Regions (BulMontana)
France
Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM)
European Mountain Forum (EMF)
Mountain Wilderness
PlaNet Finance
Tignes Developpement
World Mountain People Association (WMPA)
Georgia
Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus
Germany
Ecological Tourism in Europe (ETE)
Greece
Kavala Institute of Technology (KavTech)
Metsovion Interdisciplinary Research Center (M.I.R.C.)
UNESCO Club of Serres
University of the Mountains (Greece)
Hungary
April 19, 2022 - Page 288 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
29
International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC)
Italy
Association Ardito Desio
Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economics Analysis (CREA)
Earth Day Italia Onlus
European Academy (EURAC)
Ev-K2-CNR Committee
Fondazione Courmayeur Mont Blanc
International Alliance for Mountain Film
Museo Nazionale della Montagna "Duca degli Abruzzi"
National Organization of Mountain Municipalities, Communities and Bodies (UNCEM)
Slow Food
Sports Medicine School
Trento Film Festival
University of Milan - GE.S.DI.MONT.
University of Rome Sapienza - Department of Environmental Biology
University of Turin - Department of Agricultural, Forest & Food Sciences (DISAFA)
Liechtenstein
International Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA)
Norway
Norwegian Mountain Research Network
Poland
Association of the Mountain Cheese Trail "Szlak Oscypkowy"
Tatra Agency for Development Promotion and Culture
Wojtowice - Back to the Future
Portugal
Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO)
MiratecArts
Romania
Romanian Mountain Forum
ROMONTANA - National Association for Mountains Rural Development
Russian Federation
April 19, 2022 - Page 289 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
30
MAB-6 Center
Spain
gvSIG Association
Switzerland
Centre for Development and Environment (CDE)
Foundation for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions (FDDM)
Global Mountain Action
Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment
International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (UIAA)
International Scientific Committee on Research in the Alps (ISCAR)
Mountain Research and Development
Mountain Research Initiative (MRI)
ProMONT-BLANC
World Economic Forum
World Wildlife Fund International (WWF-International)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Association for the Development of Mountain Regions in the Republic of Macedonia
(MAKMONTANA)
Balkan Foundation for Sustainable Development (BFSD)
Turkey
Association for Sustainability and Governance of Mountainous Areas
Bingol University
Kastamonu University
Turkish Geographical Society
United Kingdom
Active Remedy Ltd.
African Conservation Foundation (ACF)
AleeVee8
Centre for Mountain Studies (CMS)
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Practical Action
Middle East and North Africa
Egypt
April 19, 2022 - Page 290 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
31
Deraya University
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Mountain Damavand Conservation Society
Mountain Environment Protection Society (MEPS)
University of Tehran
Lebanon
Lebanon Mountain Trail Association
Morocco
Migration and Development
Oman
Sultan Qaboos University
North and Central America and the Caribbean
Canada
International Amenity Migration Centre (IAMC)
The Rockies Institute (TRI)
Costa Rica
Centro Científico Tropical (Tropical Science Center)
Coopedota
Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Cordillera Volcánica Central (FUNDECOR)
National Meteorological Institute of Costa Rica
Panama
Fundación CoMunidad
United States of America
Altai Assistance Project, Inc.
American Councils for International Education (ACTR/ACCELS)
Arctic and Mountain Regions Development Institute (AMRDI)
Aspen International Mountain Foundation (AIMF)
BioRegions International
Dean's Beans Organic Coffee Company
Gruppman International Violin Institute
April 19, 2022 - Page 291 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
32
Millennium Institute
Mountain Studies Institute (MSI)
MountainWorld Productions
Snow Leopard Conservancy
Tatra Mountains Cultural Foundation
Telluride Institute
The Mountain Institute (TMI)
University of Denver - Western Colorado Master Social Work
Utah Valley University (UVU) and Utah-Russia Institute
Vista 360°
Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and NRM (WOCAN)
South America
Argentina
Argentinean Environmental Centre (CAMBIAR)
Association for Social Development (ADESO)
Fundación Agreste
Fundación EcoAndina
Fundación ProYungas
Mountain Duck
VICAM: Vicuñas, Camélidos y Ambiente
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Bolivian Mountain Institute
Flor de Leche
Fundación Participación y Sostenibilidad (PASOS)
Irupana Andean Organic Food S.A.
Brazil
Confederação Brasileira de Montanhismo e Escalada (CBME)
Crescente Fértil
Chile
Fundación Sendero de Chile
Colombia
Centro de Estudios de Alta Montaña (CEAM)
Fundación Ecohabitats
Fundación Estación Biológica Guayacanal
April 19, 2022 - Page 292 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
33
Fundación para el Desarrollo Sostenible de las Zonas de Páramo y sus Áreas de Influencia
Fundación Pangea
Ecuador
Fundación Cordillera Tropical
Peru
Asociacion Oikos
Association for Nature and Sustainable Development (ANDES)
Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDESAN)
HimalAndes Initiative
Huayhuash Peru
International Potato Center (CIP)
Mountain Forum
Red de Agroindustria Rural del Perú (REDAR Perú)
Yachay Wasi
Sub-Saharan Africa
Benin
Centre de Recherche pour la Gestion de la Biodiversité (CRGB)
Burundi
Association pour la Protection des Montagnes du Burundi (APMB)
Cameroon
Cameroon National Network of Associations and NGOs of the Mountain Partnership
(RENASONGCAM)
Foundation for Environment and Development (FEDEV)
Save Your Future Association (SYFA)
Ethiopia
Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society
Ghana
Ghana Wildlife Society (GWS)
Kenya
April 19, 2022 - Page 293 of 569
Mountain Partnership Secretariat
info@mountainpartnership.org
www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/en/
34
International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE)
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
Mara Expeditions Community Based Organization
Mount Kenya Trust
Volunteers for Africa / ECODECO Partnership
Lesotho
Rural Self Help Development Association (RSDA)
Malawi
Institute of Sustainable Development (ISD)
Total LandCare
Nigeria
Environment and Tourism Support (EATS)
South Africa
Sunrise On Africa's Peaks
Togo
Les Compagnons Ruraux
Plateforme des Organisations de la Société Civile pour la Sauvegarde des Montagnes (PSM)
Uganda
Albertine Rift Conservation Society (ARCOS)
Makerere University
SORAINE Uganda
Zimbabwe
School of Wildlife, Ecology and Conservation, Chinhoyi University of Technology
April 19, 2022 - Page 294 of 569
RESOLUTION NO. 18
Series of 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO JOIN THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL
MOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, the Town’s vision is to be the premier mountain resort community and
is a globally recognized certified sustainable destination under criteria set forth by the
Global Sustainable Tourism Council, a division of the United Nations;
WHEREAS, the Town’s goals and values are aligned with the mission of the
Mountain Partnership, a United Nations voluntary alliance of interested governments and
organizations committed to working together with the common goal of achieving
Sustainable Mountain Development around the world;
WHEREAS, the Mountain Partnership envisions a world with increased public and
private sector attention, commitments, engagement and investments in sustainable
mountain development that:
• Maintain and enhance the vitality and stewardship of mountain
ecosystems for the crucial services and goods they provide to the planet;
• Improve the social and economic wellbeing and livelihoods of and
opportunities for mountain peoples – particularly the most vulnerable –
and those who live in geographic regions that include mountains; and
• Empower and enable mountain peoples to be fully engaged in the
decision-making processes that help shape the future of mountain
communities and ecosystems, particularly in light of global change and
globalization processes; and
WHEREAS, the Town is an eligible governmental organization committed to
meeting the criteria of the Mountain Partnership, willing to join forces with other Mountain
Partnership members and fulfill the roles and responsibilities as defined in the Mountain
Partnership Strategy and Governance 2018-2021 document, attached hereto as Exhibit
A and made a part hereof by this reference.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves joining the United Nations
Global Mountain Partnership and authorizes the Town Manager to execute all documents
necessary to effectuate this Resolution.
April 19, 2022 - Page 295 of 569
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town
Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April 2022.
_________________________
Kim Langmaid, Town Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 296 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 19, S eries of 2022, F ire Free Five Funding
B AC K G RO UND: At the April 5 Town Council Meeting, the Vail Town Council approved funding
for a financial assistance program to assist property owners with creating a 5' non-combustible
zone around their property. F unding for this program was included in the second reading of the
budget supplemental. T his Resolution formally establishes the Fire F ree F ive Community
A ssistance Program.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove Resolution No. 19, Series of 2022 establishing the
Fire F ree F ive Community Assistance P rogram
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Resolution No. 19, Series 2022
exhibit A
Sample FF F Funding Application
April 19, 2022 - Page 297 of 569
RESOLUTION NO. 19
Series of 2022
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRE FREE FIVE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, creating a five-foot non -combustible zone is one of the most important
actions a property owner can take to reduce the risk of structural loss due to wildland fire;
WHEREAS, preventing such loss is particularly important in the Town due to the
proximity of structures to each other, which increases risk of a wildland fire initiated
wildland-urban conflagration; and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to establish and implement a funding program to
reimburse property owners for costs associated with implementing the five-foot non-
combustible zone as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by
this reference (the “FFF Program”).
NOW TH EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the FFF Program in substantially
the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town
Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of April 2022.
_________________________
Kim Langmaid, Town Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 298 of 569
EXHIBIT A
Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program
This program is intended to provide financial support to property owners who are
increasing wildfire resiliency by creating a 5’ non-combustible zone around their
building (Fire Free Five).
REQUIREMENTS OF ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
• Located within the incorporated boundaries of the Town of Vail (TOV)
• Each property is limited to a single reimbursement up to the specified limits based
upon property type
• Property must fully implement the fire free five around the entire building
• Reimbursement is limited to property-owners or their legal representative; renters
are not eligible to receive reimbursement. An HOA will be considered a property
owner for the purpose of eligibility for common areas owned by the HOA.
REIMBURSEMENT
• This Program will reimburse property owner 75% of actual costs of materials and
labor. Property owner must provide a minimum 25% cash match
• Creation of Fire Free Five around outbuildings is an eligible expense but is not
eligible for a separate reimbursement
• Reimbursement limits are as follows:
o Single Family Dwelling: $2,000
o Duplex: $3,000
o Multi-family Dwelling/complex, 1-20 units: $5,000
o Multi-family Dwelling/complex, 21 units or more: $10,000
o Commercial Structure: $5,000
APPLICATION PROCESS
1. Property owner submits a FFFCAP application to Vail Fire and Emergency
Services (VFES)
2. VFES staff conducts an evaluation of existing conditions and issues a tree
removal permit if necessary
a. VFES staff will ensure joint property signoff for projects involving more
than one owner
b. Staff will provide information on considerations for nesting wildlife
3. Property owner completes activities necessary to create FFF around entire
structure
4. VFES staff conducts follow-up evaluation to confirm that FFF implementation
is complete
5. Property owner submits receipts for contracted labor and materials to VFES
(receipts must be submitted within 90 days of initial FFFCAP site evaluation)
6. TOV Finance Department processes payment to property owner
April 19, 2022 - Page 299 of 569
Vail Fire and Emergency Services
2399 North Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Tel: 970-477-3475
www.vailgov.com/fire
Application for Fire Free Five
Community Assistance Program
General Information: The Fire Free Five Community Assistance Program was developed to aid Vail property
owners reduce their wildfire risk by installing and maintaining fire resistant landscaping within the first five feet
of their building. Funds are available for labor and materials to implement the Fire Free Five around your
building.
Property Owner: ________________________________________________________________________
Physical Address: _____________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ________________________________________________________________________________
Owner’s Signature:______________________________________________________________________
Description of work to be completed:
For Office Use Only:
Date of Vail Fire Initial Site Visit:________________
Date of Project Approval: _____________________
Vail Fire and Emergency Services Project Approval Signature:_________________________________
•FFCAP will reimburse up to 75% of actual materials and labor expenses. Property
owner must provide 25% cash match.
•All work must be completed within 90 days of approval of application. Reimbursements
submitted more than 90 days after application approval may be denied.
•Vail Fire and Emergency Services must approve project before work may begin. Work
completed prior to project approval may not be reimbursed.
Requested Funding:
April 19, 2022 - Page 300 of 569
JOINT PROPERTY OWNER
WRITTEN APPROVAL LETTER
The applicant must submit written joint property owner approval for applications affecting shared ownership properties
such as duplex, condominium, and multi-tenant buildings. This form, or similar written correspondence, must be
completed by the adjoining duplex unit owner or the authorized agent of the home owner’s association in the case of a
condominium or multi-tenant building. All completed forms must be submitted with the applicants completed application.
I, (print name) ______________________________________________, a joint owner, or authority of the association,
of property located at _______________________________________________________, provide this letter as written
approval of the plans dated __________________________________________ which have been submitted to the
Town of Vail Community Development Department for the proposed improvements to be completed at the address
noted above. I understand that the proposed improvements include:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I understand that modifications may be made to the plans over the course of the review process to ensure compliance
with the Town’s applicable codes and regulations; and that it is the sole responsibility of the applicant to keep the joint
property owner apprised of any changes and ensure that the changes are acceptable and appropriate. Submittal of an
application results in the applicant agreeing to this statement.
_________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Signature Date
Print Name
April 19, 2022 - Page 301 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: L etters of I ntent and I nvitation to Visit Vail (to St. Moritz, Switzerland Officials and
S t. A nton am Arlberg, Austria Officials) in support of Vail's Peer Resort Exchange Program
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Letter of Intent St. Moritz
Letter of Intent St. Anton
April 19, 2022 - Page 302 of 569
April 19, 2022
The Honorable Christian Jott Jenny
Kanzlei
Via Maistra 12
CH-7500 St. Moritz, Switzerland
Dear Mayor Jenny,
On behalf of the Town of Vail, we wish to thank you and your representatives for your warm
hospitality and unforgettable experience in your exquisite community this March. Our shared
values have re-invigorated a long-standing Sister City relationship and the Town of Vail has
come to know and love St. Moritz as an international example of a premiere resort community.
It is with great pleasure that I invite the delegates of St. Moritz to visit the Town of Vail this
upcoming summer or winter 2022, to continue to explore the future of this alliance. To that end,
we envision a growing awareness and appreciation of each other’s culture and people. From
small beginnings, we hope this partnership will continue for many generations, fostering
exchanges in education, sustainability, economic and professional development.
Following our upcoming visit with the delegates of St. Moritz in Vail in the coming months, it
would be to formalize the peer resort change (aka Sister City) relationship between St. Moritz
and the Town of Vail, to encourage bilateral cooperation, to intensify common efforts, and to
exchange experiences and the execution of common activities that contribute to the
development of both cities.
To that end, we propose the following objectives for a future agreement.
Areas of Cooperation and Modalities
To reach the objective of the Agreement, the Parties are committed to explore and develop
cooperative projects, specifically directed, but not limited to the following areas:
a) Cultural Exchange: Promote cultural, historical, artistic and sports exchanges to
advance the understanding and enjoyment of each community’s cultural
attributes, traditions and heritage.
b) Promotion of Tourism: Each community will promote the other through their
corresponding local tourism office, to raise awareness of the brand, values, guest
experience and destination.
April 19, 2022 - Page 303 of 569
Town of Vail Page 2
c) Environmental and Sustainability Cooperation: Both communities will share best
practices to promote sustainable development, innovation, wildlife and
environmental protection, the advancement of best practices in addressing global
climate change, promoting pollution prevention policies and practices and
encourage environmental education and research.
d) Education: Encourage the local school boards to share educational programs and
systems. Encourage the development of student exchange programs between
the communities.
e) Any other area of cooperation that the communities agree upon.
Sincerely,
Kim Langmaid,
Mayor, Town of Vail, on behalf of the Vail Town Council
cc: Ulrich Rechsteiner, City of St. Moritz
Marijana Jakic, Engadin St. Moritz Tourismus AG
April 19, 2022 - Page 304 of 569
April 19, 2022
The Honorable Helmut Mall
Dear Mayor Mall,
On behalf of the Town of Vail, we wish to thank you and your representatives for your warm
hospitality and unforgettable experience in your exquisite community this March. Our shared
values have invigorated our intent to create a long-standing Sister City relationship with St.
Anton am Arlberg. Our visit certainly provided the opportunity to better understand your history
as a leader in the ski industry as well as enjoy your quaint and authentic resort mountain
community.
It is with great pleasure that I invite the delegates of St. Anton am Arlberg to visit the Town of
Vail in 2022 at a time that is convenient to continue to explore the future of this alliance. To that
end, we envision a growing awareness and appreciation of each other’s culture and people.
From small beginnings, we hope this partnership will continue for many generations, fostering
exchanges in education, sustainability, economic and professional development.
Following this visit with the delegates of St. Anton am Arlberg, the Town of Vail would express a
desire to formalize the Sister City relationship between St. Anton am Arlberg Moritz and the
Town of Vail, to encourage bilateral cooperation, to intensify common efforts, and to exchange
experiences and the execution of common activities that contribute to the development of both
cities.
To that end, we propose the following objectives for a future agreement.
Areas of Cooperation and Modalities
To reach the objective of the Agreement, the Parties are committed to explore and develop
cooperative projects, specifically directed, but not limited to the following areas:
a) Cultural Exchange: Promote cultural, historical, artistic and sports exchanges to
advance the understanding and enjoyment of each community’s cultural
attributes, traditions and heritage.
b) Promotion of Tourism: Each community will promote the other through their
corresponding local tourism office, to raise awareness of the brand, values, guest
experience and destination.
c) Environmental and Sustainability Cooperation: Both communities will share best
practices to promote sustainable development, innovation, wildlife and
April 19, 2022 - Page 305 of 569
Town of Vail Page 2
environmental protection, the advancement of best practices in addressing global
climate change, promoting pollution prevention policies and practices and
encourage environmental education and research.
d) Education: Encourage the local school boards to share educational programs and
systems. Encourage the development of student exchange programs between
the communities.
e) Any other area of cooperation that the communities agree upon.
Sincerely,
Kim Langmaid,
Mayor, Town of Vail, on behalf of the Vail Town Council
cc: Mr. Martin Ebster, Director, Tourismusverband St. Anton Arlberg
Ms. Wilma Himmelfreundpointner; Marketing Director
April 19, 2022 - Page 306 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award to S tone S ecurity to Support the Milestone Camera Software
B AC K G RO UND: The Milestone camera software system is used to store and review the video
footage gathered by over 240 cameras positioned around town. T his video has been extensively
used by the Police Department to assist with investigations and by the P arking department to track
various issues in our structures. T he Milestone system has become a critical tool in their day-to-day
operations, and this support agreement ensures that the software is kept up to date and functioning
effectively.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement in a form
approved by the Town A ttorney with Stone Security, L L C in the amount of $53,250 to support the
town’s Milestone camera software system.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Memo
April 19, 2022 - Page 307 of 569
To: Vail Town Council
From: IT Department
Date: April 19, 2022
Subject: Milestone Support Agreement with Stone Security
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to request the Council to approve an agreement with Stone Security
to support our Milestone camera software.
II. BACKGROUND
The Milestone camera software system is used to store and review the video footage gathered
by over 240 cameras positioned around town. This video has been extensively used by the
Police Department to assist with investigations and by the Parking department to track various
issues in our structures. The Milestone system has become a critical tool in their day-to-day
operations, and this support agreement ensures that the software is kept up to date and
functioning effectively.
III. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney
with Stone Security, LLC in the amount of $53,250 to support the town’s Milestone camera
software system.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council direct the Town Manger to enter into an agreement in a form
approved by the Town Attorney with Stone Security, LLC in the amount of $53,250 to support
the town’s Milestone camera software system.
April 19, 2022 - Page 308 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award to American Mechanical Services for Police Department Rooftop
Unit Replacement
B AC K G RO UND: There are eight roof top units which provide heating and cooling to the
department interior spaces. Over the past two years four out of the eight units have been replaced.
This will be year number three and the plan is to replace unit numbers five and six. T he new units
are state of the art and are much more efficient than the existing units. They utilize condensing
cooling eliminating the outdated existing evaporative cooling.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A uthorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a
form approved by the Town A ttorney, with A merican Mechanical S ervices to replace the P olice
Department's rooftop unit in the amount not to exceed $86,034.00.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Memo
April 19, 2022 - Page 309 of 569
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Town Council
Public Works
04/19/2022
Police Department Rooftop Unit Replacement Contract Award
I.ITEM/TOPIC
Police Department Rooftop Unit Replacement Contract Award
II.ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with American Mechanical
Services to replace the Police Department's rooftop unit.
III.BACKGROUND
There are eight roof top units which provide heating and cooling to the department
interior spaces. Over the past two years four out of the eight units have been replaced.
This will be year number three and the plan is to replace unit numbers five and six. The
new units are state of the art and are much more efficient than the existing units. The
new units also utilize condensing cooling eliminating the outdated existing evaporative
cooling.
Due to the continuing supply chain issue, these unit will not be delivered until early
September 2022 and the installation will be done at that time.
IV.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the
Town Attorney, with American Mechanical Services to replace the Police Department's
rooftop unit in the amount not to exceed $86,034.00.
April 19, 2022 - Page 310 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award with E agle Valley E vents for the production of Vail America Days
P arade
B AC K G RO UND: An R F P was published to find an event producer to execute the Vail America
Days Parade. L aurie A smussen of E agle Valley E vents submitted a proposal that was reviewed
and approved by the Commission on Special E vents.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Direct the town manager to enter into an agreement, on a form
approved by the town attorney, with E agle Valley E vents for the production of the Vail A merica
Days parade and entertainment in an amount not to exceed $70,000.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Memo
April 19, 2022 - Page 311 of 569
To: Mayor and Town Council
From: Economic Development
Date: 4/14/2022
Subject: Funding Agreement for Vail America Days
Background
The Town of Vail has hosted and produced a modified 4th of July event and parade for
the last two years due to COVID 19. As COVID-19 has become endemic and less
impactful on events and gatherings, the town is bringing back the traditional parade
model. An RFP was published to find an event producer to execute the parade and
entertainment for Vail America Days.
Laurie Asmussen of Eagle Valley Events submitted a proposal to produce the parade.
Laurie produced the parade back in the early 2000’s and has produced many other
parades in the region. The Commission on Special Events and Town staff reviewed the
proposal and has recommended that Town Council enter into an agreement with Eagle
Valley Events to produce the event.
Budget
$70,000 was included in the budget for the Vail America Days Parade and event in the
Town Produced Event budget category. The proposal submitted fits within the allocated
budget.
Action Requested of Council
Direct the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Eagle Valley Events for the
production of the Vail America Days Parade on July 4, 2022 in the amount of $70,000
on a form approved by the town attorney.
April 19, 2022 - Page 312 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 6, S eries of 2022, F irst Reading, An Ordinance A mending Title 12
of the Vail Town Code to E stablish Setbacks from Gore Creek and its Tributaries
P RE S E NT E R(S ): P eter Wadden, Water Quality and Greg Roy, S enior Planner
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L:
A pprove, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon first reading.
B AC K G RO UND: The Gore Creek Strategic P lan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016,
identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining
water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian
zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and maps (Title 12
Review and Amendments).” T he P lanning and E nvironmental Commission (P E C) heard this
application at seven different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March
14th, 2022.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove first reading Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
First Reading of Ordinance No. 6 Staff Memo
Attachment A. Narrative 4-19-22
Attachment B. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022
Attachment C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25' Map
Attachment D. Community Feedback
Attachment E. P E C Meeting Minutes 9-27-21
Attachment F. P E C Meeting Minutes 10-25-2021
Attachment G. P E C Meeting Minutes 1-24-22
Attachment H. P E C Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022
Attachment I. P E C Meeting Minutes 2-28-2022
Attachment J. P E C Meeting Minutes 3-14-22
Stream Corridor Presentation
April 19, 2022 - Page 313 of 569
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 5, 2022
SUBJECT: First reading of an Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, an ordinance to amend
Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for
prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town
Code, to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden
Planner: Greg Roy
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden, is requesting a first reading
of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to
Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to establish setbacks from Gore Creek
and its tributaries.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance
No. 6, Series of 2022, upon first reading.
III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Based on these recommendations from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and to protect
crucial riparian habitat, the proposed changes would establish a “Two-Year Flood Line”
(TYFL), where the setback would be measured from. The TYFL will be defined in the
code as follows:
“Two-Year Flood Line (“TYFL”): The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its
named tributaries, as established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by
resolution.”
The TYFL primarily runs along what would be commonly called the “bank” of the creek
or watercourse. While the centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly
basis, the TYFL varies on a longer timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the
April 19, 2022 - Page 314 of 569
Town of Vail Page 2
stream channel. It is a static baseline from which to measure the setback and has
become the industry standard in the decades since Vail’s original setback ordinance
was adopted.
A setback measurement based on the TYFL is also more equitable among properties
adjacent to reaches of stream of varying widths. The effective setback from the
watercourse based on the centerline is wholly dependent on how wide the watercourse
is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet (100’) wide in one location the
setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse. Comparatively, if the
watercourse is fifty feet (50’) wide, the effective setback from the bank would be twenty-
five feet (25’). As the goal is to protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that
goal is to have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be
distinguished by the average two-year flood line.
The proposed language would not permit mowing, landscaping, grading, or other
disturbance within ten feet (10’) of the TYFL, with exceptions. This ten-foot (10’) wide
portion of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and
natural materials. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies “loss of riparian and
streamside vegetation” as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in
Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse this trend by establishing a
contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its tributaries.
There would be allowances for access to the creek for each property. Each property
would be able to maintain a path to the creek with certain limitations outlined in the
proposed language.
The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the
watercourse from the Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new language
would be inserted in Section 21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the
floodplain regulations.
IV. BACKGROUND
Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976 created the streambank setback regulations in place
today. They required a minimum setback of thirty feet (30’) from the center of the
established creek or stream channel and fifty feet (50’) from the centerline of Gore
Creek.
The Gore Creek Strategic Plan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies the
loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining
water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream
setbacks, riparian zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives
definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).”
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) heard this application at seven
different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022.
April 19, 2022 - Page 315 of 569
Town of Vail Page 3
The Town Council heard an introduction to this item at the April 5th Town Council
meeting and gave staff direction to continue the Ordinance to first reading.
V. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the zoning regulations; and
The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for “promoting the health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural
environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high
quality”. This text amendment is intended to enhance the protection of Gore Creek as part
of the town’s natural environment. The current setbacks are measured from the centerline
of the creek, but depending on the width of the creek the streambank may or may not be
protected. As the preservation of the streambank and its native vegetation is one of the
three main ways to improve the water quality, it is wholly important to make sure the
regulations ensure that protection. Having the setback measured from the TYFL will
ensure that the native vegetation along the river is equally preserved.
This application also furthers the specific purpose of the zoning regulations “To conserve
and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features.”
Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion.
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better
achieve 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
The proposed text amendment will further the Town’s adopted goals in the
comprehensive plan as noted in the section above. This amendment was specifically
recommended in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan as a way to further protect the creek. It
also meets the goal of protecting the environment and water quality set forth in the Land
Use Plan. The equal protection of the streambank is imperative to preserving and
enhancing the water quality throughout the town. By changing the base of the setback
measurement from the centerline to the TYFL, the sensitive area of Gore Creek and its
tributaries will be consistently protected. Adding the limited disturbance to the first ten
feet ensures that the sensitive area adjacent to the water is preserved to the greatest
extent possible. This will allow for the natural filtration of water and other processes to
take place before reaching the creek.
Staff performed further analysis of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in
the Vail comprehensive plan and found that the proposal was not contrary to anything
adopted in the comprehensive plan.
April 19, 2022 - Page 316 of 569
Town of Vail Page 4
Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion.
3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed
since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no
longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
The current regulations were set with the best information available in 1976, almost 50
years ago. Since then, new studies and best management practices have evolved and
improved. The existing setbacks have no regulation on what can happen inside of the
setback. It is now recognized that the area between the development and the creek is
vitally important to the health and function of the creek. The proposed code change
incorporates the best practices known today to establish an acceptable setback that
protects Gore Creek and its water quality. The research that went into the Gore Creek
Strategic plan looked at comparable studies and the suggested setbacks to maintain
creek health. The findings suggested buffers of anywhere from 30 to 330 feet along the
creek. This proposal is a modest setback that attempts to strike a balance between the
character of Vail and the protection of its natural resources.
Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion.
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal
development objectives; and
One of the decision-making factors going into the proposed setback was the relation to
the other setbacks throughout the town and crafting a proposal that would be harmonious
with other sections of the Town Code. The proposed setback was one of several studied
options that rose to the top as the most practical solution that would fit into existing
regulations. In reference to Section 14 on design regulations and allowed encroachments
into setbacks, the 25-foot setback provided for the encroachments from that section while
allowing plenty of room to keep a protected area adjacent to the creeks.
Staff further reviewed the development objectives of the Town to find how this proposal
would or would not be furthering those objectives. Of the four Land Use and Development
goals in the Strategic 2020 plan, one of the goals is “Land use and development
decisions will address environmental sustainability as a priority of the community”. The
other three goals mention consistency in the development review process, providing deed
restricted housing, and updating land use documents. Goal #2 stated above seems to be
the only relevant goal to apply to the review of this application. The language suggests
that environmental sustainability should be a priority for the community and thus would
support an application that furthers that goal. This application furthers environmental
sustainability by providing additional protections to Gore Creek in the form of a consistent
setback.
Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion.
April 19, 2022 - Page 317 of 569
Town of Vail Page 5
5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission
and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments
Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council
determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments.
VI. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022,
upon first reading, the Planning and Environmental commission recommends the Town
Council pass the following motion:
"The Vail Town Council approves, on first reading, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, an
ordinance to amend Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town
Code, to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043)”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, the
Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Town Council makes the
following findings:
“Based upon a review of Section VII of the March 14, 2022 staff memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the
Vail Town Council finds:
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 outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code; 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."
VII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant Narrative, 4-19-2022
B. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022
C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25’ Map
D. Community Feedback
April 19, 2022 - Page 318 of 569
Town of Vail Page 6
E. PEC Meeting Minutes 9-27-2021
F. PEC Meeting Minutes 10-25-2021
G. PEC Meeting Minutes 1-24-2022
H. PEC Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022
I. PEC Meeting Minutes 2-28-2022
J. PEC Meeting Minutes 3-14-2022
April 19, 2022 - Page 319 of 569
To: Vail Town Council
From: Department of Environmental Sustainability
Date: April 19, 2022
Subject: Narrative- Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
The Gore Creek Strategic Plan (The Plan), adopted by the Vail Town Council in 2016, directs staff to
“update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality
definitions and maps” in order to reverse “the loss of riparian and streamside vegetation, which
reduces the natural ability of these areas to protect Gore Creek from the effects of land use
activities and urban runoff.”
To that end, staff has undertaken a thorough review of the scientific literature concerning best practices
in riparian buffers, regulations adopted by other communities around the state, and the situation on the
ground in Vail to propose an ordinance designed to accomplish the objectives required by The Plan.
Goals of proposed Code Changes
The proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance seeks to:
• Create a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for building and riparian
setbacks on private property in Vail
• Promote the establishment of a contiguous riparian buffer along Gore Creek and its tributaries
• Limit turfgrass and hardscape and deter excessive chemical use within a delineated buffer zone
To be successful, the ordinance must meet the following criteria:
1. Establish a net increase in the amount of riparian buffer
o A robust riparian buffer throughout town is the strongest tool available to protect Gore Creek
from pollutants such as landscaping chemicals and road runoff
2. Establish a net increase in the distance of buildings and structures from Gore Creek and
its tributaries
o As Vail developed over the past 60 years, structures were built very close to Gore Creek and
its tributaries, leaving little space for riparian habitat. Establishing an adequate and equitable
building setback will help resolve this problem over time
3. Have a clear, objective and measurable baseline in the field
o The baseline for setbacks must not be subjective or open to interpretation. It needs to be
clearly defined in order to be effective.
4. Be consistent, fair and equitable
o A setback based on Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) is more equitable because it does not
vary based on the width of the creek.
April 19, 2022 - Page 320 of 569
Based on those criteria, and through an extensive stakeholder process, staff have determined that a
twenty-five foot (25’) building setback and ten foot (10’) riparian setback from an elevation-based
Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) are the most appropriate for Vail.
Scientific and practical basis for a twenty-five-foot (25’) setback from TYFL
Town staff undertook extensive review of the likely effectiveness and impacts of setbacks of various
widths and determined a twenty-five (25’) foot building setback from TYFL is most appropriate for
several reasons.
1. A contiguous buffer of diverse, native riparian vegetation along waterways in Vail is the single
greatest tool available to restore Gore Creek. Riparian buffers filter runoff, reduce erosion and
sedimentation, shade waterways, and provide crucial habitat for myriad species. While riparian areas
make up less than 4% of the habitat area in Colorado, more than 80% of Colorado animal species
depend on riparian habitat at some point in their lifecycles. Riparian buffers perform services that
cannot be replicated through engineered or manufactured means. Protecting and restoring these buffer
zones is the most cost-effective and efficient tool available to a community to protect its waterways.
2. Twenty-five feet (25’) from TYFL is the smallest five-foot increment building setback that would not
decrease the area along Vail’s streams and waterways protected from development. A twenty-foot (20’)
setback from TYFL would be a step in the wrong direction when it comes to protection of aquatic
resources.
Setback scenario
Number of
non-
conforming
properties
Acres
protected
from
development
Existing (centerline) 102 26.27
25 feet from TYFL 128 30.83
30 feet from TYFL 165 36.72
Figure 1. Number of non-conforming properties and acres protected from development under various setback scenarios.
Importantly, twenty-five feet (25’) best approximates existing, centerline-based setbacks without
reducing them. Attached maps show that a twenty -five-foot (25’) setback line from TYFL closely
tracks the existing thirty-foot (30’) (tributary) and fifty foot (50’) (Gore Creek) setbacks through mos t of
town.
3. A smaller setback would create conflict with existing defensible space recommendations provided by
Vail Fire Department. The Town’s Fire Resistant Planting Guide recommends “no coniferous trees
within fifteen feet (15’) of the structure.” A twenty-five-foot (25’) setback from TYFL is the minimum
building setback required in order to establish a ten-foot (10’) no mow zone from TYFL and not
conflict with existing fire wise guidelines. Evergreen tre es are an important part of a healthy riparian
habitat. They are also a major concern when establishing defensible space around a structure. A
twenty-five-foot (25’) building setback is the smallest available that avoids that conflict.
4. Twenty-five-feet (25’) from TYFL is the smallest setback adopted by any other community in
Colorado. As the Premier Mountain Resort Community in Colorado and a leader in environmental
sustainability, this is the absolute least that can be done to protect G ore Creek and its tributaries. The
proposed text changes in the attached memorandum have been thoroughly vetted and discussed. As
April 19, 2022 - Page 321 of 569
such they allow for some exceptions that other Colorado communities do not accommodate in their
riparian and wetland setbacks, including a “creek access path.”
Jurisdiction Stream/Wetland Setback
Glenwood Springs 35 feet from bank
Eagle County 75 feet from bank
Pitkin County 100 feet from bank
Aspen
Additional review within 100
feet of bank
Fort Collins
Minimum 50 feet from
bank
Steamboat Springs 100 feet from bank
Estes Park
Minimum 50 feet from
bank
Colbran 100 feet from bank
Summit County 25 feet from bank
Figure 2. Selected setbacks codified by other Colorado municipalities
5. Twenty-five feet (25’) is the minimum recommended buffer zone identified in the Gore Creek
Strategic Plan. Scientific literature cited in the Plan recommends that native vegetation within twenty -
five feet (25’) of the streambank be “left undisturbed.”
Establishment of Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) in Vail
The Two-Year Flood Line proposed in this ordinance is based on specific elevations above sea level.
While alternative methods to determine TYFL exist, methods based on bank scouring, vegetation, and
erosion are more subjective and can be manipulated. Two surveyors or wetland scientists working in
earnest could establish different TYFL delineations along the same reach of stream. An elevation-
based TYFL is the better approach if Vail wishes to avoid conflicting delineations and establish a
regulation which can be applied fairly, consistently and equitably.
Based on the above recommendations from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and with the intention of
protecting crucial riparian habitat the proposed changes would establish a new stream setback and
change where the setback is measured from. The new setback would be measured from the “Two-Year
Flood Line” (TYFL), which would be defined in the code as follows.
“The Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) is the average 2 year flood line on Gore Creek and its named
tributaries, as established by the dataset adopted by Town Council by resolution.”
The TYFL is primarily along what would be commonly called the “bank” of the creek or watercourse.
While the centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly basis, the TYFL varies on a longer
timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the stream channel. It is a more static baseline from
which to measure the setback and has become the industry standard in the decades since Vail’s
setback ordinance was adopted.
The TYFL in Vail will be determined on the ground by Professional Land Survey. The procedures for
surveying the TYFL are similar to the procedures for surveying the 100-year floodplain line. The Town
of Vail will publish elevations for the TYFL that are determined through Professional Engineering and April 19, 2022 - Page 322 of 569
hydraulic modeling procedures. These engineering procedures are similar to those used to develop the
Base Flood Elevations (BFE) published by FEMA. Most properties that will require survey of the TYFL
also require survey of the 100-yr floodplain line defined by Vail Town Code.
A setback measurement based on TYFL is also more equitable among properties adjacent to reaches
of stream of varying width. The effective setback from the watercourse based on the centerline is wholly
dependent on how wide the watercourse is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet
(100’) wide in one location the setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse.
Comparatively if the watercourse is fifty feet (50’) wide, the effective setback from the bank would be
twenty-five feet (25’). As the goal is protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that goal is to
have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be distinguished by the
average two-year flood line.
The proposed language also includes the addition of a “Riparian Zone”. This ten -foot (10’) wide portion
of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials. The
Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies “loss of riparian and streamside vegetation” as one of the three
main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse
this trend by establishing a contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its
tributaries.
The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the watercourse from the
Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new setback language would be inserted in Section
21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the floodplain regulations.
Non-conformity to foster change over time
Nonconforming status is used to create change over time. It is a natural progression that occurs as a
community’s regulations evolve. Non-conformity fosters change without triggering the need for property
owners to make an immediate change or upgrade to the property. It has been used with great success
in Vail in the past to implement long-term changes for the betterment of the community. One example
of an appropriately used nonconforming process is the code language governing wood shake roof
shingles.
Much of Vail was developed prior to the awareness of the value of protecting streams and water bodies
with adequate buffers. In recent years the Vail community has come to recognize the importance of
riparian buffers in protecting our waterways from pollution, providing shade and habitat. Adoption of a
new building setback which adheres to modern best practices in waterbody protection and is
implemented over time through the town’s regulations on non-conforming properties is an equitable
way to act on those changing values. In addition to protecting waterways from pollution and erosion,
healthy riparian buffers will enhance the resiliency of these ecosystems in the face of a changing
climate.
Water quality improvement and bank stabilization
Addition of vegetation and grading which conform with best management practices would be permitted
under the proposed ten foot (10’) vegetative setback. Vail Town Code allows a property owner to add
new plants to their landscaping without a permit. Exceptions within the proposed code language below
allow the Design Review Board to permit construction of “erosion control measures and stream grade
control structures” providing they follow industry best practices. Rain gardens, bioswales and
constructed wetlands are typically considered “best management practices” (BMPs) in watershed
management, erosion control and stormwater treatment. April 19, 2022 - Page 323 of 569
1
4/13/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF
2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX
ORDINANCE NO. 6
SERIES 2022
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO
ESTABLISH SETBACKS FROM GORE CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
WHEREAS, the Town's current stream setback, as established by Ordinance No.
19, Series of 1976, requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from the center of an
established creek or stream channel and 50 from the centerline of Gore Creek;
WHEREAS, the Gore Creek Strategic Plan adopted by the Town Council in 2016
identifies loss of riparian vegetation as one of the main causes of declining water quality
in Gore Creek; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to prevent further deterioration of Gore
Creek and its named tributaries by enacting a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set
of guidelines for setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 12-14-17 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
Section 2. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the
addition of the following new definitions, to appear in alphabetical order:
TWO-YEAR FLOOD LINE ("TYFL"): The average two-year flood line on
Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the data set
adopted by the Town Council by resolution.
Section 3. Chapter 21 of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new Section 12-21-17, to read as follows:
12-21-17: GORE CREEK SETBACKS:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to protect the public health,
safety and welfare by ensuring the resiliency of Gore Creek and its named
tributaries and by mitigating hazards associated with the deterioration of
Gore Creek and its named tributaries.
B. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all property located within
twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, in whole or in part; provided that this
Section shall not apply to any stream tract already protected by Chapter 14
of Title 5 of this Code.
April 19, 2022 - Page 324 of 569
2
4/13/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF
2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX
C. Setbacks:
1. No mowing, landscaping, grading or other disturbance shall
be permitted within ten (10) feet of the TYFL, other than:
a. Removal of noxious weeds pursuant to Section 5-1-6 of this
Code;
b. With prior approval of the Vail Fire Department, removal of
vegetation for purposes of fire mitigation;
c. With approval of the Design Review Board, the installation
and maintenance of one access path per lot or parcel, of up to four
(4) feet in width, consisting of permeable materials including without
limitation native soils, sand and gravel, or flagstone set in a
permeable base;
d. Public roadways, public bridges, public recreational paths and
trails, and public parks and open spaces;
e. Utility infrastructure within utility easements;
f. With approval of the Design Review Board, erosion control
measures, stream grade-control structures and riparian restoration
activities that conform with bank stabilization best management
practices; and
g. Buildings, structures, fences, walls, patios, walkways,
landscaping features, furniture and similar improvements lawfully
existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section,
which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title.
2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (25)
feet of the TYFL, other than:
a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed
in Section 14-10-4 of this Code; and
b. Buildings and structures lawfully established on the effective
date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements
shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title.
D. Corrections:
1. If a property owner wishes to correct the location of a
designated TYFL affecting such property owner's property, the property
owner shall submit sufficient documentation to the Community
Development Department to support the property owner's corrected
April 19, 2022 - Page 325 of 569
3
4/13/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF
2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX
delineation of the TYFL. The submittal shall comply with all of the following
standards:
a. The submittal shall include a survey stamped by a licensed
Colorado surveyor.
b. The survey shall include at least 3 cross sections,
perpendicular to the flow of the stream, in the same vertical and
horizontal datum as that referenced in the Town's data set, extending
from beyond the 100 year flood line on one bank to beyond the 100
year flood line on the opposite bank and including all stream
channels. The 3 cross sections shall be taken at each property
boundary and the center of the property.
c. The survey shall include an adequate number of elevation
points for each cross section to accurately reflect the contours of the
stream bed.
d. The survey shall tie into National Geologic Survey control
points.
e. The submittal shall include a site map or aerial image showing
locations of stream cross sections, and photographs of the location
of each stream cross section.
f. The submittal shall include a model of the TYFL using the
Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System ("HEC-
RAS"), stamped by a professional engineer.
2. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete submittal, the Town
shall correct the location of the TYFL on the property as indicated on the
submittal.
E. Variances. The setbacks set forth in this Section are subject to the
variance process set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title.
F. Violation and Penalty:
1. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this
Section.
2. It is unlawful for any person to re-channel or modify Gore
Creek or any of its named tributaries so as to avoid application of this
Section.
3. Each separate act in violation of this Section and each and
every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of
April 19, 2022 - Page 326 of 569
4
4/13/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF
2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX
this Section is committed, continued or permitted shall be deemed a
separate offense.
4. Violations of this Section shall be punishable as provided in
Chapter 4 of Title 1 of this Code.
Section 4. 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 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 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail 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 7. 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.
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2023.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of April, 2022 and a
public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the ___ day of ____________,
2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
_______________________________
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 327 of 569
5
4/13/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF
2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this ____ day of ________________, 2022.
_______________________________
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 328 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 329 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 330 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 331 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 332 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 333 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 334 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 335 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 336 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 337 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 338 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 339 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 340 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 341 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 342 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 343 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 344 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 345 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 346 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 347 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 348 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 349 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 350 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 351 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 352 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 353 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 354 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 355 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 356 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 357 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 358 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 359 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 360 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 361 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 362 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 363 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 364 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 365 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 366 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 367 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 368 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 369 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 370 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 371 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 372 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 373 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 374 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 375 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 376 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 377 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 378 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 379 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 380 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 381 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 382 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 383 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 384 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 385 of 569
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S
C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L
T O W N O F VA I L
I 0 15075 Feet
This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020)
Last Modified: March 17, 2021
Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark
25' from Ordinary High Water Mark
April 19, 2022 - Page 386 of 569
April 5, 2021
Honorable Dave Chapin
Vail Town Council pwadden@vailgov.com
Town of Vail transmitted via email
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members:
The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District applauds the Vail Town Council for supporting staff in moving
forward with drafting a stream corridor protection ordinance. The Town of Vail and Eagle River Water &
Sanitation District have worked collaboratively on improving Gore Creek water quality since Gore Creek
was listed on Colorado’s 303(d) List of impaired water bodies in 2012.
Since the listing, our collective staffs have completed the 2012 Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement
Plan, the 2016 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, and are in the midst of completing the Gore Creek
Watershed Source Water Protection Plan. While each plan has built on the previous plan and targeted
specific outcomes, they all point to the need for a stream corridor protection ordinance. Increasing the
riparian buffer adjacent to Gore Creek and its tributaries, limiting turfgrass and hardscape within the buffer
zone, reiterating statewide pesticide regulations in the TOV municipal code, and enforcing the code will
greatly enhance what has become the Restore the Gore movement.
The long term benefits of the proposed ordinance will be far reaching. Improvement to overall aquatic
ecosystem health and habitat are expected to build on, and multiply, the recent successes of the
programs noted above. Improved shading will reduce stream temperatures during the critical brown trout
spawning season and will promote stream health by maintaining low daytime temperatures. Reduced
hardscapes and turfgrass will improve the ability of the floodplain area to store and infiltrate runoff and will
benefit both flood volumes and water quality. All forms of recreation experiences will improve; the more
natural riparian corridor will be noticed by all who recreate on Gore Creek and its tributaries.
As the water and wastewater service provider for the Town of Vail and communities downstream on the
Eagle River, we are committed to a sustainable and healthy river system. The District is committed to
supporting the Town’s efforts in drafting and implementing the stream corridor ordinance through
continued collaboration, education and outreach, and ongoing water quality and macroinvertebrate
sampling and monitoring.
We are fortunate to live in Colorado’s headwaters and be the first users of the water; preserving the water
quality for downstream users as well as future generations directly ties to our organization’s shared value
of environmental stewardship. W e are excited with the current momentum behind the Restore the Gore
movement and look forward to our continued collaboration and partnership.
Sincerely,
Linn Brooks
General Manager
April 19, 2022 - Page 387 of 569
461 Railroad Ave, Unit C PO Box 1477 Gypsum, Colorado 81637
970-827-5406 info@erwc.org www.erwc.org Tax ID#: 20-4448864
Protecting our rivers since 2004
Eagle River Watershed Council is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization that
advocates for the health of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River basins through education, research, and projects.
Honorable Dave Chapin
Vail Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
commdev@vailgov.com
RE: Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
November 9, 2021
Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed amendments to
Town of Vail’s (TOV) municipal code for watercourse setbacks and riparian protection. This
action has features and merits that touch on many community-wide issues including our values
surrounding streams and the environment, private and public land uses of near-stream areas,
and perceived economic impacts to landowners. Our comments remain primarily concerned
with anticipated benefits to water quality, ecosystem health, and the long-term and (hopefully)
permanent benefits for the town’s citizens and Gore Creek.
Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) advocates for the health of the Upper Colorado and
Eagle River watersheds to protect and enhance the high-quality natural and human values
provided by rivers. Vigorously protecting our aquatic ecosystems ensures they will continue to
provide their numerous social, economic, and ecosystem benefits in perpetuity. Gore Creek is
the largest tributary of the Eagle River, dear to the hearts of everyone in the valley and visitors
alike. It has faced numerous water quality and wildlife habitat challenges over time due to urban
development and the presence of the interstate corridor. A mountain of work has been invested
by the town, community members, and organizational partners like ERWC and Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) in recent years to correct and restore conditions in the
stream. More work remains, and the current matter before the town is a vital component to
achieving lasting success.
Current issues at hand
ERWC’s understanding of the current ordinance proposal, based on public information and
interactions with town staff, is that staff is recommending the following changes to existing code:
• Use of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) instead of centerline as the baseline for
measuring setback distance,
• Utilization of the 2-year flood elevation, as estimated through industry-standard statistical
engineering techniques and hydrologic inundation modelling, as the regulatory
representation of the OHWM,
• Changing building setbacks from the current 50’ from the stream centerline instead to
25’ from the OHW M, and;
April 19, 2022 - Page 388 of 569
Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 2 of 5
• Protecting a naturalized/non-mowed vegetation buffer for the first 10’ of the setback as
the riparian zone.
ERWC background with Town of Vail riparian protections and Gore Creek water quality
ERWC has a long history with Gore Creek issues, working in partnership with TOV and local
and regional entities like ERWSD, US Forest Service, US Geological Survey, CO-Dept. of
Transportation, and CO-Dept of Public Health & Environment to study water quality impairments
on Gore Creek and develop strategies to address and reverse these issues. Local partnerships
in the original Urban Runoff Group helped produce both the 2013 Gore Creek Water Quality
Improvement Plan and the 2016 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan. ERWC staff and partners
contributed countless hours towards the completion of these efforts, which have culminated in
numerous positive actions to-date by TOV to realize the vision laid out by the community.
In 2016, the town began the process of implementing town recommendations, identifying nearly
$9 million in potential future allocations for stormwater improvements, riparian restorations, and
other stream protections. Since that time, the town has ‘walked the walk’ in changing its own
land use practices, increasing community fluency on Gore Creek water quality issues through
numerous education/outreach campaigns, and undergoing an at-times difficult and contentious
social process of reclaiming and naturalizing encroached public stream tract lands.
Given the context of this work and the hard lessons learned, ERWC believes the town is well
supported by its own history of action to take this next step and institutionalize these strongly-
held community water quality values in updated town code. While education/outreach is an
important strategy towards public acceptance of permanent solutions like code changes, over
time it can become an impossible task without support from regulations. In communities like
Vail, where property ownership turnover is very high, and many vacation properties have
absentee ownership, constant re-education of the next generation of streamside homeowners is
required. While education is one of the primary mandates of ERWC’s mission, we also readily
believe that ordinance and code is sometimes where the ‘rubber hits the road’ so to speak in
terms of our communities making good on their stated values surrounding environmental
protections and functional ecosystems.
In the context of all this past work, ERWC supports the maximum possible setback distance as
the preferred choice for code adoption. The best-available current science would support an
even larger setback if it were likely to be socially and economically acceptable to the
community. We further support the maintenance of the initial portion of the setback in a
naturalized vegetation state of un-mowed, native plant communities.
Preservation of riparian zones for water quality is firmly science-based
Science-based research and entities charged with supporting communities nationwide in
protecting our water resources, such as the US EPA, have repeatedly advocated the value and
function of riparian zones. The proposed amendments are somewhat less than the distances
that a significant body of research recommends, which begin around 30 feet and, depending on
the desired water quality protective functions, approach 100 feet in many instances. The
proposed setback represents a reasonable compromise in the constant push-and-pull between
ecosystem health and social uses that has occurred throughout Vail’s development period. It
recognizes the difficult situation that overhauling Vail’s existing urban core and neighborhood
development footprints already presents to the community’s current leadership. Any dilution and
weakening of the proposed setback will reduce its efficacy and likely result in a degraded ability
to protect Gore Creek and tributaries.
April 19, 2022 - Page 389 of 569
Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 3 of 5
Community-backed action to permanently protect streams
The Gore Creek Action Plan identified 27 immediate action items and over 200 total action
items to protect and improve stream health. It recommended TOV update its stream setback,
riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone, and other water quality objective definitions in its code. Of
the 27 items characterized as ‘high priority’, updating this specific code language was
recognized in Priority Action 2 and Priority Action 9, and it has significant nexus with Actions 11,
23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. This represents nearly 30% of the plan’s High Priority Actions targeting
the importance of riparian protections and increasing (over time and only during redevelopment
opportunities), the distance that we build structures and landscape from streams.
In addition to the multi-year process endured by the town staff, PEC, and council members to
study and create these cornerstone environmental guidance documents, a community advisory
group of many of the town’s longest residents contributed countless volunteer hours to their
completion and vetting. These changes to code represent the full realization of the values and
effort embodied in these plans from your own citizens and prior PEC and Council members.
The past societal tendency to view streams, including Gore Creek, merely as aesthetic features
to be manipulated for architectural desires or purely for the enjoyment of streamside
landowners, should be left to the past. By passing this ordinance, the community’s values
surrounding our rivers and streams will be locked-in via law, rather than just receiving mention
in non-binding visioning documents.
Scientific basis for the exchangeability between the Ordinary High-Water Mark and the
Two-Year Flood elevation for land use decisions
In reviewing the public discourse from PEC meetings and the questions fielded to
commissioners and town staff, it is apparent that much confusion may exist regarding the
usability of the 2-year flood mark for permitting, and its substitutability for the OHWM. Federal
law has established a definition for the OHW M, which has received various legal clarifications
over time, and is frequently used by US Army Corps of Engineers in Clean Water Act permitting
activities and other agency duties. This definition relies on the presence of physically-identifiable
signs such as vegetation changes and soil characteristics that can be reasonably and relatively
consistently identified during field investigations. State laws and agencies have generally
followed suit with this definition, often with modifications reflective of local needs, to help
delineate public-rights-of-way and riparian landowner rights. In practice, these field indicators
are typically determined by domain experts (engineers, scientists, landscape architects,
planners, etc.) and translated to usable survey and design datasets for development activities.
The OHW M also has a strong relationship to the bankfull stage or bankfull flow, a term of
importance in the fields of hydrology and fluvial geomorphology. Like OHWM, bankfull stage can
also be defined in several ways, but is most-frequently defined as the height of water in its
natural channel at its largest flows, just prior to incipient flooding of adjacent floodplains.
Bankfull stage is also typically identified by a concurrent set of field observations that consider
one or more indicators such as the top of point and lateral bars, changes or inflections in bank
slope, vegetation clues, and erosional features. This elevation frequently is then identified at
long-term USGS stream gauging stations and correlated with a specific stream discharge value
and annual flood return frequency. Flood frequency analysis is a hydrologic or engineering
statistical technique used to predict specific return periods or probabilities for a given stream
flow value. It involves taking a record of annual high flows from a stream gauge, ranking them in
order, fitting them to a statistical distribution curve (distributions often used are Weibull, log-
normal, Log-Pearson III, etc.), and using this fitted curve to predict particular flood return
April 19, 2022 - Page 390 of 569
Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 4 of 5
probabilities of interest, i.e. the “100-year”, “500-year”, “50-year”, “10-year”, “2-year” return
flows. These values are used to determine FEMA floodplains, and similar techniques are also
used by engineers to size stream culverts or stormwater appurtenances such as vaults and
outflow pipes. These days, the computations are done in complex software that can use the
flood return frequencies of interest to produce 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional representations
of the land areas that will be inundated at different flows.
Return periods for the bankfull flow in Colorado may range from as little as a year to over five
years or more in some locations. However, it is accepted in the hydrologic study and planning
domains to use 1.5 or 2 years as a proxy for the bankfull stage that is responsible for
maintaining the ‘active channel’ portion of the stream channel. The ‘active channel’ is highly
analogous to the field-observed OHWM. The most-often used value in fluvial geomorphic work
including physical channel restoration design is a 1.5-year return flow. In this regard, the 2-year
value proposed by TOV staff is slightly more conservative towards water quality protection, as
this will be a slightly higher water surface elevation.
As noted above, water surface inundation elevations can be readily modelled in standard
software created and used by US Army Corps of Engineers (i.e. HEC-RAS and other modelling
packages). Any private civil engineering firm, hydrologic firm, or government planning office that
has the technical capacity to perform this variety of work can produce survey-grade mapping
outputs from publicly-available datasets that are usable by town staff, surveyors, and private
planners. Although the model flood elevation results can be subject to change over time based
on the datasets used, in the confined stream channel types present around Vail these changes
should be largely insignificant over a multi-decadal time scale, except in cases of rapid or
extreme channel re-alignments or avulsions associated with major flooding events, or in large
areas of unconfined floodplain such as the Katsos preserve.
Since the typical definition of OHWM is generally familiar to many technically-trained staff in the
planning and engineering fields and is derived from field observations that are fairly responsive
to individual site characteristics and conditions, it can be seen as advantageous for use.
However, like most field methods, it can be just as fraught in practice and subject to individual
bias or manipulation as any other. Gore Creek is a dynamic system, with annual spring flood
magnitudes from snowmelt that are typically two orders of magnitude (100 times) the fall and
winter baseflows. The stream system has high sediment transport dynamics (meaning it carries
and re-distributes a lot of sand, gravel, and cobbles each year) and has undergone hugely
significant human alterations to natural channel shapes between the mid-twentieth century and
present day. Bank erosion, shifting gravel bars, and significant episodic lateral channel
movements are all ‘typical’ or ‘normal’ within these mountain systems. At times, this can make
the classical physically-observable clues for the OHWM difficult to discern and open to changing
over time, and therefore potentially unreliable indicators of flow elevations and unreliable for
consistent application in land use administration decisions. The modelled 2-year flood elevation,
with provisions or a process in place for local adjustment based on individual site
circumstances, may serve as a more-consistent and easier to administer benchmark.
For the purposes of administering town land use decisions and protecting streamside riparian
zones for water quality and habitat function, it appears to ERWC that the proposed definition
utilizing a surveyable 2-year flood elevation is functionally and practically equivalent to the
current physical-clues definition.
If town staff believes that it will be a more-efficient and a relatively more-objective means to
administer land use decisions than repeated individual site investigations for OHWM
April 19, 2022 - Page 391 of 569
Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 5 of 5
determination, then ERWC supports this approach as it is a technically defensible and
functionally adequate (and practical) substitute.
Considerations of regulatory takings
ERWC provides no claim of thorough understanding of the legal issues involved in what does or
does not constitute a regulatory takings, and it is not our intent to provide legal advice to the
town about the current issues, only convey our opinion as a community stakeholder. However, it
is apparent that some residents (or their attorney representatives) have suggested the proposed
ordinance changes represent a regulatory takings, potentially requiring compensation to land
owners. It is our observation that town building codes already place a wide variety of
requirements and constraints on homeowners that have not been challenged as creating a
takings, and it is unclear why this proposal is materially or substantively different than those
cases.
TOV code examples that restrict, constrain, or control property owner’s development rights on
private land currently include: property line setbacks, road setbacks, roofline heights, stylistic
and architectural design reviews, limitations on impervious area and developable lot
percentages, limitations on parking, specification of landscaping requirements, etc. Any of these
items could have been construed to impact property investment values or restrict the exercise of
private property rights by landowners, yet none has been successfully challenged as a takings.
Those examples of code restrictions derive from a variety of safety and/or aesthetic/social
concerns and have been accepted by community members over time. Building regulations
associated with the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e., the 100-year floodplain) also
currently place significant existing constraints on near-stream structures and have not been held
as a regulatory takings by courts in any state to our knowledge.
Arguments over takings are diverting from the important issues at hand of protection of public
environmental assets.
Concluding remarks
Riparian protections and setbacks are a science-based but socially-adjusted implementation of
the values Vail community members and TOV municipal leadership have articulated repeatedly
over many years in multiple plans and government actions. Institutionalizing these strongly held
community values regarding water quality, stream protections, and ecosystem protection and
function is the logical and correct next step in the town’s path to restoration of Gore Creek
health and its tributaries. ERWC supports the adoption of the ordinance in full, including the
maximum possible setback at 25’ or more, and inclusion of a naturalized vegetation zone of 10’
at water edge. We encourage the PEC to move this matter to Council in its current form and
push for adoption in the earliest reasonable timeframe.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If you have questions regarding our
statements, or require additional information to aid your decision-making process, please
contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Holly Loff Bill Hoblitzell
Executive Director Water Resources Program advisory staff
loff@erwc.org bill@lotichydrological.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 392 of 569
Carrie S. Bernstein csb@ablawcolorado.com
720.460.4203
October 20, 2021
Via E-mail: PWadden@vailgov.com
Mr. Peter Wadden
Watershed Education Coordinator
Town of Vail, Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Town of Vail Application for Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance/Proposed
Amendment to Section 12-14-17 and Creation of Section 12-21-17 of Vail Town
Code (“Application”)
Dear Mr. Wadden:
Our firm represents Reggie D. Delponte Residence Trust No. 1 and Reggie D. Delponte
Resident Trust No. 2, the owners of property located at 3070 Booth Creek Drive in Vail. We are
in receipt of the September 27, 2021, Memorandum concerning the referenced Application and
submit the following objections to the Town’s proposal in advance of the public hearing
scheduled for October 25, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. We request that you include this objection letter
in the packet in advance of the public hearing.
As we understand the Application, the Town of Vail (“Town”) is requesting approval of a
regulation that will delete the Vail Town Code (“Code”) Section 12-14-17 altogether and add a
new regulation, Section 12-21-17, which will significantly “change the waterbody setbacks” of
Gore Creek.
Initially, the new regulation in Section 12-21-17 is inconsistent with the purpose of
Chapter 21 of the Code. The stated purpose of Chapter 21 is:
[T]o help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to
development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, wildfire
hazard areas and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land
areas which may be subject to wildfire, flooding and avalanche or which
may be geologically sensitive; and to further regulate development on
steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town,
April 19, 2022 - Page 393 of 569
Alderman Bernstein
October 20, 2021
Page 2
to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of
the Town, which are sometimes associated with floodplains, wildfire
hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and
slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize
the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of
certain areas within the Town where floodplains, wildfire hazard areas,
avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote
the general public health, safety and welfare.
The Application was submitted in order to address insufficient “quantify or diversity of insects”
in Gore Creek, and “loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation.” See letter from Town, dated
August 23, 2021, referencing “Notice of Stream Tract Encroachment,” and Application, page 3.
There is no evidence of any concerns in the Gore Creek area related to development of
floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, or wildfire hazard areas, and are not part of the
Town’s defined “geologically sensitive areas,” as defined in the Code, Section 12-21-13.
More problematic, however, is that the proposal will prohibit nearly all use of private
property within an undefined and inconsistent area. The proposal states that “no work” may
be done within the no disturbance area, including landscaping or “disturbance,” which is
undefined. As shown in the aerial photos in the Application, the 25’ use prohibition extends
into backyards and existing building footprints in many areas, beyond the existing setback. The
Town’s proposal would prohibit any use of these areas.
Although certain uses in these areas (“existing features and structures”) might fall under
the Town’s nonconforming use regulation (Section 12-18), other continued uses must cease
altogether, including mowing and landscaping. That means that the new Section 12-21-17 will
be retroactively applied to existing property rights and uses along Gore Creek that existed prior
to its enactment. Except for those existing “features and structures” within the 25’ prohibited
area, property owners can no longer continue their current landscaping or mowing of 25’ of
their property. Colorado law prohibits such retrospective legislation.
Further, any changes to existing uses, including structures, that would be permissible
under the current Code, are prohibited if the Application is approved. If, for example, our
clients wanted to add to or expand their current patio by just one foot or add a firepit, the new
Section 12-21-17 prohibits such a change because, on our clients’ property, the 25’ mark
extends up to their patio and home.
Moreover, the proposed Section 12-21-17 does not describe how landowners are to
determine the required non-disturbance areas, as there is no existing and uniform survey of the
Original High Water Mark (“OHWM”). The OHWM will change over time and landowners have
April 19, 2022 - Page 394 of 569
Alderman Bernstein
October 20, 2021
Page 3
no way of complying with use restrictions if the non-disturbance area changes annually or bi-
annually.
Further, the proposal will impact significantly more property than the Gore Creek beds.
The non-disturbance areas do not follow the creek alone, but also circumvent stream banks and
eddies that result in significant loss of property rights through use restrictions that are not
related to the Gore Creek OHWM. Once again, as shown in the aerial photos in the Application,
the 25’ line prohibits use of private property in many areas that are not within 25’ of Gore
Creek.
Finally, the Application, if approved, will constitute a compensable regulatory taking of
private properties. The Town’s proposal imposes a very high interference with private property
rights in the area of Gore Creek and its streams and eddies, prohibiting any use of those areas,
which constitutes a compensable taking. Animas Valley Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Bd. Of Cty.
Comm’rs, 38 P.3d 59, 65 (Colo. 2001). Owners of these properties, such as our clients, have an
investment-backed expectation to use and develop their own backyards, which is protected
under Colorado law. G&A Land, LLC v. City of Brighton, 233 P.3d 701, 706 (Colo. App. 2010).
If the Town is intent on ensuring an area of no disturbance of 25 feet from the banks of
Gore Creek, it must acquire those property rights through eminent domain and pay just
compensation to property owners, including our clients. Just compensation under these
circumstances will be costly to the Town because, for most owners, including our clients, the
property will essentially lose its most valuable attribute – frontage along Gore Creek – and the
value of such properties may diminish by up to one-half.
For the reasons described above, our client opposes the Application, and we urge the
Town to deny the request therein.
Very truly yours,
ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC
Carrie S. Bernstein
cc: Reggie D. Delponte (via email)
April 19, 2022 - Page 395 of 569
From:Pedro Campos
To:Peter Wadden
Cc:Tim Halbakken; Jesse Gregg; Caroline Schoeller
Subject:RE: A request for your input - Zehren and Associates reply and input.
Date:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:36:09 PM
Hi Pete,
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. I’ve asked our staff to review and here is a synopsis of
our feedback, compiled by Tim Halbakken:
First off we recognize and appreciate your passion for these issues. Tim, Jesse and I have all
participated in Restore the Gore presentations you have made and it is clear the Town has the right
person tackling these issues.
As local invested professionals and residents ‘downstream’ we feel it's an important and interesting
cause that the TOV and the environmental and sustainability department is pursuing.
All three measures you are pursuing are well supported and well documented by the research. We
assume that the Town Council has directed your team to develop these type of ordinances and its
seems you are well on your way with the activities planned in May
We are particularly supportive of adopting the state pesticide regulations at the local level, thus
allowing enforcement by town officials.
We can think of a number of offending properties that could be approached and then supported
(possibly financially) to turn their riparian edge back to a natural state. As documented, the
reduction of pesticides has had the most immediate and direct impact on stream health, and so we
strongly support enforcement. It is interesting that the last documented enforcement case was in
2015, possibly an indication that more frequent / periodic audits may be necessary.
The centerline offset argument makes a lot of sense as well. From prior experience it's too difficult
to define and it makes more sense to do an offset from the normal annual high water mark (AHWM)
Initially with the riparian zone requirement, we initially contemplated that the prevalent reaction
might be: "that's going to be considered a taking". However, additional research and homework
reveals that 5 to 10' would not be considered a legal taking. So if this falls within legal framework we
are in support and for the health of the stream and its ecosystem.
In short, we support the initiative in full and advocate that the local landscape industry should too.
It is likely some landscape companies are offenders of the pesticide regulations. In this regard it
might take a fine structure to get any non-compliant groups to endorse and follow the ordinance.
One of Tim’s ideas is that perhaps if caught violating the rules these groups should make up for the
fine by planting some riparian areas.
I hope this summary helps and that you succeed in your efforts on behalf of the Town, and the Gore
April 19, 2022 - Page 396 of 569
Creek environment and its ecosystem.
Very sincerely on behalf of the Zehren and Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning
team and importantly as leadership partners in the Town’s Restore the Gore efforts.
Pedro Campos, PLA
Principal, Landscape Architect & Land Planner
O: (970) 949-0257 | F: (970) 949-1080
From: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:47 PM
To: Pedro Campos <pedroc@zehren.com>
Cc: Tim Halbakken <timh@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <jesseg@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller
<carolines@zehren.com>
Subject: RE: A request for your input
Thanks Pedro and team! I would really appreciate feedback by the end of March if that
seems feasible. I certainly understand it is a lot to review so I would be happy to talk
through it with you if that would save you time in wrapping your head around the details.
Pete
From: Pedro Campos <pedroc@zehren.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:32 PM
To: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com>
Cc: Tim Halbakken <timh@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <jesseg@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller
<carolines@zehren.com>
Subject: RE: A request for your input
Hi Pete,
Thank you for reaching out and sharing. We will definitely review and provide comments. In
addition to being a local business active in community and environmental planning and design Jesse,
Tim, and myself are leadership partners in the Restore the Gore effort from our attendance of past
workshops and seminars. It is both important and appropriate for us to weigh in.
We will compile our thoughts and ideas into one response. Is there a particular date that would
help you receiving our input? Let us know and thanks for taking these issues on!
Regards, Pedro
April 19, 2022 - Page 397 of 569
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council,
We represent the Vail Townhouse Condominium Association (VTCA) as an elected Board of Directors.
Our Association includes eleven units with Gore Creek frontage in the Village core at 303 Gore Creek
Drive. The membership of VTCA have been watching with interest the proposed changes to the stream
setbacks throughout the Town of Vail. Protecting Gore Creek is one of our most important goals. Creek
frontage was one of the most important factors in our decisions to purchase at VTCA. We appreciate
and commend the Town’s desire to further the protection of critical riparian zones along Gore Creek’s
banks.
The change of calculation methods is not altogether opposed by our Association; however, we would
recommend a revision of the new setback amount from 25 feet to 20 feet from the ordinary high-water
mark. This small change would reduce the future impact on our Association as well as our neighbors as
the proposed 25 foot setback will make our existing building nonconforming. We believe that this new
setback of 20 feet from the ordinary high-water mark still accomplishes the riparian zone protection that
we and the Town seek, while preserving future development and expansion possibilities for our owners.
We would appreciate the Commission’s and Council’s careful review of our request and welcome any
further questions or discussion from the Commission or the Town Council.
Respectfully,
Dr. Richard Parker, President
Vail Townhouse Condominium Association
rparkermd@msn.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 398 of 569
From:Heather Houston
To:Peter Wadden
Cc:"Dominic Mauriello"; Sharon Cohn
Subject:Vail Stream Setback - Comparison of Methodologies
Date:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 4:50:56 PM
Attachments:12_16_21 OHWM Methodology Comparison Map.pdf
Good Afternoon Peter,
I hope you are enjoying the holidays. Our team wanted to provide you with the
attached graphic which compares the OHWM based on the two methodologies
being discussed for determining the stream setback in Vail.
The map shows the Field-Located Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well
as the 2-year inundation line. The area between these lines is highlighted in
orange.
As expected, these two lines do not match up well - this is because we do
not think the 2-year flood is a good representation of the flow that creates
the OHWM in the snowmelt-driven system in Vail. We have been advised it is
likely closer to a 1.5-year inundation.
As expected, where the banks are steep, there is not much of a lateral shift
between the two lines. However, where the bank has a gradual slope or
connected floodplain, there will be a much greater difference between the
two lines.
The hydraulic modeling method relies upon the accuracy of the inputs
(topography and flow) to infer where the line might go (through hydraulic
modeling calculations).
In contrast we marked the line in the field - a direct measurement - and we
don't believe this is an arbitrary method as was mentioned in our prior call. In
fact, it is a repeatable method that is used by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This method is less expensive for a landowner, repeatable, many
ecologists are trained to identify it, and does not rely on having accurate
topographic or flow data. All that is needed is a qualified professional to flag
and then survey the line.
In our opinion, the regulatory OHWM and stream setback should be defined
by field indicators.
You had requested our CAD files - I will pull together an Autocad drawing that
includes our linework for the attached graphic and will send it your way.
Please let us know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Heather
HEATHER HOUSTON
PRESIDENT
&
SENIOR ECOLOGIST
April 19, 2022 - Page 399 of 569
BIRCH ECOLOGY, LLC
HEATHER@BIRCHECOLOGY.COM
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/adb77133/8EyZwVrZnkSpBhudZf_GoA?
u=http://www.birchecology.com/
(720) 350-2530 (mobile)
P.O. Box 170
429 Main Street
Lyons, CO 80540
April 19, 2022 - Page 400 of 569
Hi Peter,
That seems like a pretty mild request compared to what we do on forest. We typically apply 100’ stream
protection buffers to Forest Service projects, based on our Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook
(attached). Melvin or Justin can speak better to that aspect, but I’ve attached a 2006 version of the
handbook that I could find. I’m including Justin Anderson, our Forest hydrologist, as he may have a more
recent and/or concise version and additional comments.
Caveat: Since this is private land, I need to be careful in what I write or say, and realize that we do things
very differently on forest than private largely because of the different size and scale, goals, economic
drivers, etc.
Bigger setbacks that are better able to represent riparian and stream corridors are incredibly important
to wildlife. They provide ample water and plant availability for neotropical migratory birds, and the
destruction of these areas has been considered the most important reason for bird species declines in
the West. From this NRCS handout (about the Great Basin but applicable to Colorado as well): “A
healthy riparian buffer protects the stream from influxes of pollution and sediment and protects upland
areas by managing stream flow during floods. Plants are critical for stream stabilization and provide food
and shelter for wildlife.”
nrcs143_010098.pdf (usda.gov)
In fact, 80 percent of wildlife species in the West depend on riparian areas for at least some point of
their life cycle. Watch: Supporting Colorado’s River Restoration | Audubon Rockies
If you need more information on the wildlife-side, let me know.
I’ve provided at least some information regarding how important river and stream corridors are for
wildlife. Devin may be able to speak to this more, but with hunting season he may be a bit out-of-
pocket.
Hope this helps,
Jen Prusse
Wildlife Biologist
She/Her/Hers
Forest Service
White River National Forest,
Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District
p: 970-827-5160
jennifer.l.prusse@usda.gov
24747 US HWY 24
Minturn, CO 81645
www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
April 19, 2022 - Page 401 of 569
From:Crane, James
To:Peter Wadden
Subject:RE: A request for your input on proposed TOV ordinance to protect Gore Creek.
Date:Thursday, March 25, 2021 10:15:52 AM
Attachments:image002.jpg
image003.jpg
Sundial10footandOHWM.pdf
Sundial25ohwmexisting.pdf
StreamCorridorPresentation030221.pdf
Good Morning Pete,
Thanks for your email and March 18 phone call explaining how the proposed TOV ordinance to
protect Gore Creek would impact Sundial’s streamside property. I shared our phone conversation
and the attached information with our Sundial HOA board of directors and am pleased to report that
the board is supportive of the proposed ordinance and its goals of restoring streambank habitat and
environment.
Thank you for sharing the proposed ordinance and inviting public comment.
With Best Regards,
James Crane, President
Sundial HOA
From: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:36 AM
To: Crane, James <cranej@wustl.edu>
Subject: A request for your input
Hi Jim-
It was good speaking with you this morning. Thanks again for taking the time to present this
proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to your fellow board members.
They may be interested to watch the presentation I made to Vail Town Council on March 2
explaining the vision for this ordinance. The relevant portion of the meeting begins about
1:14:00 into the linked video. I have also attached a .pdf of the slides from that presentation
if they want to just click through and read those.
There are two maps attached. Each shows the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in blue.
As I explained on the phone, our proposed ordinance would not impose any restrictions at
this line. That line is just a basis for the 10 foot vegetative and 25 foot building setback I am
proposing. You can see that 10 foot “no mow zone” in red on one of the maps. The other
map shows our existing building setback (50 feet from Gore Creek centerline) in yellow and
contrasts it with the new proposed building setback which would be 25 feet from OHWM in
pink.
I am happy to field questions or feedback from anyone you share this with. I am hoping to
present this proposed code change to the Planning and Environmental Commission in late
April or early May.
April 19, 2022 - Page 402 of 569
October 21, 2021
TO: Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council
RE: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members,
The Climate Action Collaborative (the Collaborative) is writing to voice support for the Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance brought forward by the Town of Vail (ToV).
The Collaborative is focused on helping Eagle County become sustainable and resilient in the face of
climate change. Sustainability is not just reducing carbon emissions, but also involves balancing ecology,
human impact, and economics to prolong a thriving community. Maintaining the quality and quantity of
the natural resources we are dependent on will help Eagle County stay resilient and adapt to future
impacts.
Water is a resource that is highly sensitive to the impacts of climate change, and one we must
sustain, in all capacities of the word. Our community is heavily dependent on sufficient supply
and healthy quality to support our surrounding ecosystems, our people (local and beyond), and
our recreation and tourism economies. Increasing the vegetative buffer between development
impact and a natural resource is critical to proper restoration of Gore Creek and its tributaries.
The Collaborative calls for actions that support water quality and quantity in our 2020 Climate
Action Plan (CAP). The CAP aligns its water-related strategies with those of the Eagle County
Community Resilience Plan. It includes actions to support water resource improvements, such as
restoration of riparian zones and support of “water planning efforts that consider potential
population growth in regard to Eagle County’s water resource carrying capacity.” Because the
ordinance would also apply to new developments, we believe it is in line with these actions.
Additionally, we facilitated a Sustainable Building Code Task Force in early 2020 to recommend
local codes that would support the achievement of CAP and other sustainability goals. One of
those was a Sensitive Site Setback of buildings to preserve riparian zones and water quality,
ensuring new developments and existing buildings minimize disturbances and promote
biodiversity.
We are committed to supporting efforts that preserve the sustainability of this resource, and
consequently, resilience of the community. We thank you for your efforts in reviewing the
ordinance, our letter of support, and for continuing your efforts in the Restore the Gore
movement.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Schlaepfer
Manager Climate Action Collaborative, Walking Mountains Science Center
April 19, 2022 - Page 403 of 569
Climate Action Collaborative Community Partners
Town of Avon
Town of Basalt
Eagle County
Town of Minturn
Town of Eagle
Town of Red Cliff
Town of Vail
EagleVail Metro District
Edwards Metro District
Colorado Mountain College –
Edwards Campus
Eagle County School District
Vail Mountain School
ECO Transit
Eagle River Water &
Sanitation District
Eagle Valley Land Trust
Holy Cross Energy
Mountain Recreation
RA Nelson
R&H Mechanical
Traer Creek Metro District
Vail Daily
Vail Health
Vail Honeywagon
Vail Resorts
Vail Valley Partnership
The Community Market
Mountain Youth
Vail Valley Foundation
Walking Mountains Science
Center
April 19, 2022 - Page 404 of 569
From:Christie Hochtl
To:Peter Wadden; Ludik@comcast.net; Kevin Hochtl; Karl Höchtl
Subject:Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 2:44:40 PM
Good Afternoon PEC, Ludwig Kurz, and PeteWadden,
Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no mow zone
and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This ordinance will help our
efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and birds, etc.
Thank you,
Christie and Karl Hochtl
890 Red Sandstone Circle
Vail, CO 81657
970 476 1125 landline
970 376 1893
cjbhochtl@gmail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 405 of 569
To Whom it May Concern
As the co-owners of Mountain Organic/Pristine Landscaping, we support the
new river corridor setbacks proposed by Pete Wadden and the Town of Vail.
All of our clients on Booth Creek currently abide by the 25’ set back. Every client
made the decision to follow the suggested guideline on their own accord as
they all felt it necessary to do their part to help increase the health of Gore
Creek. The increased natural footage with the 25’ set back has enhanced the
overall look of our client’s landscaping along Gore Creek, not to mention
helping benefit the health and viability of the creek and riparian habitat.
Gore Creek is vital to many aspects in the Vail Valley including mammal
environs, drinking water, fish habitat and more. By simply increasing native
grasslands and planting a few shrubs, we as a collective can start bringing Gore
Creek back into EPA standards. Our rivers can no longer support the enormous
amounts of pollutants we willfully cast off into our local water systems. As
businesses, home owners and government, to increase riparian zones along our
much valued creeks and rivers shouldn’t be a big ask, it should be part of our
moral obligation.
Kelli and Kreston Rohrig
April 19, 2022 - Page 406 of 569
From:Kaitlyn Merriman
To:Peter Wadden
Subject:In Support of the Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 12:40:26 PM
Hi Pete,
I am writing to you to officially support the proposal for the stream
corridor protection ordinance.
Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no
mow zone and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This
ordinance will help our efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and
birds, etc.
Thank you,
Kaitlyn Merriman
April 19, 2022 - Page 407 of 569
From:Dominic Mauriello
To:Peter Wadden
Cc:Tom Kassmel
Subject:Re: A request for your input
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 3:23:35 PM
Hi Peter:
Thank you again for reaching out to me.
I have taken a look at the impact of the proposed setbacks on the Evergreen Lodge, one of my
clients. This property was addressed extensively in an amendment to the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and was part of a land swap with Vail Health. A lot of work was
put into a preliminary design to make sure that Vail health and Evergreen Lodge would each
have their needs addressed on Lot F-1. For this analysis Evergreen relied upon the current
stream setbacks and zoning setbacks. An increase in these setbacks will have a detrimental
impact upon the Evergreen Lodge property.
We did a quick study of the current setbacks versus the 25’ setback proposed (attached). One
of the major consequences of the proposed setback is that, unlike the centerline setback, there
are stream banks and eddies that can affect the impacts to private property. The Evergreen is
one of these cases even when you drop the setback to 20’. 20’ certainly works a lot better
except where there is a random stream bank especially related to Lot F-1 where literally the
wide of the development on the project was planned down to the foot.
It seems to me that you can still accomplish many of your goals by leaving the stream setbacks
as they are measured today from the centerline but adding in the proposed 10’ natural riparian
buffer. Even with the 10’ riparian buffer, you are going to need to provide some exceptions or
maybe some performance standards or alternatives that allow for things like the community
path that runs along Gore Creek to encroach. Maybe the regulation could be written that the
setbacks are 30’ from the centerline of the stream but in no case shall there be a setback of less
than 10’ from the OHWM. That way you are always guaranteed that the riparian zone can
exist to help protect the creek.
I am hoping we can come up with something that will work for the Town and the Evergreen
Lodge. The Town's proposal is causing a significant amount of anxiousness based on the
millions that were spent to work on the swap with Vail Health.
Please let me know the schedule for reviewing this with the Town Council.
Thanks,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 4777
2205 Eagle Ranch Road
Eagle, Colorado 81631
April 19, 2022 - Page 408 of 569
Area 8 – NW Region
0088 Wildlife Way
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P 970.947.2969 | F 970.947.2936
Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams Robert W. Bray Charles Garcia Marie Haskett
Carrie Besnette Hauser John Howard Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair Luke B. Schafer Eden Vardy James Vigil, Secretary Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair
Honorable Dave Chapin October 21, 2021
Vail Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Dear Mayor Chapin, Town Council & Planning & Environmental Commission members,
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is responsible for the management and conservation of
wildlife resources within the state. Our statutory mission is implemented through our 2015
Strategic Plan, and the goals it embraces are designed to make CPW a national leader in
wildlife management, conservation, and sustainable outdoor recreation to inspire current and
future generations to serve as stewards of Colorado’s natural resources. In many ecoregions in
the west, healthy riparian areas are a resource that is integral for overall water quality and
ecosystem health. CPW understands that many of the riparian areas within and adjacent to
the town limits of Vail have already been impacted by human development and presence,
further emphasizing the need to protect, and restore the remaining corridors. Insulating the
riparian zone from continued impacts will help many wildlife species that require these
habitats. CPW supports the greatest possible setback in riparian areas, and is supportive of
the Town of Vail’s (TOV) proposed no-mow-zone and updated setback requirements.
Riparian zones typically comprise a small percentage of the landscape, often less than 1%, yet
they frequently harbor a disproportionately high number of wildlife species and perform a
disparate number of ecological functions when compared to most upland habitats. Almost all
wildlife species that exist in Colorado require riparian habitat to survive. Riparian areas
provide food, water, refuge from heat and cold, cover from predators, and breeding and
rearing areas for a wide variety of terrestrial, avian, and aquatic species. Much of the native
riparian habitat in the state has been altered or removed in some way, be it in the form of
housing developments, trail system development, commercial uses, or even agricultural
development. Studies have shown that riparian areas act as corridors, and many terrestrial
species prefer to move through wider riparian corridors as opposed to more narrow and
denuded riparian corridors (Hilty, et al, 2004). In addition, the tighter the corridor is in
relation to the length by which it is restricted will deter wildlife use and act to further
fragment an already heavily fragmented ecosystem (even a long, tight riparian corridor would
act as a barrier to wildlife movement). Furthermore, a healthy riparian zone - the vegetated
buffer between the aquatic and upland habitats - can serve to protect and improve water
quality. Permanent vegetation functions to trap, and remove various pollutants, contaminants
and sediments.
Many wildlife species use riparian areas year round, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles,
crustaceans, birds, invertebrates, and fish. Other wildlife may only use the area seasonally
April 19, 2022 - Page 409 of 569
Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams Robert W. Bray Charles Garcia Marie Haskett
Carrie Besnette Hauser John Howard Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair Luke B. Schafer Eden Vardy James Vigil, Secretary Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair
for a variety of reasons, including moving from summer/fall range to winter grounds,
nesting/breeding/rearing young. Various raptor species have been known to use the area for
wintering, roosting, and nesting. Furthermore, elk, moose, and deer usually calve and fawn
in areas within 400 feet of free flowing water and on hillsides with dense vegetation in the
spring, when snow typically precludes movement higher up onto the slope. Protection of any
remaining intact riparian areas is essential, as we continue to see significant declines of deer
and elk populations in the Gore and Eagle Valleys.
Gore Creek is identified as a “Gold Medal” fishery, defined as “a lake or stream that supports
a trout standing stock of at least 60 pounds per acre, and contains an average of at least 12
quality trout per acre. Additionally, anglers contribute significantly to the local Eagle County
economy ($28.7 million, CPW 2012). Healthy riparian areas that are properly vegetated are a
critical contributor to stream health. During low water years, it can shade the stream during
hot summer months and provide cover for fish that are more exposed in shallower
waters. Riparian areas also provide food input in the form of invertebrates and plant matter
utilized by both fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates as food. Impacts to our local fisheries
during stressful summer months have recently been documented and are contributing to the
local decline of certain species of sportfish. Reductions to the amount of protected riparian
cover will only add to the impacts affecting the local fisheries, this could lead to reduced
angling opportunity and experience essential to the local economy.
The proposed Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance will insulate the creek to
continued impacts and provide for improved water quality, stream health and recreational
opportunities, all essential to local communities.
Vail is known for its beautiful, wild landscapes and diverse wildlife supported by the creek
corridors that run through the heart of the town. Not only does the natural surroundings and
wildlife draw many visitors to the area, it characterizes the high quality of life that entices
people to live here, as well. Our natural resources, supported by protected and healthy
riparian areas, are a significant economic driver to our local economy. CPW strongly
encourages municipalities to do everything they can to be active stewards of our natural
resources when developing their communities. Please consider approving the proposed Gore
Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. CPW appreciates the opportunity to comment on
this stream protection ordinance and looks forward to continued work with the town in
conserving the natural resource. If you have any questions or concerns please contact District
Wildlife Manager Devin Duval at 970-930-5264.
Sincerely,
Devin Duval
District Wildlife Manager – Vail
April 19, 2022 - Page 410 of 569
From:Matt Gennett
To:Peter Wadden
Subject:FW: Proposed Ordinance on Stream Setbacks
Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:34:41 PM
FYI – (it is addressed to you but you don’t appear to be listed as a recipient)
From: Dominic Mauriello <dominic@mpgvail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:28 PM
To: Matt Mire <jmm@hpwclaw.com>; Kendra Carberry <klc@hpwclaw.com>; Greg Roy
<GRoy@vailgov.com>; Jonathan Spence <JSpence@vailgov.com>; Kristen Bertuglia
<KBertuglia@vailgov.com>; Matt Gennett <MGennett@vailgov.com>
Cc: Allison Kent <allison@mpgvail.com>; Sharon Cohn <sharon@solarisvail.com>; Heather Houston
<heather@birchecology.com>; Matt Wadey <Wadey@alpinecivil.com>; Chad Cusworth
<chad@solarisvail.com>
Subject: Proposed Ordinance on Stream Setbacks
Hello Peter and Town of Vail staff:
We have completed a preliminary review of the ordinance that you sent over earlier today. I know
you asked that I wait to review another version but we thought it was necessary to express some
concerns about this version. Please share this email with the PEC and Town Council.
This version goes well beyond the prior versions by heavily restricting what can occur in the new 25’
riparian zone. Previously what was proposed was a 25’ building setback with a 10’ riparian zone. In
the prior version things like patios and walkways were allowed within the 25’ setback but not
allowed in the 10’ zone. We are very concerned with this change and its impact on properties.
We are still troubled with the definition of the Ordinary High Water Line. What you have proposed
is not the ordinary high water mark or line but rather a two-year flood line. Those are not the same
thing. It has taken us a couple of months to translate and plot the Town’s data in recognized survey
system and what your data indicated to us are some very significant deviations between the
hydraulic model and field conditions with some deviation as much as 9’ or more. We are concerned
that the average landowner is going to find the data very difficult to represent on a plan. The Town’s
data set should only be used for a high level indication of a setback line.
We don’t believe that there needs to be a hearing with the Town Council to use actual field data
especially if verified by the Army Corps. The two methods should be allowed.
Section E is very confusing. First as stated above this section should be modified to reflect that
either method is allowed for measurement. If there was a need to appeal a decision of staff related
to the high water mark, that should be handled by the PEC just like any other appeal. This also
allows there to be an appeal of the PEC decision to the Town Council. An appeal of the Town Council
decision would mean going straight to court which seems unreasonable. The decision should be less
political in nature and handled by the PEC.
April 19, 2022 - Page 411 of 569
Additionally, still in Section E you either need to define wetlands scientist or use a more common
provision such as a "qualified wetland consultant." This section is confusing as it is unclear if one
needs to have both a wetland consultant prepare a report with a verification letter from the Army
Corps OR have an engineer provide a hydraulic study or both. I think the intent is to have one or the
other and not both. The Army Corps is not going to review and approve a hydrologic model as they
use physical parameters from the field.
Why is there a need to have the town hire a hydrologist if the Army Corps is verifying the ordinary
high water line or mark? is this only necessary if a new hydraulic model is proposed?
We also believe, based on the data being proposed by the Town, that the building setback should be
15’ to account the change in methodology being proposed. If using the Army Corps definition of
ordinary high water mark, then 20’ may be the more appropriate setback.
We previously provided comments related to invasive plant species and the need to need to
allow for native landscaping for restoration of the 10’ riparian zone. We note that these comments
were not included and we think they should be (reference letter from Birch Ecology).
We believe that what is now proposed will have a significant impact on private property rights and
impair my client's ability to redevelop the Evergreen property in a reasonable way.
We think this ordinance still needs a lot of work and it is apparent that to-date our input is being
largely ignored.
We are happy to meet and discuss our initial comments further.
Thanks,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 4777
2205 Eagle Ranch Road
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970-376-3318 cell
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/d0a9d2ed/OAkUpKhAXEa7cPjjbYipGw?
u=http://www.mpgvail.com/
April 19, 2022 - Page 412 of 569
BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM
October 18, 2021
Peter Wadden &
The Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail , CO 81657
RE: Town of Vail Proposed Stream Setback Regulations
Dear Peter and Commission Members,
On behalf of the project team from the Evergreen Lodge, we have reviewed the Town of Vail's
September 27, 2021 proposed revisions to the stream setback regulations, and have a few
recommendations and suggestions:
1. Definition of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
The proposed regulations would define the OHWM "based on the average 2-year flood line on
Gore Creek and its named tributaries which can be established by survey using elevation data
available from the Community Development Department."
• For a snowmelt-driven system such as Gore Creek through the Town of Vail, it is our
understanding that the 1.5-year flood line is more likely to represent the flow which
corresponds to the Ordinary High Water Mark.
• For the purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines
the Ordinary High Water Mark as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of
water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on
the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation,
the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 33 CFR 328.3(e)
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a well-established methodology for defining the
Ordinary High Water Mark based on field conditions, as detailed in the attached
Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. The guidance under Section 3(B) provides a "list of
physical characteristics" that "should be considered when making an OHWM
determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably
reliable:"
April 19, 2022 - Page 413 of 569
BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM
o Natural line impressed on the bank
o Shelving
o Changes in the character of the soil
o Presence of litter and debris
o Wracking
o Vegetation matted down, bent or
absent
o Sediment Sorting
o Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
o Scour
o Deposition
o Multiple observed flow events
o Bed and banks
o Water staining
o Change in plant community
• Given that there is already a well-established methodology based on the existing physical
conditions, which is a direct measure of the OHWM in the field, we recommend the Town
of Vail also adopt the Corps' definition and methodology for determining the Ordinary
High Water Mark as a basis for establishing the stream setback.
• The current methodology for establishing the setback based on the centerline of a stream
or creek is to identify the OHWM on both sides, then establish a center between the two
banks. This requires the OHWM to be mapped on both sides and the setback distance
does not take into account the width of the stream, so a wide channel could end up with
only a narrow buffer area.
• We agree that the OHWM is a more appropriate baseline for establishing the stream
setback vs. the centerline of the channel. It would only need to be located on one side
in order to establish the setback and would account for variable channel widths.
2. Riparian Buffer and Stream Setback Distances
The proposed stream setback rule would establish a 25-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water
Mark and a 10-foot Riparian Zone along the inner edge, which would be a "protected area to
remain as native vegetation and natural materials." Certain activities would be restricted within
the Riparian Zone to promote the goals of the Gore Creek Strategic Plan - to improve the water
quality and habitat conditions of Gore Creek and its tributaries.
• In terms of functionality, the 10-foot Riparian Zone is the most valuable component of the
25-foot setback. This is where runoff will be filtered and it will be the most important part
for wildlife habitat.
April 19, 2022 - Page 414 of 569
BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM
• Building setbacks are helpful but a difference between 20 or 25 feet is not significant if they
both have the same 10-foot wide Riparian Zone with a bluegrass lawn or parking lot for the
remainder of the setback width.
• One option which should be considered is to allow for a variable building setback if the
width of the Riparian Zone is increased correspondingly. For example a building setback
could be reduced by up to five feet (from 25 to 20 feet) if the width of the Riparian Zone is
increased by up to five feet (from 10 to 15 feet).
• This approach could allow some flexibility in setback widths to reduce the number of non-
conforming properties. It would still be consistent with the goals to improve water quality
and habitat because it would increase the width of the Riparian Zone - where the most
important ecological functions would occur - by as much as 50%.
3. Additional Recommendations for the Riparian Zone
• The draft language states that "no work, including but not limited to, mowing, landscaping,
grading, or disturbance" ... shall be permitted "within the Riparian Zone" ... "with the
following exceptions, subject to Design Review Board approval: (a.) Removal and
management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds."
• We recommend that this provision be expanded to include "Removal and management
of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds and other aggressive, introduced species."
There are many examples of introduced plants which should be removed to maintain
habitat quality but they are not specifically state-listed noxious weeds, so broadening this
language would be consistent with the goal of protecting and improving riparian habitat
quality by permitting removal of these plants.
• We recommend adding "Native habitat restoration" as one of the exempted activities.
• Consider adding language to the Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback
Regulations which states "property owners will be encouraged to conduct native habitat
restoration if the Riparian Zone on their property is dominated by non-native species or is
in poor condition."
• Consider adding language which states "residents will be encouraged to minimize foot
paths and vegetation trampling within the Riparian Zone, and to locate creek access
paths to avoid the most sensitive areas." This could be coupled with the provision to have
a path of no more than 4 feet wide, with a permeable surface, to minimize impacts within
the Riparian Zone.
April 19, 2022 - Page 415 of 569
BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM
We would be happy to further discuss these recommendations and look forward to meeting with
you.
Sincerely,
Heather Houston
President & Senior Ecologist
April 19, 2022 - Page 416 of 569
REGULATORY GUIDANCE
LETTER
No. 05-05 Date: 7 December 2005
SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification
1. Purpose and Applicability
a. Purpose. To provide guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark.
b. Applicability. This applies to jurisdictional determinations for non-tidal waters under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899.
2. General Considerations
a. Regulation and Policy. Pursuant to regulations and inter-agency agreement,1 the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines, on a case-by case basis, the extent of
geographic jurisdiction for the purpose of administering its regulatory program. For purposes of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal w
bodies extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands.
When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits
of the adjacent wetlands. For purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction, which is limited to the traditional navigable
waters of the United States, extends to the OHWM, whether or not adjacent wetlands extend
landward
ater
of the OHWM.
Corps regulations define the term “ordinary high water mark” for purposes of the CWA
lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states:
“The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore
established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics
such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the
character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and
debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding areas.”
1. Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency
Concerning the Determination of the Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program and the Application of
the Exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, January 19, 1989
April 19, 2022 - Page 417 of 569
This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term “ordinary high water mark”
found at 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1), describing the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction over
non-tidal traditional navigable waters of the United States subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). When the definition from 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1)
was reproduced at 33 CFR 328.3(e), the semi-colons of the former definition were mistakenly
changed to commas in the latter definition. Consequently, the definition of “ordinary high water
mark” in Part 328 is not as clear in meaning as is the definition of the same term in Part 329,
even though the two definitions were to serve the same basic purpose (i.e., establishing the
lateral extent of jurisdiction, in the absence of adjacent wetlands).2
Both definitions of the term “ordinary high water mark” begin by discussing physical
characteristics that indicate the location of the OHWM on the shore of a water body.
Furthermore, both OHWM definitions conclude with the statement the OHWM can be
determined using “other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding
areas”.3 Prior to this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL), neither the Corps nor the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has issued any additional clarifying national guidance for use
by Corps regulatory program staff in identifying the location of the OHWM for the CWA on a
case-by-case basis.4
b. Practice. In making OHWM determinations, Corps districts generally rely on
physical evidence to ascertain the lateral limits of jurisdiction, to whatever extent physical
evidence can be found and such evidence is deemed reasonably reliable. Physical indicators
include the features listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. In addition,
districts use other methods for estimating the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of
water, including, but not limited to, lake and stream gage data, flood predictions, historic records
of water flow, and statistical evidence. To the maximum extent practicable, districts generally
use more than one physical indicator or other means for determining the OHWM.
3. Guidance.
a. In determining the location of the OHWM for non-tidal water bodies under the CWA
or the RHA, districts should give priority to evaluating the physical characteristics of the area
that are determined to be reliable indicators of the OHWM. Physical evidence to be evaluated
includes those items listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1).
Because many types of water bodies occur with varying conditions, including topography,
channel morphology and flow dynamics, districts may consider other physical characteristics
indicative of the OHWM.
2. CWA jurisdiction extends laterally landward of the OHWM to include all adjacent wetlands wherever such
adjacent wetlands are present. This guidance addresses situations where no such adjacent wetlands exist.
3. Changes in the limits of waters of the U.S. are addressed in 33 CFR 328.5.
4 . On 3 June 1983 the Corps of Engineers’ Chief Counsel distributed legal guidance to all Corps district and
division counsel offices regarding certain legal questions relating to the geographic jurisdiction of Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, including questions relating to the OHWM.
2
April 19, 2022 - Page 418 of 569
3
b. The following physical characteristics should be considered when making an OHWM
determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable:
Natural line impressed on the bank
Shelving
Changes in the character of soil
Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
Presence of litter and debris
Wracking
Vegetation matted down, bent, or
absent
Sediment sorting
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Scour
Deposition
Multiple observed flow events
Bed and banks
Water staining
Change in plant community
This list of OHWM characteristics is not exhaustive. Physical characteristics that correspond to
the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water may vary depending on the type of
water body and conditions of the area. There are no “required” physical characteristics that must
be present to make an OHWM determination. However, if physical evidence alone will be used
for the determination, districts should generally try to identify two or more characteristics, unless
there is particularly strong evidence of one.
c. Where the physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or
otherwise not evident, districts may determine the OHWM by using other appropriate means that
consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, provided those other means are reliable.5
Such other reliable methods that may be indicative of the OHWM include, but are not limited to,
lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, flood predictions, historic records of
water flow, and statistical evidence.
d. When making OHWM determinations, districts should be careful to look at
characteristics associated with ordinary high water events, which occur on a regular or frequent
basis. Evidence resulting from extraordinary events, including major flooding and storm surges,
is not indicative of the OHWM. For instance, a litter or wrack line resulting from a 200-year
flood event would in most cases not be considered evidence of an OHWM.
e. Districts will document in writing the physical characteristics used to establish the
OHWM for CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction. If physical characteristics are inconclusive,
misleading, unreliable, or not evident, the Districts’ written documentation will include
information about the physical characteristics (or lack thereof) and other appropriate means that
consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, which it used to determine the OHWM.
f. To complete an approved jurisdictional determination, districts will have complete and
accurate documentation that substantiates the Corps decision. At a minimum, decisions will be
documented using the standardized jurisdictional determination information sheet established by
5. In some cases, the physical characteristics may be misleading and would not be reliable for determining the
OHWM. For example, water levels or flows may be manipulated by human intervention for power generation or
water supply. For such cases, districts should consider using other appropriate means to determine the OHWM.
April 19, 2022 - Page 419 of 569
Headquarters and provided to the districts on August 13, 2004 (or as further amended by
Headquarters). Documentation will allow for a reasonably accurate replication of the
determination at a future date. In this regard, documentation will normally include information
such as data sheets, site visit memoranda, maps, sketches, and, in some cases, surveys and
photographs documenting the OHWM.
4. Duration. This guidance remains in effect unless revised or rescinded.
4
April 19, 2022 - Page 420 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 421 of 569
970.476.8865 CELAW.COM 93 South Frontage Rd W, Suite 222, Vail, CO 81657
January 21, 2022
Via E-mail Only
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
Re. Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
My firm represents Grand Hyatt Vail (“Grand Hyatt”) located in Cascade Village and on Gore Creek.
Please accept this letter as the written comments of Grand Hyatt to the Proposed Stream Corridor
Protection Ordinance (“Ordinance”) that is being considered by the Planning and Environmental
Commission (“PEC”) at its meeting on January 24th. As further explained below, Grand Hyatt has
serious concerns and objections to the new 25-foot no-build setback currently proposed in the
Ordinance.
As you know, Grand Hyatt has extensive frontage along, and portions of its buildings and other
improvements are located close to, Gore Creek. Gore Creek is basically Grand Hyatt’s front yard. It
is important to note that Grand Hyatt, its predecessors and their owners and guests have always highly
valued Gore Creek, including its environmental health, and understand that Gore Creek helps make
the Town of Vail and Grand Hyatt unique, special and exceptionally beautiful. Towards that end,
Grand Hyatt support the ten-foot no mow zone which is by far the most important element of the
Ordinance. At least one environmental expert in reviewing the Ordinance has recognized that the ten-
foot no mow zone is “the most valuable component” of the Ordinance and will do the most to improve
the water quality and habitat conditions of Gore Creek and its tributaries. See Birch Ecology letter of
October 18, 2021.
Unlike the 10-foot no mow zone, the 25-foot no build set back is problematic, unnecessarily expansive,
and unworkable. The proposed 25-foot setback in many places throughout the Town would materially
expand the current setback and thus no build zone and cause many existing conforming structures to
become non-conforming. This is true for the Grand Hyatt as the proposed 25-foot setback expands
significantly further onto Grand Hyatt property and appears to actually touch and cross portions of the
Grand Hyatt building. Attached is the Town’s rendering of the proposed setbacks with those locations
on Grand Hyatt added. The Ordinance would thereby for the very first time effectively render non -
conforming, and prohibit any modifications or expansions of, those portions of Grand Hyatt. It appears
that would happen to a significant number of other buildings in Vail. The Grand Hyatt, which was
originally constructed in the 1980’s, is currently pursing plans to renovate and modestly expand certain
guest rooms and suites in those areas that would be effectively prohibited if the 25-foot setback is
adopted.
Daniel F. Wolf
93 South Frontage Rd W, Suite 222, Vail, CO 81657
970.476.8865| F: 970.476.0446
3107 Iris Ave, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80301-1915
303.443.8010 | F: 303.440.3967
dwolf@celaw.com
www.celaw.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 422 of 569
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 21, 2022
P a g e | 2
We also have significant concerns that the Ordinance will be unworkable and unnecessarily create
uncertainty and confusion going forward for property owners along Gore Creek like Grand Hyatt.
Under the Ordinance as currently drafted it appears that Ordinary High Water Line (“OHWL”) and
accordingly the setback will change periodically but the Ordinance does not specify when or how often
that change will occur, and such change could occur as frequently as every few years. Also the
definition of OHWL is unclear, confusing and based on an unidentified data set instead of the
established and accepted definition used by the Army Corps of Engineers. These deficiencies will
leave property owners along Gore Creek in perpetual limbo as to what they can or cannot do with their
property near the 25-foot setback.
We also believe the Ordinance as currently proposed may constitute a compensable regulatory taking
of private property including of certain valuable Grand Hyatt property. In sum, we have seen no
evidence that the proposed 25-foot setback will provide a meaningful improvement to the
environmental health of Gore Creek over the current scheme, especially in view of the many problems
associated with it.
Grand Hyatt accordingly requests that the PEC not recommend adoption of the 25-foot set-back as
proposed in the Ordinance and leave the current set-back in place. As mentioned, Grand Hyatt does
not oppose the 10-foot now mow zone. Alternatively, Grand Hyatt requests that the PEC amend the
Ordinance to address the concerns described above, including by moving the setback on Grand Hyatt
property to no further than the existing setback or at a minimum establish the setback at 20 feet instead
of 25 feet as has been proposed by several other stakeholders, and adopting a clearer and more
established methodology for determining the OHWL. The Ordinance also should be amended to add
a more comprehensive grandfathering provision to allow property owners who have commenced
development plans, like Grand Hyatt, to proceed under the existing regulations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
CAPLAN AND EARNEST LLC
Daniel F. Wolf
DFW/cch
cc. Grand Hyatt Vail
4876-5585-8442, v. 3
April 19, 2022 - Page 423 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 424 of 569
Proposed line touches the hotel
April 19, 2022 - Page 425 of 569
From:Jonathan Spence
To:Greg Roy; Peter Wadden; Shelley Bellm
Subject:FW: VHA/JFL/JS: Jonathan - Good morning. Please forward this onto the PEC with respect to today"s hearing on
Stream Setbacks.
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 12:40:12 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Jonathan Spence, AICP
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Office: 970.479-2321
vailgov.com
From: Jim Lamont <JFLamont@Vail.Net>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:39 PM
To: Jonathan Spence <JSpence@vailgov.com>
Subject: VHA/JFL/JS: Jonathan - Good morning. Please forward this onto the PEC with respect to
today's hearing on Stream Setbacks.
Planning and Environment Commission: Stream Setbacks.
VHA, favors of remediation of streambanks for the purpose of restoring water quality to sustain
aquatic habitat in Gore Creek and its tributaries. VHA does not favor the taking of property rights
through inverse condemnation or other methods that would preclude property owners from
restoring/replacing residential and other similarly related structures that currently exist within the
proposed stream setback areas. Thank you. Jim Lamont/VHA
April 19, 2022 - Page 426 of 569
January 31, 2022
Dear Planning and Environment Commissioners:
These comments on the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance are submitted
by the Eagle Summit Wilderness Alliance (ESWA). ESWA is a local, all volunteer non-profit that
works in coordination with the USFS to protect, preserve, and maintain the three Wilderness
Areas in Eagle and Summit Counties, including the Eagles Nest Wilderness.
ESWA supports the proposed Ordinance, but believes it should be strengthened not
weakened. Although the Ordinance may not directly affect the Eagles Nest Wilderness, the
riparian areas along Gore Creek are an important part of the overall ecosystem of the Vail
Valley, including the tributaries of Gore Creek whose headwaters arise in and flow through the
Eagles Nest Wilderness. Many species of wildlife travel between the Wilderness, Gore Creek,
and its tributaries.
Riparian areas are the pumping heart of ecosystems. They provide habitat, water , and
food sources for animals for miles around, including those in the Eagles Nest Wilderness. These
benefits are in addition to many others noted by your staff – water quality enhancement, flood
protection, a healthy fishery, and aesthetic and recreational benefits.
At the public hearing on January 24, 2022, some developers urged the Commission to
weaken the provisions of the proposed Ordinance. ESWA urges the Commission to reject these
proposals. For instance, the average flood on which the Ordinary High Water Mark is based
should not be reduced from two years to 1.5 years.
Riparian areas were developed by long-term flood patterns, and such flood patterns
must be protected as much as possible if a healthy riparian area is to be maintained. Ideally,
the average flood period would be as long as possible. If anything, the staff should consider the
cost and benefits of an average five-year flood period. It certainly should not be reduced to 1.5
years.
April 19, 2022 - Page 427 of 569
Likewise, the Riparian Zone should be increased from 10 feet to 25 or 50 feet. The
scientific studies cited by the staff show that such wider riparian zones are much better than
narrower ones. Many areas along Gore Creek and its tributaries do not currently have buildings
within 25 or 50 feet of the OHWM. These areas should be protected rather than subjected to
possible development. Structures already located within a wider Riparian Zone could be
grandfathered. Existing riparian areas should be protected from, not doomed to, ultimate
development.
In short, ESWA supports the proposed Ordinance but urges the Commission to
strengthen it rather than weaken it. This may be Vail’s last chance to protect the remaining
riparian areas within its borders.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and for your service to our
community.
Respectfully,
/s/
Mike Browning
Chair of ESWA
4229A Nugget Lane
Vail, CO. 81657
April 19, 2022 - Page 428 of 569
1
Gore Creek Preservation / Restoration
January 24, 2022
1. We are homeowners with property fronting on Gore Creek at 4014 Bighorn Road
in East Vail. Few, if any, have a greater interest than we and our neighboring
homeowners in preserving and enhancing the natural health and biodiversity of
Gore Creek. We received no official notification of these proceedings beyond
articles in the Vail Daily and letters from the Vail Homeowners Association.
2. We have been good stewards of the natural health of our section of Gore Creek
having twice personally financed the permitted restoration of the rocky stream
bank washed away by the seasonal runoff, and the planting of numerous Aspen
trees and other native vegetation with root systems to support the stream bank.
3. Having worked with the United States Forest Service as a volunteer on a project
to assess the extent of cementation of the Gore Creek streambed by deposits of
traction sand from I-70, I can say with great confidence that the overwhelming
threat to the health and welfare of the aquatic life in Gore Creek is traction sand
and magnesium chloride. That threat is magnified by the deposits of same on the
various bridges crossing Gore Creek from Bridge Road and East from there. A
major degradation of Gore Creek was accomplished by the Town of Vail during
the reconstruction of the bridge at Bridge Road and the installation of a new
kayak launching and wading / picnicking platform. The proposed property use
restrictions will have no impact on reducing or eliminating these major threats
while interfering with the homeowners’ peaceful enjoyment of the use of their
properties. The proposed property use restrictions now under consideration
constitute a “taking” of private property and a substantial diminution of the values
of the restricted properties.
4. We are offended by the standard practice of the Town of Vail in exempting itself
from the environmental rules and regulations it imposes on private property
owners.
Joe McHugh
Brenda McHugh
4014 Bighorn Road
April 19, 2022 - Page 429 of 569
January 23, 2022
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 82657
Re: Proposed Changes to Stream Setbacks
Dear PEC:
I am writing you on behalf of the ownership of the Evergreen Lodge, one of the many properties in the
Town of Vail that will be affected by the proposed ordinance that drastically changes the way the setbacks are
determined and the uses allowed within proposed setback. The changes are a significant departure from the
current stream setback regulations that have been in effect for nearly a half a century in Vail.
The goals being sought by the Town staff are lofty and admirable. Everyone wants healthy rivers, riparian
areas, and with high water quality for all of the reasons that have been documented. My client, and many
others that we talk to and you have heard from, take no issue with the desire to create the 10’ native (“no
mow zone”) from the bank of the creek. There are huge benefits in creating this zone.
The remainder of the ordinance is problematic for several reasons which I will describe below:
•Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL). The Town’s proposed ordinance is not really resolving the
measurement of of the creeks from the center line to the bank or what the Army Corps of
Engineers would define as the Ordinary High Water “Mark.” Instead the town is proposing to adopt
a set of maps that establishes a new floodplain which the staff is referring to as the OHWL. In
many cases that we have reviewed and in the case of Middle Creek, adjacent to the Evergreen Lodge,
the floodplain line being established by the Town can be significantly upland from what the Army
Corps of Engineers would map as the OHWM. In the case of the Evergreen Lodge, the town’s new
line can be off by as much as 9’. We think the Town should understand the impacts of this on
properties throughout the Town before passing this ordinance. We believe the Town should stick
with the methodology that has been adopted by the Army Corps for decades and which has been
largely used by surveyors in the region for decades. Below is the definition used by the Army Corps
and I have attached their field manual.
•For the purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the Ordinary
High Water Mark as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical
characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil,
destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 33 CFR 328.3(e)
1
PO Box 4777
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970.376.3318
www.mpgvail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 430 of 569
•25 foot setback. The staff is recommending a 25 foot setback from its new floodplain line the
OHWL. The setback from the actual stream bank or OHWM could in fact end up being more like
35 feet or more depending on the property in question when you factor in the discrepancy between
the OHWL and the OHWM. In the case of Middle Creek, under stream setbacks in the code today,
the setbacks create a 60 feet wide corridor of this narrow stream. If you increased that to measuring
from the stream bank of the OHWM, you create a corridor that is about 70 feet wide if the average
width is about 20 feet wide or 60 feet if the stream is about 10’ wide. If you use the Town’s
floodplain line, that corridor in the case of Middle Creek ends up being about 76 feet which now
impacts private property in a significant way. The change will cause many more portions of property
to be nonconforming which will affect a properties ability to redevelopment to make building
additions. We believe the more reasonable approach would be to change the setback to 20 feet and
use the Army Corps well established OHWM. If the Town is hell bent on using its new floodplain
model, then the setback should like be reduced to 15 feet to account for discrepancies.
•Uses within the 20 foot setback. Under the regulations today, the stream setback is treated like any
other building setback in the code in terms of the use of the area within the setback. We agree with
the restrictions being put in place for the first 10 feet of the riparian zone from the OHWM. Today,
there are many uses that one can place within the stream setback as well as a building setback. The
Town’s proposal accounts for encroachments of patios, decks, and balconies, but is does not account
for other uses typically found in setbacks such as swimming pools, hot tubs, sidewalks, retaining
walls, walls and fences, and even parking, all of which are allowed today. Here again, the proposed
regulation, will result in many more nonconformities on private property. We believe these uses
should be included as they are allowed today.
•Grandfather provision. The ordinance does not provide any relief to property owners who are in
the process of developing plans for redevelopment and who have been relying on the Town’s current
regulation. Even today there is not clear direction about the outcome of the Town’s efforts which
puts the planning for redevelopment at huge risk. In the case of the Evergreen Lodge, the applicant
has been working towards a project for the last 5 years (master plan amendments, land swaps with
Vail Health, etc.). In the last year the Evergreen Lodge ownership has spent over $1 million to
develop plans that will result in a submittal to the Town within a month. There needs to be a
provision added to the ordinance that gives property owners in this situation the ability to submit and
be revised under the current regulations. We have proposed language in the attached redline
document to address this concern. What is proposed is not a new concept and has been
implemented in other jurisdictions related to local land use regulation.
In the spirit of trying to strike a happy medium with what staff has proposed, we have proposed some
redline changes to the ordinance that we believe will address our concerns (attached). We are concerned
about having any requirement that forces the Army Corps to approve a OHWM on the front end knowing
that it can take many months to gain such approval. We have proposed language in the regard.
Thank you for taking our comments into consideration. While our comments are definitely related to our
specific situation, we believe these proposed changes to the ordinance will help many throughout the Town to
reduce unnecessary impacts of the proposed regulations.
Sincerely,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Principal
2
April 19, 2022 - Page 431 of 569
1
1/18/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE
GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES 2022
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO
ESTABLISH SETBACKS FROM GORE CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
WHEREAS, the Town's current stream setback, as established by Ordinance No.
19, Series of 1976, requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from the center of an
established creek or stream channel and 50 from the centerline of Gore Creek;
WHEREAS, the Gore Creek Strategic Plan adopted by the Town Council in 2016
identifies loss of riparian vegetation as one of the main causes of declining water quality
in Gore Creek; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to prevent further deterioration of Gore
Creek and its named tributaries by enacting a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set
of guidelines for setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 12-14-17 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
Section 2. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the
addition of the following new definitions, to appear in alphabetical order:
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINETWO YEAR FLOOD LINE ("OHWLTYFL"):
The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as
established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by resolution.
Section 3. Chapter 21 of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Section 12-21-17, to read as follows:
12-21-17: GORE CREEK SETBACKS:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to protect the public
health, safety and welfare by ensuring the resiliency of Gore
Creek and its named tributaries and by mitigating hazards
associated with the deterioration of Gore Creek and its named
tributaries.
B. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all property located
within twenty-five (2520) feet of the OHWLTYFL, in whole or in
part; provided that this Section shall not apply to any stream tract
already protected by Chapter 14 of Title 5 of this Code.
April 19, 2022 - Page 432 of 569
2
1/18/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE
GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX
C. Setbacks:
1. No mowing, landscaping, grading or other disturbance shall
be permitted within ten (10) feet of the OHWLTYFL, other than:
a. Removal of noxious weeds pursuant to Section 5-1-6 of this
Code;
b. With prior approval of the Vail Fire Department, removal of
vegetation for purposes of fire mitigation;
c.. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, the installation
and maintenance of one access path per lot or parcel, of up to four
(4) feet in width, consisting of permeable materials including without
limitation native soils, sand and gravel, or flagstone set in a
permeable base;
d. Public roadways, bridges, recreational paths and trails and
public parks and open spaces;
e. Utility infrastructure within utility easements;
f. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, erosion
control measures and stream grade-control structures that conform
with bank stabilization best management practices; and
g. Buildings, structures, fences, walls, patios, walkways,
landscaping features, furniture or and similar improvements lawfully
existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section,
which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title.
2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five
(2520) feet of the OHWLTYFL, other than:
a. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, architectural
projections, decks, balconies, steps and bay windows described in
Section 14-10-4 of this Code along with other site improvements
including sidewalks, hot tubs, swimming pools, retaining walls,
utilities, stormwater facilities, and fences;
b. Buildings and structures lawfully existing on the effective date
of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall
be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title.
D. Correction RequestsAlternative Delineation: When Aa property
owner may choose to use the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), as
defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), versus
the TYFL as defined herein. A property owner wishing to use the OHWM
April 19, 2022 - Page 433 of 569
3
1/18/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE
GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX
may submit an application to the Community Development Department for
approval of the OHWM. The application shall include a statement from a
qualified consultant indicating that the OHWM was determined based on
the guidance and standards established by the Army Corps and a survey
stamped by a professional land surveyor indicating the OHWM. Staff may
require a letter of approval from the Army Corps of the OHWM when it is
unclear from the data submitted if the OHWM is correct. Noting the potential
for administrative delays caused by the Army Corps, such letter of approval
from the Army Corps may be provided prior to obtaining a building permit
and a development application shall be processed without the Army Corps
letter of approval. If it is determined by the Community Development
Department the application is complete and accurate, it shall issue an
approval of the OHWM and the OHWM shall be substituted for the TYFL for
the purpose of these regulations. wishes to correct the location of a
designated OHWL affecting such property owner's property, the following
procedures shall apply:
1. The applicant shall file a written application with the
Department of Community Development, requesting a hearing before the
April 19, 2022 - Page 434 of 569
4
1/18/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE
GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX
Planning and Environmental Commission. The application shall include the
property owner's delineation of the Ordinary High Water Mark ("OHWM"),
which delineation shall comply with standards adopted by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. The application shall also include a letter from
Army Corps of Engineers attesting that the OHWM delineation has been
verified.
2. The Planning Commission shall consider the application at a
public hearing within thirty (30) days after the Town deems the application
complete.
3. At the hearing, the applicant shall be given a reasonable
opportunity to present evidence and testimony in support of the application.
It shall be the applicant's burden to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that the property owner's delineation of the OHWM should be used
to change the location of the OHWL.
4. Following the hearing, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall either order that the OHWL be relocated or order that the
OHWL remain in its existing location. The decision of the Planning and
Environmental Commission shall be subject to appeal as provided in
Section 12-3-3 of this Code.
E.D. Violation and Penalty:
1. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this
Section.
2. It is unlawful for any person to re-channel or modify Gore
Creek or any of its named tributaries so as to avoid application of this
Section.
3. Each separate act in violation of this Section and each and
every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of
this Section is committed, continued or permitted shall be deemed a
separate offense.
4. Violations of this Section shall be punishable as provided in
Chapter 4 of Title 1 of this Code.
E. Appeals. Provisions of this Section are subject to to appeal as
provided in Section 12-3-3 of this Code.
4.F. Grandfather Provision. This Section shall not apply to any
property where the property owner has in good faith spent
substantial time and money in the preparation of development
plans to develop its property and where the imposition of
requirements of this Section conflict with the regulations in effect
April 19, 2022 - Page 435 of 569
5
1/18/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE
GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX
at the time of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
Section and adversely affect the development of the owners
property. In such a case, the property owner that can show
substantial and ongoing expense in the preparation of
development plans prior to the adoption of this Section, the
property owner shall be afforded one hundred and twenty days
(120) days the submit a development application and be
accepted by the Town of Vail for review from the effective date
of the ordinance codified in this Section and such property and
development application shall be reviewed under the regulations
existing prior to the adoption of this Section. For the purpose of
this Section, “substantial and ongoing expense” shall mean
expenses that have been occurring for over four (4) months or
more in the preparation and planning for an actual development
application to be submitted to the Town and not expenses
occurred after the adoption of this Section. Any subsequent
related development applications that normally occur after the
initial development application shall likewise be exempt from this
Section (such as a Design Review application or a subdivision
application, that follows the approval of a Planning and
Environmental Application).
Section 4. 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 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.
April 19, 2022 - Page 436 of 569
6
1/18/2022
S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE
GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX
Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail 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 7. 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 day of , 2022
and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of
, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 2022.
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 437 of 569
REGULATORY GUIDANCE
LETTER
No. 05-05 Date: 7 December 2005
SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification
1. Purpose and Applicability
a. Purpose. To provide guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark.
b. Applicability. This applies to jurisdictional determinations for non-tidal waters under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899.
2. General Considerations
a. Regulation and Policy. Pursuant to regulations and inter-agency agreement,1 the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines, on a case-by case basis, the extent of
geographic jurisdiction for the purpose of administering its regulatory program. For purposes of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal w
bodies extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands.
When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits
of the adjacent wetlands. For purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction, which is limited to the traditional navigable
waters of the United States, extends to the OHWM, whether or not adjacent wetlands extend
landward
ater
of the OHWM.
Corps regulations define the term “ordinary high water mark” for purposes of the CWA
lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states:
“The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore
established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics
such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the
character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and
debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding areas.”
1. Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency
Concerning the Determination of the Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program and the Application of
the Exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, January 19, 1989
April 19, 2022 - Page 438 of 569
This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term “ordinary high water mark”
found at 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1), describing the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction over
non-tidal traditional navigable waters of the United States subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). When the definition from 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1)
was reproduced at 33 CFR 328.3(e), the semi-colons of the former definition were mistakenly
changed to commas in the latter definition. Consequently, the definition of “ordinary high water
mark” in Part 328 is not as clear in meaning as is the definition of the same term in Part 329,
even though the two definitions were to serve the same basic purpose (i.e., establishing the
lateral extent of jurisdiction, in the absence of adjacent wetlands).2
Both definitions of the term “ordinary high water mark” begin by discussing physical
characteristics that indicate the location of the OHWM on the shore of a water body.
Furthermore, both OHWM definitions conclude with the statement the OHWM can be
determined using “other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding
areas”.3 Prior to this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL), neither the Corps nor the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has issued any additional clarifying national guidance for use
by Corps regulatory program staff in identifying the location of the OHWM for the CWA on a
case-by-case basis.4
b. Practice. In making OHWM determinations, Corps districts generally rely on
physical evidence to ascertain the lateral limits of jurisdiction, to whatever extent physical
evidence can be found and such evidence is deemed reasonably reliable. Physical indicators
include the features listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. In addition,
districts use other methods for estimating the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of
water, including, but not limited to, lake and stream gage data, flood predictions, historic records
of water flow, and statistical evidence. To the maximum extent practicable, districts generally
use more than one physical indicator or other means for determining the OHWM.
3. Guidance.
a. In determining the location of the OHWM for non-tidal water bodies under the CWA
or the RHA, districts should give priority to evaluating the physical characteristics of the area
that are determined to be reliable indicators of the OHWM. Physical evidence to be evaluated
includes those items listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1).
Because many types of water bodies occur with varying conditions, including topography,
channel morphology and flow dynamics, districts may consider other physical characteristics
indicative of the OHWM.
2. CWA jurisdiction extends laterally landward of the OHWM to include all adjacent wetlands wherever such
adjacent wetlands are present. This guidance addresses situations where no such adjacent wetlands exist.
3. Changes in the limits of waters of the U.S. are addressed in 33 CFR 328.5.
4 . On 3 June 1983 the Corps of Engineers’ Chief Counsel distributed legal guidance to all Corps district and
division counsel offices regarding certain legal questions relating to the geographic jurisdiction of Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, including questions relating to the OHWM.
2
April 19, 2022 - Page 439 of 569
3
b. The following physical characteristics should be considered when making an OHWM
determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable:
Natural line impressed on the bank
Shelving
Changes in the character of soil
Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
Presence of litter and debris
Wracking
Vegetation matted down, bent, or
absent
Sediment sorting
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Scour
Deposition
Multiple observed flow events
Bed and banks
Water staining
Change in plant community
This list of OHWM characteristics is not exhaustive. Physical characteristics that correspond to
the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water may vary depending on the type of
water body and conditions of the area. There are no “required” physical characteristics that must
be present to make an OHWM determination. However, if physical evidence alone will be used
for the determination, districts should generally try to identify two or more characteristics, unless
there is particularly strong evidence of one.
c. Where the physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or
otherwise not evident, districts may determine the OHWM by using other appropriate means that
consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, provided those other means are reliable.5
Such other reliable methods that may be indicative of the OHWM include, but are not limited to,
lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, flood predictions, historic records of
water flow, and statistical evidence.
d. When making OHWM determinations, districts should be careful to look at
characteristics associated with ordinary high water events, which occur on a regular or frequent
basis. Evidence resulting from extraordinary events, including major flooding and storm surges,
is not indicative of the OHWM. For instance, a litter or wrack line resulting from a 200-year
flood event would in most cases not be considered evidence of an OHWM.
e. Districts will document in writing the physical characteristics used to establish the
OHWM for CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction. If physical characteristics are inconclusive,
misleading, unreliable, or not evident, the Districts’ written documentation will include
information about the physical characteristics (or lack thereof) and other appropriate means that
consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, which it used to determine the OHWM.
f. To complete an approved jurisdictional determination, districts will have complete and
accurate documentation that substantiates the Corps decision. At a minimum, decisions will be
documented using the standardized jurisdictional determination information sheet established by
5. In some cases, the physical characteristics may be misleading and would not be reliable for determining the
OHWM. For example, water levels or flows may be manipulated by human intervention for power generation or
water supply. For such cases, districts should consider using other appropriate means to determine the OHWM.
April 19, 2022 - Page 440 of 569
Headquarters and provided to the districts on August 13, 2004 (or as further amended by
Headquarters). Documentation will allow for a reasonably accurate replication of the
determination at a future date. In this regard, documentation will normally include information
such as data sheets, site visit memoranda, maps, sketches, and, in some cases, surveys and
photographs documenting the OHWM.
4. Duration. This guidance remains in effect unless revised or rescinded.
4
April 19, 2022 - Page 441 of 569
Wayne F. Forman
Shareholder
303.223.1120 tel
WForman@bhfs.com
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
303.223.1100
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
Denver, Colorado 80202
February 3, 2022
VIA EMAIL: commdev@vailgov.com
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: One Willow Bridge Road Homeowners Association: Comments to Proposed Change to
Waterbody Setbacks, PEC21-0043
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing once again on behalf of One Willow Bridge Road HOA in connection with the proposal
pending before you to increase setbacks from Gore Creek, this time to provide our comments on the
proposal. We appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration of the comments you have received
thus far and request you take these additional comments into account in your deliberations over
increasing the setbacks from Gore Creek.
1. Clarify Setback to Exclude Man-Made Drainage Discharge. The mapping of the 25-foot setback
within the One Willow Bridge Road property (attached) shows an extensive encroachment of the
proposed setback on the southeastern portion of the building. We believe that this reflects not a
setback from Gore Creek, but from a side discharge of water entering Gore Creek at that location. That
discharge, however, is not part of any natural tributary or water feature. Rather, it comes from a pipe
that discharges seepage water from the parking garage of the Solaris condominium building. In
speaking with Pete Wadden, he advised that an on-the-ground survey of the elevations of the new
modelled setback line through the site would likely ignore this drain pipe discharge, but that if this
discharge were included within the modelled setback, the fact that it was coming from a parking
garage, as opposed to a natural tributary, would likely be strong grounds to have the setback corrected
to ignore this man-made discharge in an appeal proceeding.
We appreciate Pete’s advice on this issue and it appears sound. Nevertheless, we request that
the Town include in the proposed ordinance an acknowledgement that the enlarged setbacks apply
April 19, 2022 - Page 442 of 569
Town of Vail PEC
February 3, 2022
Page 2
only to Gore Creek and its natural tributaries or other natural water features and not to artificial
discharges of drainage or seepage water from buildings or structures. This clarification, which seems
consistent with the intent of the proposal, would provide us with additional comfort that this
anomalous setback would be corrected if an appeal of the setback line through the One Willow Bridge
site became necessary.
2. Extend Reconstruction Period For Nonconforming Structures. As the Commission is aware, the
proposed 25-foot setback from the OWHL will convert a significant number of fully-compliant buildings
in the Vail Central Core to “nonconforming” status under the Town Code, including One Willow Bridge
Road. Town Code §12-18-9 provides that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other
calamity, the structure may be restored, “provided the restoration is commenced within one year and
diligently pursued to completion.” We understand that the phrase “restoration is commenced within
one year” has been interpreted by the Town to mean that the building owner must have submitted a
building permit to restore a structure within the one-year timeframe. Even with that interpretation, a
one-year time period is too short, given all that an owner must go through to get its site ready for
reconstruction, including dealing with insurance companies, clearing debris, surveying the site, and
having construction plans prepared, to name a few. We suggest that, in light of the large number of
nonconforming structures that will result from the enlargement of the Gore Creek setbacks, the Town
make a commensurate amendment to §12-18-9 to extend to two years the time within which
reconstruction of a nonconforming structure must be commenced and to memorialize in the Code that
commencement of reconstruction means the filing of a building permit with the Town.
Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Wayne F. Forman
Cc: Oliver Nunnenmacher, Manager, One Willow Bridge Road HOA
(oliver@onewillowbridgeroad.com)
Stephen A. Best, Esq., President, One Willow Bridge Road HOA (SBest@brownrudnick.com)
Greg Roy, Senior Planner, Town of Vail (groy@vailgov.com)
Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com>
23706732.1
April 19, 2022 - Page 443 of 569
MEMO TO: TOWN OF VAIL - PEC COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
RE: AGENDA 3.1
SECTION 12-14-17 WATERCOURSE SETBACK CHANGES
(PEC21-0043)
FROM: RICHARD K. PARKER, MD
PRESIDENT VAIL TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOCIATION
303 EAST GORE CREEK DRIVE, VAIL, COLORADO
Dear Commissioners;
I am sending you my written comments on the proposed changes to the above noted regulations
regarding the Waterbody Setback. We understand and support the concepts and wishes for
reclamation of water quality and streamflow stabilization, as we were the first condominiums
developed in Vail in 1963-64. Out of our 10 units, we have 6 of the 10 still owned by the original
families and I have been an owner and resident since 1975. We have spent the past 50 years
planting trees and shrubs, stabilizing the Mill Creek and Gore Creek banks and creating a
environmental riparian area that you are now wanting to prescribe everywhere. However, in your
quest to do so, I must point out several areas that will provide unintended consequences that create
hardships that you may not have recognized.
To help you understand our exact location, we are in the center of the core village just east of the
Clock Tower and Gorsuch buildings, just east of Mill Creek and on the south side of Gore Creek. We
occupy building lots 1 thru 6 at this site and constitute the west half of the Town House group.
My concerns are:
1. With the proposed changes of widening the setback, it places the north west corner of the
building in the area as drawn into the NON-CONFORMING category. As we are a Condo
Association with the building held in common, that places the entire building of all 10 units
into the Non-Conforming status for any project that requires a building permit. This would
require any minor or major remodel or rebuild to request a variance for any project large or
small. This adds the associated increase in cost, time and uncertainty in review. Over the
past 2 1/2 years we have expended over $20,000 with consultants and lawyers as well as our
time working with the Zoning/Community Development Departments to re-zone and bring
us into a Conforming Status. We had a very positive experience working with the Town of
Vail Departments to move us into a Compliant Status and with their encouragement to do so
April 19, 2022 - Page 444 of 569
to simplify their required future permitting processes as well. The goal was to get us into
Compliance so that any remodel would not require a variance. As we did this it good faith
and effort, it is therefore very disheartening for another part of the Town of Vail
government moving forward to place us back into the Non-Conforming Status. The Town
had created a new zoning category for the core Town House community (of which we were
included) to promote improvement and redevelopment in this area and to move all related
properties a into Conforming Status.
2. As we are by topography well above the high water mark of a flood status except a small
corner of the original building, this problem with the wide set back is entirely for water
quality that results in placing us in this predicament. Our building sets up on the elevated
bank with the south side of Gore Creek and the west side of Mill Creek creating a low water
flood plane. It is also rather frustrating to see that the city still is allowed to mow and utilize
the park lands along Mill Creek to the south and Gore Creek to the east and west of us with
no restrictions, but the arbitrary restrictions in the core village placed without concern for
the effect on the property owners nor consideration of the topography.
3. There is also no mention of probably the greatest problem in the core affecting the quality
of the stream water and the fish habitat. That is the human effect on the stream use. Are
you going to discuss and propose any regulation on human use and action in the waterways?
4. With the proposed changes we have small patios on the stream side of the building that
have been present since 1964 that are in the proposed restricted areas. Around these we
have kept and restricted any type of solid or hardscape surfaces and kept a small lawn. As
the proposal is described this will place these areas as ‘no mow’ or ‘weed areas’ and that at
the time of any remodel, it is entirely possible for future building department reviews to
require that these patios and access doors could have to be abandoned or the building be
reconstructed with commercial codes as they are in the Non-Conforming area. What you
described now in good faith and effort may and often times is interpreted differently in the
years to come by other departments.
All of these decisions and recommended policy changes will go forward, but I request a thorough
consideration of the downstream effects of such policies. You are making recommendations
partially on stream flow for flood mitigation and other recommendations based for the reclamation
and re-establishment of improved water quality.
I would suggest that you consider making a separate setback policy for the core village even though
I have heard loud and clear that some of your commission members do not wish to consider
separate policies for urban or core areas vs the suburban (East and West Vail) areas. The wider
setbacks as proposed will have little or no effect on the up and down stream (suburban) areas, but
certainly will place a number of structures in the core areas into the Non-Conforming or Non-
Compliant category. I request that you look with your staff at what would the changes be if the set
backs were at the 20 foot or 25 foot mark in the core areas before coming up with your final
recommendations.
I also must point out that I and my fellow home owners in the Vail Townhouses as well as many of us
in the Core Village represent a disenfranchised group. Most members of the government, elected
April 19, 2022 - Page 445 of 569
officials, commissions, panels and employees of this Town live up and down valley yet those of us in
the village core tend to be non-full time residents. As a result we can not vote, are never asked to,
nor allowed to serve on commissions or panels for the town but pay our taxes year after year
quietly. We appreciate your time and service for the city, but we also ask for your consideration on
what are the unintended consequences of your recommendations on proposed policies.
Please do not force an easy to apply solution for suburban areas that creates a costly and extremely
difficult if not impossible problem on the core village. Simplicity may seem to be a warm and fuzzy
answer but please consider the total impact.
Thank you for your consideration and deliberations that we do appreciate. Our goals are the same
but we do raise questions on how do we get there? Are there any questions about the concerns
that I have raised?
Richard K. Parker, MD
Vail Townhouse Condo Association
303-775-8136
<rparkermd@msn.com>
April 19, 2022 - Page 446 of 569
3/22/2022
Hi Peter and Greg:
I’d like to suggest another change to the proposed stream setback ordinance. At the PEC hearing on
March 14, there was discussion related to one of my prior comments related to provision C2a. I had
suggested that this provision was too narrow and did not allow for other improvements like retaining
walls and sidewalks. Greg pointed out that those other improvements were in fact allowed by other
sections of Title 14, Chapter 10 and would be allowed in the future with this proposed ordinance.
C2a states in part:
2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, other than:
a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Section 14-10-4 of this Code;
Noting that there are other provisions within Title 14 Chapter 10 that would allow additional
improvements within the building setback proposed, I would suggest that provision “a” be changed to:
a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Chapter 14-10 of this Code;
I believe this will more accurately reflect the intent as stated by staff at the PEC hearing and reduce
confusion in the future.
Thank you for your help and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process of developing the
proposed ordinance.
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 4777
2205 Eagle Ranch Road
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970-376-3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 447 of 569
April 4, 2022
Dear Mayor and Town Council members:
I am writing on behalf of my client, the owners of the Evergreen Lodge. We would like to express our
support for the proposed Stream Setback Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Environmental
Commission (PEC). The PEC held six hearings over six months on the proposed regulations receiving
hours of testimony and input from many members of the public and qualified experts to arrive at its
recommendation to the Town Council. We appreciate the hard work of the PEC who managed to
balance all of the factors affecting the proposed regulations including private property rights and
protecting the environment and the community’s precious water resources. We are happy with the
outcome of the PEC hearing process and while we still have some minor concerns, we are fully
supportive of the PEC’s recommended ordinance.
We see that the staff is proposing to depart from the recommendation of the PEC related to the
corrections process. The methodology and the corrections process were discussed at nearly every
hearing with the PEC and was one of the critical elements allowing the PEC to feel comfortable to pass
along an unanimous approval. We hope that the Town Council will agree with the PEC and not back
track on one of the critical elements agreed to by the PEC.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process.
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 4777
2205 Eagle Ranch Road
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970-376-3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 448 of 569
P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL
C O M M IS S IO N
September 27, 2021, 1:00 P M
Town Council Chambers
75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.Call to Order
1.1.Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g
1.2.Attendance
Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Reid
Phillips, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert
Absent: None
2.Main Agenda
2.1.A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4:
A rchitectural P rojections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, B ay
W indows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions
of S ection 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a balcony
roof and associated support to encroach into the required
setback, located at 2705 Davos Trail, L ot 14, Block B , Vail Ridge
S ubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-
0041)
20 min.
Applicant:Robbie Baxter & Gibson Watson, represented by V MD A
Architects
Planner:J onathan Spence
Planner Spence gives an introduction to the application. He goes over the
extent of the variance request for the setbacks. The applicant is requesting
that a roof extend past the allowed 4-foot encroachment.
Chris J ergens of V MD A, representing the applicant, goes over their
request. He lists the criteria for approval of a variance required by Town
Code and how this application meets them.
Kjesbo asks what the original setbacks were when the house was built in
Eagle County.
Spence guesses 20’ on all sides.
Pratt asks if similar variances have been granted.
Spence does not recall any similar variances being granted.
Phillips believes that the house was built as close to the setbacks as
possible.
April 19, 2022 - Page 449 of 569
J ergens believes they did so because of the topography.
Perez says the slope does not have a rational connection to a deck
covering. The request for a variance over a nonconforming deck is a special
treatment.
Gillette asks about the nonconformity.
Spence responds the deck is too close to the property line.
Perez does not believe a partially covered deck is a hardship. P E C must
follow criteria strictly and this does not meet the criteria.
J ergens believes they are meeting it.
Public comment is opened. No public comment.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to deny. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
2.2.A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for the adoption of the West Vail
Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0036)
90 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by S E Group
Planner:Matt Gennett
Community Development Director, Matt Gennett, goes over the request from
the P E C at the end of the previous meeting. He goes over the conditions of
approval suggested by staff as a result of the P E C’s discussion at the last
meeting that were included in the packet.
Ellie Wachtel adds that Fehr and Peers is online if there are any
transportation related questions.
Kurz appreciates staff’s efforts and thanks them for the hard work being put
in.
Gillette asks if Gennett sees this going to Council and being kicked back to
P E C to solve these conditions.
Gennett responds that no, he believes that at the Council meeting Council
would direct staff to make these revisions and the Council’s revisions if any,
and then come back to Town Council with those amendments for final
adoption.
Gillette would like to see more description in the items about the deed
restrictions and zoning discussion. The written description is a little
confusing based on the discussion. “There can be no increase in density
without some sort of deed restriction or fee in lieu”. 100% does not need to
be deed restricted, but any increase needs to result in some sort of deed
restriction or fee in lieu.
Gennett says that in the rezoning process the language will be done in a
public process at that time.
Gillette wants to ensure that as properties redevelop, they need to have some
April 19, 2022 - Page 450 of 569
housing aspect to it. The clarity needs to be added in the condition’s
language.
Phillips asks for clarity. Are we going to allow the same number of units that
exist over density today or exist over zoning today? W hich one will trigger
the housing requirement?
Gillette believes an increase in density above what is allowed today would
require the housing component.
Phillips says that if someone is tearing down a six-plex then anything over
those two allowed units would require some kind of housing?
Gillette says, some percentage over that number two, yes. We aren’t
imposing any hardship for owners; they had the responsibility to know the
zoning and that they were overbuilt.
Wachtel adds that an extra E HU unit could be built, but we haven’t seen that
happening.
Gillette recognizes that and a percentage needs to go towards housing. The
parking lots on Chamonix are emptier these days and we’re already losing
housing.
Pratt has a comment on eliminating GRFA. I f you build to setbacks and
height with no GRFA you get boxes. That does not match the character of
the neighborhood. W e should look at what Lionshead did and give a 250%
increase of GRFA, but eliminating it just gets boxes.
Gennett asks whether the existing or proposed dimensional zoning standards
would be sufficient or not to control the size of structures.
Pratt agrees and says some increase, but not a complete removal.
Gillette thinks we should eliminate the Geneva exemption. This area should
be treated the same as the other areas in West Vail.
Gennett asks about and Gillette confirms the affected conditions he is
referring to.
Gillette has concerns that the dashed lines were not quite right on the corner
of Chamonix and Arosa. The line as drawn needs to be pulled back in to not
include lots that front on other roads.
Phillips says that is reflected on page 71. Specifics over the corner of Circle
Drive and the map are discussed.
Gillette thinks Circle Drive is fine with the Primary/Secondary zoning and
needs to be left out.
Wachtel asks if there are other streets that have a similar issue.
Gillette says Circle Drive and Arosa. The Aerial map is brought up for
reference of the areas in question. 2289 Chamonix Ln should be the west
end of the upper Chamonix. 2449 Chamonix should not be in the east end of
lower Chamonix, as well as the duplexes on the east side of Chamonix just
past Chamonix chalets. The map is gone through for the corners of the area
April 19, 2022 - Page 451 of 569
to ensure the appropriate properties are being included. Slight adjustments
are being proposed. Looking on the south side of I 70, the commissioners
review the included lots. On the west side of this lower area, the line is drawn
to the Town boundary.
Gillette is concerned that including properties in this map will lead to
inappropriate zoning again.
Phillips whether the future re-zonings will come back to them at the P E C.
That they’ll have another chance to look at this and make suggestions. This
is a conceptual overview plan, not individual zoning, not lot by lot, correct?
Gennett confirms.
Phillips says we are here to provide some flexibility moving forward.
Gennett says there is nothing regulatory about this document. W hen we get
to the implementation level, the rezoning process will be much more exact. At
this level it is more of a guideline and an expression of the intent. The real
detail and fine tuning come in when we go to modify zoning.
Planner Spence adds that when staff begins to look at rezoning options, we
look at more than existing buildings, including location, size of lots,
topography, character etc.… W e’ll be looking more at the intrinsic qualities
of the property for any rezoning.
More discussion happens on the process of master plan versus zoning and
their relation.
Pratt does not see any sustainability or environmental recommendation. He
would like to see solar or other energy systems be encouraged in new
buildings through this plan. He does not like condition #2, and that it is very
vague. W ould like to see more specificity with more measured heights and
not a build to line.
Dominic Mauriello working on behalf of the V L HA. The V LHA submitted a
comment to the P E C, and it covers the chapters in the masterplan. He
believes it would be a good idea to review. He feels the P E C should do the
heavy lifting and it should all be set by the time it gets to Town Council. He
would like to see a redlined version rather than going to Town Council with a
set of conditions. He gives examples of how he thinks intent could be lost in
the process. The plan is wonderful, and they’ve done a really good job. I t’s
100 times better than what we have now. There are really good alternatives
included in there. He would encourage the P E C in the next step of rezoning
to get that moving so we can see redevelopment.
Pratt agrees.
Galen Aasland believes that words matter. He believes that one of the
purposes of this is to put in an appropriate zoning. He would like to see the
masterplan require the new multi-family zone district that is added not be
able to do an S D D.
Gillette feels uncomfortable with approving this with the conditions. He would
like to see the masterplan redlined.
Perez agrees with Gillette. A redlined version would be clearer as to what the
April 19, 2022 - Page 452 of 569
P E C’s recommendations are. Let’s be clear, lets add language and be
specific.
Gennett asks if the P E C would like a redlined version?
At least four commissioners confirm.
Discussion around the dates, times, corrections, and revisions is had.
Comments will be color coded based on the recommending body.
Gennett requests a tabling to the next meeting on the 11th of October.
Karen Perez moved to table to October 11, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded the
motion and it passed (7-0).
2.3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a
new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback
Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043)
60 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden
Planner:Greg Roy
Planner Roy introduces project and begins presentation. He summarizes
current waterbody setback requirements as well the proposed language for
the new amendment.
Gillette asks about the recent release into Gore Creek.
Planner Wadden responds there were 120 dead fish. The extent of the
problem went to the I nternational Bridge. There was also an absence of
algae and other aquatic life in the river. State agencies are also involved with
investigating this incident.
Gillette asks how big a deal 120 dead fish are?
Wadden responds that it isn’t a huge amount if he could determine that that
was the full extent of the impacts. They were not able to get water samples
until 24 hours after the incident. 2.08 million gallons of potable water was
discharged, with an unknown quantity of other water. There were no
concerns to drinking water supply.
Phillips has received a lot of concerns from the community. Can the P E C
request to get a status report from Pete Wadden in two weeks? He would
like to invite Eagle River W ater and Sanitation, and Colorado state
agencies. He also wants to reach out to Vail Resorts to see if they would
come to the status report. Community members saw dead fish at the
I nternational Bridge. A news report said not to go in the river at the moment
with copper sulfate levels. He says we need to know the damage and the
responsible parties, as well as the future plan for river restoration. He wants
to make sure that this continues to be checked moving forward.
Wadden responds he is happy to address these concerns.
Kurz agrees with Phillips. Board is unanimous in requesting an update.
April 19, 2022 - Page 453 of 569
Perez asks if the joint commission has met on this.
Planner Wadden continues through presentation. He touches on the
importance of riparian restoration and the Town’s efforts in recent years. He
references the Gore Creek Action plan for strategies to engage private
property owners. He outlines the objectives of the Riparian Corridor and the
proposed new regulations. He explains the definition of the Ordinary High-
Water Mark.
Gillette asks how many non-conformities we are creating?
Wadden says under the current setbacks there are 111 non-conforming
structures. The new recommendation would lead to 142. Of those, 92 are
non-conforming under current regulations.
Gillette asks how many structures are on the creek.
Wadden responds there are close to 400.
Gillette asks if we create a non-conforming structure, what does that do to
development rights?
Roy responds that they would have the same property rights, it would just
affect where they could build.
Perez says that making the structure non-conforming does affect property
rights.
Gillette asks about property on Matterhorn Circle. W hat if they would have to
rebuild their house?
Roy says they would have to meet the standards under the new code.
Kjesbo says they got variances to build there originally.
Perez says non-conforming status affects insurance for HOAs and
financing. She has a problem making so many buildings non-conforming.
She says we have to balance the proposal with property rights and impacts
on the community. She cites a letter of concern from a local HOA, and says
she wants to get this right.
Wadden says the HOA in question is currently non-conforming.
Perez wants to decrease rather than increase the amount of non-conforming
structures.
Wadden says other setback distances are an option. 25’ was chosen
because it most closely approximated existing setbacks.
Gillette asks if you can shorten the setback but increase the riparian buffer.
Would this make fewer houses non-conforming?
Wadden says the issue is that defensible space would become a problem.
People building right to the setback would conflict with fire department
recommendations for defensible space.
April 19, 2022 - Page 454 of 569
Roy says in regard to design standards it gives property owners some
space for landscaping choices before reaching the no-mow zone. 25 feet is
the balance between town code, fire department, design standards, and the
fewest non-conformities.
Gillette asks if property owners been notified?
Wadden says not all of them.
Gillette says we need to reach out to all of them and get feedback.
Perez says it will help to determine the harmony of the various criteria.
Wadden recommends taking a look at individual properties on the maps
provided.
Gillette asks how accurate are they?
Wadden says they’re a good approximation.
Pratt asks how many non-conforming structures are within the 20’ setback?
Wadden says they have the lines on the map but not the exact numbers.
Pratt says he is a property owner on the creek and has built his house to
existing setback requirements. I t would be good to see the number of non-
conforming structures at 20-foot setbacks.
Phillips says the 8th fairway on the golf course is a large encroachment. He
asks if there has been a conversation with golf course management if they
can restructure that area?
Wadden says there have been conversations but it’s a debate between
playability and resource protection. They are trying to find the balance
there.
Gillette asks who is present from the fire department? He asks Paul Cada to
speak on defensible space.
Paul Cada the W ildfire Program Administrator says they have been working
with the applicants for a while. W hat is presented today is the compromise
between the interests. He says there are allowances for the defensible
space. He says when things are wet around the creek the risk is low and
cites examples from California fires. He claims the fire department can
support what is in the presented language.
Wadden says the 20-foot setback establishes 27.1 unbuildable acres. The
number of non-conforming structures increasing between existing and
proposed regulations may not be statistically significant.
Gillette would like to have a better understanding of the effects on a
homeowner of becoming non-conforming and how that impacts financing
and other factors.
Roy says we can look into that, as well as weigh that with the health of Gore
April 19, 2022 - Page 455 of 569
Creek.
Gillette stresses the importance to make informed decisions.
Planner Spence says we have not seen insurance decisions related to
zoning non-conformities.
Wadden wants to provide funds and resources to property owners
undergoing changes. He reiterates staff recommendations relating to the
proposed ordinance.
Perez would like more information, as well as notifying the public and getting
public feedback. Gillette agrees.
Wadden says they will increase these efforts.
Kurz asks about public notification being marginally effective?
Wadden outlines public outreach on Project Rewild. He says at the time, the
town council was concerned about providing funds for individual landscaping
projects.
Perez says she is on the board of an association that would be affected.
She wants to notify associations not just property owners that would be
impacted.
Kurz talks about balancing health of river with individual homeowners. He
says we have a moral if not legal obligation to make sure river is as healthy
as possible. W e also have to consider the existing property ownership. He
says it’s a tricky balance, and we need to address the points that have been
made.
Gillette says the town should target problem properties rather than issue
blanket proclamations.
Wadden says there is a list of stream areas that are the most degraded. The
process needs to include an equitable approach to homeowners.
Pratt asks about flags concerning pesticides in use and the progress on this
issue.
Wadden says Under Colorado law the buck stops with state. Localities
cannot pass more stringent regulations. Town attorneys have advised against
action. The Colorado Department of Agriculture did testing for pesticides
and herbicides in the creek and the town is awaiting the results.
Gillette asks if there are better products for lawncare.
Wadden says root treatment is better than sprays. Regarding lawncare, it’s
more about lawncare than keeping out pests. The town utilizes organic
herbicides and fertilizers.
Gillete asks if organic practices are better for the creek?
Wadden clarifies organic fertilizers are better but not better than no fertilizer.
April 19, 2022 - Page 456 of 569
Gillette asks if we have done outreach to local landscapers?
Wadden says from 2015-2019 a local workshop has gathered around 40
landscapers regarding the best practices in Creekside landscaping. I n the
last two years, there have been zoom presentations along similar lines.
Gillette says there could be more outreach every spring.
Wadden says he has produced three videos for the website and
landscapers about alternatives to pesticides in landscaping.
Gillette wants to add in some bullet points for people who won’t watch the
videos.
Perez asks if you need two weeks.
Wadden says I think we can do this in two weeks.
Spence says another cycle would be required for public comment and
outreach.
Kurz asks for public input.
Dominic Mauriello represents Evergreen Lodge. He says he has worked for
years with the existing setback of 30’. Having that changed now would have
a large impact. He says the maps shown today are not going to be surveying
accurate. He applauds the motives and says we’re all in favor of riparian
buffer. He cites other studies regarding the cleansing effects of riparian
buffers and supports the 10’ riparian buffer.
He says changing the stream setback is different. Nothing suggests 25’ is
better than 20’. He is glad the P E C is considering the impacts on non-
conforming structures. He says it is inaccurate that the centerline moves
around a lot. I t would have been better if they had done the high water mark
from the beginning, but the town has already been built with the old
regulations. He says this will open a can of worms of non-conforming
buildings. These buildings do not have a lot of flexibilities with variances. He
says the board can’t depend on relief mechanism of variances for new non-
conforming buildings.
He says the code language needs work. W hat about stormwater
management activities that may be beneficial to do in the 10’ buffer?
Gillette asks why that would be precluded?
Mauriello says it is precluded in the proposal. He wants to think about how
non-conforming structures are created and work out the inconsistencies. He
says the town can be clearer about how you measure the centerline. I n his
analysis, the 20’ setback much more approximates the existing setback
today. He says the town could use existing 30’ or proposed 20’, whichever is
more restrictive. He also says the definition of high water mark needs some
work and the FE MA floodplain information is different from the streambank.
He suggests the town work with some of the surveyors to find what they
typically use. He suggests incorporating more input from the town attorney
and have them look at it before recommendation to town council. He is
happy to help with some of the language if that is needed and says he can
April 19, 2022 - Page 457 of 569
come back with examples.
Gillette asks for an email summarizing these comments.
Mauriello says there are other concerns from community members that
weren’t able to be here today.
Gillette asks if Wadden can meet with a surveyor regarding questions of the
high water mark.
Wadden confirms.
Kurz asks if there is additional public comment?
J ohn Rediker wants a better understanding of the language that references
two year flood lines, especially regarding a definition and calculation
method. He wonders if there are other studies out there, so decisions are
based upon science and not anecdotes. He asks where is the evidence that
insurance rates will go up for non-conforming structures?
Siri Roman is the director of operations for Eagle River Water and
Sanitation. She says the decision is hard for the community, but Gore
Creek need initiatives like this to get off the 303(d) list of impaired
waterways. Vail is a model town with its creek restoration programs. She is
also a Vail resident with two kids, who have spent a lot of time in Gore
Creek. Her kids would like more wildlife and less tall buildings in town. She
asks the board to consider the hard decisions for the future of Vail.
Holly Loff is the Executive Director for the Eagle River W atershed Council
speaking in support of the ordinance. She has worked successfully with the
town on past restoration projects. The riparian areas are critical to water
quality and stream health. She says Vail is a leader in the valley and this
initiative is the natural next step. She also says the stream health and water
quality is worth the effort of addressing these questions.
Gillette asks if there are any studies on 20’ versus 25’ setbacks.
Loff says the Eagle River watershed plan didn’t have specific numbers for
setbacks. The correct number varies by geology and hydrology. She would
be happy to look into that more W ith W adden.
Gillette asks if hydrologists have been involved?
Wadden says that they have been involved in the process. He can look at
the difference between 20’ and 25’ buffers.
Gillette wants to see difference between 10’ and 15’ riparian buffers and
studies to that effect.
Wadden says they will have more of that information next time.
Bellm says Oct. 25 meeting is the next meeting date to allow for public
notification.
Motion to table.
April 19, 2022 - Page 458 of 569
Karen Perez moved to table to October 25, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded
the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.4.A request for the review of an extension to a Conditional Use Permit,
pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and
grounds, Vail Town Code, to allow the continued use of the yurt at the Vail
Nature Center for a period of three (3) years, located at 841 Vail Valley
Drive/Unplatted (Ford Park Nature Center) and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (P E C21-0039)
20 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Kristen Bertuglia
Planner:J onathan Spence
1. Upon the completion of the use of the yurt, or three (3) years from
date of this approval, whichever happens earlier, the Applicant shall
remove the yurt and foundation and shall revegetate all disturbed soils
with native vegetation.
Planner Spence presents history of the application and outlines request.
Gillette asks about the 3 year timeframe?
Spence says we need to hold the town equally responsible as private
property owners.
Kurz asks if there are any other board questions?
Spence clarifies to ask for public comment.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the
motion and it passed (7-0).
2.5.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions
in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface
parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail
Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail
Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-
0045)
The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a future date where it will
be heard concurrently with a Minor Subdivision and Rezoning application.
2 min.
Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb
Architects
Planner:J onathan Spence
Spence asks for uncertain table date. He will combine the application with
other relevant applications.
Brian Gillette moved to table. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
3.Approval of Minutes
3.1.September 13, 2021 P E C Results
Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
April 19, 2022 - Page 459 of 569
passed (7-0).
4.I nformational Update
4.1.Update on W ildlife Fencing in the I -70 Corridor 10 min.
Applicant:
Planner:Pete W adden
Spence provides update on wildlife fencing project.
Phillips asks if there is encroachment on private property?
Spence says it is within the C D OT right of way.
5.Adjournment
Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the
Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
April 19, 2022 - Page 460 of 569
P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL
C O M M IS S IO N
October 25, 2021, 1:00 P M
Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom
75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.Call to Order
1.1.Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g
1.2.Attendance
Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen
Perez, Reid Phillips, Pete Seibert
Absent: None
2.Main Agenda
2.1.A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit,
pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend
the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student
enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C20-0026)
20 min.
Applicant:Vail Mountain School
Planner:J onathan Spence
Kurz says Commissioner Pratt will join after the first item on the agenda.
Planning Manager J onathan Spence provides the history of the application
and introduces the applicants.
Dominic Mauriello represents Vail Mountain School (V MS). He references
his memo to the board and asks for a tabling to next summer. He references
various ongoing and future studies. He says it doesn’t make sense to do
engineering on roadway improvements until studies are complete.
Mauriello quickly goes over the items in the memo. The applicants are also
looking at other issues on campus like stacking, and ways to address this.
The one lane exit on the frontage road could be changed. They are also
studying the employee housing property and ingress and egress in that lot.
He is asking for a tabling until all issues can be addressed.
Kurz is disappointed that we’re so late in resolving a problem that has been
there since 2000. Now we’re being asked to kick the can down the road
another six months. He would be more upset if Tom Kassmel didn’t think that
extra time was necessary. He hopes school and staff make sure that we’re
ahead of the game for future reference. Other than that, he is in favor of
granting the timeframe.
April 19, 2022 - Page 461 of 569
Perez is disappointed, she references the timeline from the original
presentation in April. She is discouraged that they had exceeded the limit in
2014 and nothing was done at that time. She is frustrated at the delays; this
is not a new issue and the school is well aware of it. I f this didn’t have to do
with education, she would want to pull the use permit. V MS thinks the
conditions of its permit don’t affect it. I n deference to Tom Kassmel, she
understands the extension, but would not want to extend it longer – it is
unacceptable
Phillips asks when V MS became aware they were non-conforming.
Mauriello does not know the exact date, says there is new management at
the school.
Perez reiterates the 2014 point.
Phillips asks for clarification.
Spence talks about past applications regarding the parking and greenhouse.
Gillette asks when people knew there was an issue with the frontage road?
Spence is not certain.
Mauriello says everyone was not aware it would need a C D OT Access
Permit. The school side did not know it meant millions of dollars. The school
wants to do the right thing and are paying attention to this issue. They are
trying to address these things correctly.
Perez asks what was done in the last 6 months other than forming a
committee?
Mauriello says they have hired a team of consultants and experts, they
talked to van services, are looking at studies, and put together an application
for a school zone permit submitted in August. They are coordinating with the
town for school zone study. They are taking the issue seriously and trying to
do thing immediately and solve long term issues
Phillips asks about what specifically was done in 2014?
Perez says they knew they were over the condition in 2014.
Kurz summarizes the board’s concerns. He says we should go with the
extension but there is a clear message to the process needed.
Kjesbo agrees and says they will have to modify their plans for what C D OT
says anyway. He doesn’t see much choice in the delay.
Kurz references a different use for the existing berm. He feels strongly that
the berm is not sacred.
Mauriello says the berm is in the right of way and they have a permit from
C D OT but he takes the point.
Amended Motion for continuation with a meeting in J uly of 2022.
April 19, 2022 - Page 462 of 569
Board discusses the proper date for the next meeting.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to continue to J uly 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the
motion and it passed (6-0).
Abstain:(1)Pratt
2.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions,
Vail Town Code, to add an exemption to allow vaults for car lift systems to be
excluded from the GRFA calculation and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (P E C21-0046)
The applicant requests this item be tabled to November 8, 2021.
15 min.
Applicant:K H W ebb Architects & Mauriello Planning Group
Planner:Greg Roy
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 8, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded
the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.3.A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3,
Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an
adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Lot 14, First
Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek
Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0049)
20 min.
Applicant:S C Mountain Top LLC and TLM Realty Holding LLC,
represented by Davis Urban LLC and English & Assoc.
Planner:Greg Roy
Planner Roy introduces application and goes through presentation. He
introduces the applicants.
Gillette asks about previous discussion regarding building envelopes here.
Roy doesn’t recall that specifically.
Spence talks about the past history of the lot, there have been no changes to
GRFA or site coverage.
Gillette asks if notification to neighbors is required?
Spence says the neighbors approved it during the application process.
Matt Davis is the applicant; he says he is happy to take questions.
Kurz asks for public input.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
2.4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a
new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback
Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043)
60 min.
April 19, 2022 - Page 463 of 569
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden
Planner:Greg Roy
Roy goes through a presentation on the history of the proposal and
addresses some changes and the criteria for review. He introduces the
applicants.
Environmental Director Kristen Bertuglia walks through the history of the
Gore Creek Strategic Plan. She references the identified sources of
impairment of Gore Creek. She talks about the community and stakeholder
input in the process, as well as the actions of the Town of Vail in service to
the Gore Creek plan. W e’re here today for the last recommended strategy
which is regulation. She believes we have arrived at the most appropriate
solution and introduces W adden.
Watershed Education Coordinator Peter W adden goes through a
presentation which addresses the questions the board had from the last
meeting. He talks about the goals from the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He
talks about the criteria for an effective regulation. He addresses the
effectiveness of setbacks of different widths. He says the centerline setback
is inconsistent and ineffective. He talks about how the town has dealt with
non-conformity in the past with items like wood shake shingles and the W UI
code. He addresses the number of non-conforming properties with the
different setback distances. He talks about the actions’ property owners can
take. He reviews the public outreach accomplished since the last meeting.
He talks about the implications of non-conformity as it relates to the
streambank setbacks. He talks about the definition of the ordinary high-water
mark (OHW M).
Wadden introduces J ason Carey, the Principal River Engineer of River
Restoration.
Carey talks about his past work and how it relates to Vail. He says the
OW HM allows the setbacks to be different in different places. I t is a more
logical approach from a healthy river standpoint. He talks about two major
federal regulations: FE MA national flood insurance (100-year floodplain),
and waters and wetlands defined under the Clean Water Act administer by
the Corps of Engineers. He talks about Vail’s goals, and recommends
following the FE MA model as a good way to empower local communities. He
talks about the F E MA process and how that can be applied at the local level.
The goal is to establish a baseline that can be administered and regulated
locally. Variances to the line can be requested from the floodplain
administrator. He recommends using this model but with two-year elevations.
I t would be modeled after the existing process in Vail with the 100 year.
Gillette asks if the 2-year mapping has been done.
Wadden confirms yes.
Gillette asks how the 2-year line relates to the 100-year floodplain?
Wadden says the 100-year line is further out than the two years. The 2-year
line is based on the two-year average and used to determine the OHW M.
Carey says it is a statistical average of historical runoff. Over 30 years of
data is evaluated to determine the two-year flood line.
April 19, 2022 - Page 464 of 569
Gillette asks if the town is eligible for FE MA flood insurance?
Carey confirms. Wadden says the proposal has no impact on the 100-year
floodplain. I t is the same process, but the elevations are different.
Pratt asks about the letter from Alderman-Bernstein. They are not affected
but they raise an interesting point.
Wadden clarifies – Pratty says never mind.
Gillette asks how are they involved if they’re not affected by the regulation?
Roy clarifies that the notification was sent to all property owners in Vail.
Pratt asks if their threats were hollow?
Wadden says he’s not qualified to comment, but the town attorney is drafting
a response.
Kurz asks if the proposal has been vetted by the town attorney.
Wadden says it has along with the proposed code language.
Kjesbo is generally supportive. He asks when issues arise in the future, will
this be reviewed by staff? He also references a future project as it relates to
stormwater management and impacts.
Wadden talks about how other towns handle stormwater impacts. He says
we’re not proposing any code changes that would dictate that at this point.
Kjesbo says that could be something for future consideration.
Gillette asks about the project Kjesbo referenced. He says Public W orks
usually keeps good track of that.
Kjesbo clarifies the details of the referenced projects. W ith best practices,
some will do it, some wont.
Wadden says it has been discussed internally, it is something to consider in
the future.
Roy says in practice when properties are redeveloped around the creek,
environmental makes comments on best practices.
Phillips says the new proposal puts 26 properties in non-compliance. He
asks if they only realize that status during redevelopment.
Wadden confirms.
Phillips says this doesn’t initiate an immediate hardship on the property.
They are non-compliant only in redevelopment.
Wadden says there are properties that have remained non-compliant for
decades. W hen they rebuild is the only time they must come into
compliance.
April 19, 2022 - Page 465 of 569
Gillette asks about remodeling a deck that’s non-conforming.
Roy says if you start enlarging a deck the conformity would come into play.
Gillette asks about different criteria for theoretical deck expansion.
Roy explains current regulations.
Spence says if a deck is non-conforming, maintenance is the only work that
would not require coming into compliance.
Gillette asks about non-conforming landscaping.
Roy says generally you only have to bring into conformance the area that is
non-conforming if that is in the scope of the project.
Gillette clarifies if a remodel project is big enough, more compliance issues
come into play.
Roy says if you’re removing 50% of the GRFA, that comes into play. He
talks about other benchmarks like building materials with 500 square foot
additions and that there are multiple benchmarks that trigger different
requirements.
Gillette clarifies that the benchmark here is a voluntary remodel, Roy
confirms.
Pratt cites a public letter, proposing that you can trade setback distance for
increased riparian zone.
Wadden says staff has discussed this, and the goal is to create something
that is standard and uniform across town. The current regulations can
confuse people, there is value in having a standard across town. I t would be
difficult to enforce the proposed idea. W e’d run into issues if we were
shrinking the distance between setback and riparian zone.
Roy says the counsel and public would like more time, so they will be asking
for a continuation today.
Kurz asks if there are funds available to help homeowners.
Wadden says homeowners are not required to do anything that would cost
them money. We would ask them to stop mowing within 10’ of the creek. I f
the ordinance is adopted by the P E C and Town Council, he will ask for
funds to that effect.
Kurz asks for public comment.
Gillette asks for feedback from the town attorney of any legal ramifications.
Roy confirms.
Bellm says there are several people online and in the room that would like to
speak.
Kurz says they will allow three minutes each for public comment and not
April 19, 2022 - Page 466 of 569
necessarily engage in back and forth.
Linn Brooks is the General Manager of Eagle River Water & Sanitation
District. She talks about water sampling done in the past. Gore Creek was
significantly impacted, and urbanization was the primary stressor. She talks
about the factors that influence this and how Gore Creek was listed on 303D
list. She brings up the Urban Runoff group and its actions. The river is
getting healthier, and the setback ordinance will allow nature to return the
stream to a healthier state. Several years ago the Town Council set the goal
of getting Gore Creek off the list and this will require the regulations such as
the one here today. For these reasons, E RW S D supports the proposal.
J ohn Rediker asks about the definition of the OHW M. How will future
drought conditions impact this, and is the calculation always a rolling 30
years? Do we need to define 2 year floodline?
Gillette says we’re not answering questions right now but made a note of the
questions.
Mauriello speaks on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge. He is glad to hear that
they’re not asking for a final decision today. He says the proposed language
you have has not been fully vetted by Kendra Carberry and hopes they will
not take action today. He has three main issues. The first is the OHW M line
and where it is located? He doesn’t know if there will be a full dataset to
establish this line throughout town. He references the letter to the board, and
the methodology of how you determine the OHW M. He says we’re in favor
of identifying the OHW M and need to know where that is. He says he is
recommending a 20’ setback, but also wonders what a 22’ setback would
look like. How it would affect non-conforming structures and acreage. He
also brings up the tributaries and says he will submit additional comments in
writing.
Wendall Porterfield speaks for homeowners in the 11th filing. He has some
confusion about how the 2-year floodline is determined and asks for
clarification. He also asks about the code language, whether “shall” means
has to be. He also asks if projects like deck enlargements can go into the
riparian zone? He references the streambank protection ordinance, and
whether this would apply to town property equally? He asks if the golf course
would be impacted, as they might be one of the primary causes here.
Devin Duvall is the District W ildlife Manager for Colorado Parks and
W ildlife. He expresses support for the ordinance. He says recent events
underscores the need for this type of regulation. He asks the board to look
at written comments from his agency. He says riparian zones occupy a
small amount of land yet have a disproportionate impact. Most wildlife
depends on them, they serve as wildlife corridors and they remove
pollutants. Gore Creek is a Gold Medal Fishery, and anglers contribute to
Eagle County economy. He reiterates his support for the proposed
ordinance.
Rodney Linafelter says he is strongly in support of the proposal. As a
recreational user of the creek, he has noticed a large amount of non-native
sand that is appearing. He used to live on Booth Creek, at one point he was
informed he was non-compliant with a structure and landscaping and worked
with staff to address this. He references another case he heard where the
developers of properties were awarded utilities in exchange for easements.
April 19, 2022 - Page 467 of 569
His final question is whether we are addressing Gore Creek or the
tributaries as well?
Siri Roman is Director of Operations for E RW S D and a resident of Vail.
Her children are often in the creek and it means a lot to their family. W hile
the ordinance is a takeaway for some, she asks the board to consider the
community impacts of a healthier creek. I t will take tough decisions like this
to preserve Gore Creek and its tributaries. She says this will be important
with increased flooding from climate change and talks about some of the
effects of the Mill Creek incident.
Carrie Bernstein is an attorney from Alderman Bernstein. She submitted a
letter on behalf of her clients; the Delpontes at 3070 Booth Creek Drive. She
says the Town of Vail is condemning the portion of his property that is on
Gore Creek. I f the case proceeds there is some truth that the client and
others will not have creekside property. This buffer will go right up to his
building and patio. The impact to private property rights is missing from the
discussion today. She says the 10’ zone is a regulatory taking and a
significant impact to property rights. She says the Town of Vail should pay
compensation for this.
J ames Dilzell speaks from Eagle River Watershed Council. The council
supports the proposal, and he talks about the importance of the riparian
area. He says stormwater runoff is an increasing threat to the river. Property
owners often find increased value once the areas are established, this will
lessen the degradation of environmental zones. He thinks this is a critical
next step.
Kurz asks if Wadden would like to comment on questions.
Wadden says he will have more detailed data available on the OHW M
moving forward. W e are not condemning properties, that is a town-owned
parcel. There is no debate about the Delponte property extending to the
stream.
Pratt asks if he is more than 25’ from the river he is not affected.
Wadden says that is correct. The property has not been specifically
surveyed but Town maps indicate that the proposed setback lines do not
extend as far as Mr. Delponte’s property line.
Pratt says he is a homeowner on the creek. He is in favor of the goals but
says anything less than 30’ is not as effective so it may be arbitrary numbers
at that point. He says he is not a lawyer but thinks creating new non-
conforming properties could be considered a taking. He asks staff to
consider a system that trades expanded riparian buffer to shrink the building
setback.
Siebert had these concerns last time regarding takings. But he considered if
we don’t do anything, the taking that occurs is that the stream is degraded
down the road. There is a benefit the property owners are getting, that
should also be considered.
Gillette brings up the comment about sand in the river.
Wadden says this has been identified by staff. Staff has worked with C D OT
April 19, 2022 - Page 468 of 569
to address this, he references the East Vail Exchange, and West Vail Pass
Expansion. Black Gore Creek has a healthy bug population with higher sand
levels, while Gore Creek has bug populations that do not meet state
standards. There are things going on in Vail that impact the creek beyond
the traction sand. He says we have to consider the tradeoffs being in a
semi-urban environment.
Gillette references the comments about the OHW M. Are they moving or
fixed metrics?
Wadden says they can be updated on a regular timescale, and there is an
opportunity for residents to appeal the line. He says increased technology
like lidar can help measure this, and streams are dynamic systems.
Gillette says we could have more or fewer non-conforming structures in the
future.
Wadden says if we restore riparian habitat, it’s less likely people will lose
land to erosion. W e can’t predict accurately right now if there would be more
or less non-conforming properties in the future, streams are always
changing.
Gillette references a property where 50 feet washed out.
Wadden says they haven’t established a timescale for readdressing these
numbers.
Roy says we don’t have them for the GS A hazards, it could be included in
the proposal.
Wadden talks about F E MA floodline. Properties that have lost streambank
have been permitted to reestablish property they have. Having a line now will
establish a baseline of where we are now.
Gillette asks if the ordinance discusses reclaiming property.
Perez says the ordinance is well intentioned, but there is a lot more that
needs to be done to provide clarity. Changing from the centerline method to
OHW M we are making things less certain for the community and property
owners. There is uncertain language regarding the OHW M. She has
concerns about the legal ramifications of this. She asks why we are going
from the centerline to the OHW M. She is not sure if it is worth the
uncertainty we are potentially creating.
Gillette asks why we’re switching to the 2-year floodline?
Wadden says equity and uniformity around town are the primary
motivations. I t creates a more uniform setback rather than the inconsistency
of the centerline.
Gillette asks about the two methods and if the centerline moves?
Wadden says it does change. The OHW M is sensitive to bank changes and
erosion.
Perez asks if the OHW M changes every two years?
April 19, 2022 - Page 469 of 569
Wadden says it doesn’t change every two years. The 30-year dataset
determines the average of the highest waterline in a two-year period. W e
could set a timeline to change these numbers as appropriate.
Gillette asks when going from the centerline to 2-year high water mark is it
harder to determine. I t seems they are equally difficult to determine.
Wadden says it is easier to determine the high-water mark. The dataset will
be made available soon.
Gillette says that dataset should be produced where the public can react to it
before the final meeting.
Phillips says the centerline of the river has changed significantly. From a
consistency standpoint, the OHW M moves less than the centerline.
Gillette asks if redevelopment uses off a map that exists.
Phillips asks how old is the current map?
Wadden is not sure, it could be around 2002.
Kjesbo asks about the 2-year high water mark calculation.
Wadden clarifies.
Gillette asks for further clarification on the calculation.
Carey says it is a statistical analysis of flows that happen every year.
Kjesbo would like clarification for the board and for the public as well.
Carey says the 2-year floodline is analogous to the 100-year floodline.
Perez is confused about the calculation like the other board members.
She doesn’t understand the 2-year floodline methodology and would like
further clarification.
Gillette says it is important how often the map is updated.
Perez asks if that is true of the centerline and when it was updated.
Wadden confirms, says it was last updated a couple decades ago. People
could hire a wetlands specialist as part of an appeal of the elevation-based
baseline.
Perez asks how much this would cost?
Wadden says the cost of a surveyor ’s time.
Perez says it is shifting the burden to a homeowner.
Gillette asks if you can appeal the 100-year marks today?
Carey says you can through an involved process. I n order to regulate, Vail
needs a baseline to regulate against, which is what this system does.
April 19, 2022 - Page 470 of 569
Gillette asks if you can appeal the setbacks of the centerline right now?
Wadden thinks you can have them surveyed
Pratt says it is similar to the hazard’s maps, an engineer or surveyor can
look at the site.
Phillips says we all support this effort, but we want to establish standards that
are discernable to the public. He says an updated centerline map would
help. I t’s important to get a little more data, otherwise we’re spinning our
wheels. He says we need to clarify some things for property owners and the
town.
Gillette asks if the centerline was resurveyed?
Wadden says it was not as part of that process, and that he will provide the
OHW M dataset. He thanks for board for feedback as the process is making
a for a better ordinance.
Phillips says the group needs to do due diligence on this.
Pratt says he had to survey when he his property went right next to a
setback line.
Mauriello says the streambank setbacks are happening in real time because
the surveyors do it as part of an application. I t has always been incumbent
upon property owners to provide that data in real time. There is no regular
updating of hazard maps. The only updates he is aware of is when the
applicant comes in to apply for such.
Gillette asks if the OHW M can be identified visually, why is it a confusing
metric?
Mauriello says he’s been advocating for surveyors doing it by visual
inspection. He wants to allow both methodologies, and the least restrictive on
the property owner should be the one that is used.
Phillips is not sure that’s a great tradeoff. He says we’re also trying to
protect the environmental health of the river.
Mauriello suggests increasing the no-mow zone. He says to think about what
non-conforming status has done to the entirety of West Vail. People don’t
want to redevelop and lose what they have.
Gillette asks for W adden’s response.
Wadden says the maps do not have regulatory sway. Both methods need to
be surveyed on the ground. The elevations establish a baseline that make it
easier for surveyors. The method Mauriello referred to is ecologically based.
Staff believes the elevation method is more effective as a regulation because
it is not open to debate. There is still an opportunity for subjectivity in the
visual method. An elevations-based baseline leaves less open for debate.
Gillette asks how hard is the appeals process?
Wadden says it would go to the Town Council like the hazard maps.
April 19, 2022 - Page 471 of 569
Gillette asks if the appeals can come to the P E C?
Roy says the proposed language mimics the appeals process for the hazard
maps.
Gillette says it should be as simple as delineating your wetlands.
Spence says the difference is who has adopted the maps.
I f we don’t have an adopted map, we would have a different process.
Gillette says he is trying to get the right process.
Roy says we would need something that is adopted by Town Council.
Wadden says the town would have to pay to have wetlands delineations
done. I t is much less labor intensive to adopt lidar.
Gillette says we don’t have to do it like the hazard maps. Let’s establish a
baseline, and if not, they can hire a professional.
Gillette says appealing to the town council is not an easy process.
Phillips says it should not be easy, it should be an elevated process.
Ultimately it falls on council; they adopt the maps we are passing this on for
recommendation.
Gillette says you are getting a better product if you get eyes on the ground.
Phillips asks are we not doing that already?
Wadden says what they’ve done is based on stream cross-sections with
interpolated data in between.
Perez says we don’t have language to allow people to appeal?
Wadden says they do, Roy says it is in Subsection E of the proposal.
Kurz wants to bring the debate to a close. The robust discussion shows that
the protection of Gore Creek and tributaries is a major issue we need to
address. I t will not be a perfect solution for everybody, but it’s important to
continue moving forward. He wants time to allow staff to address these
concerns.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded
the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.5.A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4,
Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust property lines in the vicinity of
Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (P E C21-0050)
The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021.
2 min.
Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb
Architects
Planner:J onathan Spence
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded
April 19, 2022 - Page 472 of 569
the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.6.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village
Filing (826 Forest Road) from Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential
(P S) to Outdoor Recreation (OR) and to zone a portion of the Forest Road
ROW to Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P S) and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0051)
The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021.
2 min.
Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb
Architects
Planner:J onathan Spence
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded
the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.7.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions
in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface
parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail
Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail
Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-
0045)
The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021.
2 min.
Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb
Architects
Planner:J onathan Spence
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded
the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.8.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions
in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface
parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail
Town Code, located at 826 Forest Road/Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0048)
The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021.
2 min.
Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb
Architects
Planner:J onathan Spence
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded
the motion and it passed (7-0).
3.Approval of Minutes
3.1.October 11, 2021 P E C Results
April 19, 2022 - Page 473 of 569
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
4.Adjournment
Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the
Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
April 19, 2022 - Page 474 of 569
P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL
C O M M IS S IO N
J anuary 24, 2022, 1:00 P M
Virtual on Zoom
75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.Call to Order
1.1.Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
1.2.Attendance
Present: Ludwig Kurz (via phone), J enn Bruno, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo,
Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, Reid Phillips (departed at 4:15pm)
Absent: None
2.Executive Session
2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town
Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding
proposed code amendments.
10 min.
No action as a result of executive session.
3.Main Agenda
3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a
new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback
Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 90 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden
Planner:Greg Roy
Karen Perez calls meeting back to order. All members other than Ludwig
Kurz are present. Perez says information germane to the executive session
was not present in the session. Therefore, the board has decided to hear
item 3.1 today but not reach a final decision due to this fact.
Pratt and Bruno agree.
Planner Roy introduces the proposal.
Water Quality Education Coordinator Peter Wadden gives a presentation on
the proposal. He talks about the strategic plan and town efforts along the
river in the past. He talks about the process of reaching the proposed
April 19, 2022 - Page 475 of 569
ordinance.
Gillette asks about the science behind the 25’ setback.
Wadden says it comes from the 2008 Planners Guide to W etland Buffers.
Gillette asks if this is from the Environmental Law I nstitute.
Wadden confirms.
Wadden continues presentation. He talks about the community input
process. He talks about the criteria for an effective regulation and the goals
of an effective regulation.
Gillette says he wants elaboration on moving from the center line to high-
water mark setback.
Wadden says this will be addressed in presentation. W adden talks about the
number of non-conforming properties in town. He talks about past code
changes, non-conforming properties in town, and the grandfathering
process. The proposed code language will increase the number of non-
conforming properties from 102 to 128. He says non-conforming status has
not impacted home insurance rates.
Perez asks if multifamily structures were included as they are usually under
commercial insurance. She believes this will increase the commercial
liability, asks if Wadden can clarify that point.
Wadden says he will follow up. He talks about Town Code 12-18-19
Restoration.
Gillette and Perez talk about the challenges of providing restoration within
one year per non-conforming code section (12-18-19).
Bruno agrees, says we need to give people more time.
Gillette says we should move forward with the process on getting that
language changed.
Wadden talks about the reasoning for using the Ordinary High-W ater Line
(OHW L). A centerline-based setback is not effective at places where the
stream is widest, where the setback is within the waterway.
Wadden introduces Bill Hoblitzell with Lotic Hydrological.
Hoblitzell gives a presentation about the difference between the Ordinary
High-Water Mark (OHW M) and the Ordinary High Water Line (OHW L), as
well as the 2-year flood line. He defines the 2-year flood line in hydrological
terms. He talks about the 2-year flood, 10-year flood, and 100-year flood
measurements for planning and engineering purposes. He talks the process
for going from flow rates to inundation maps for planning.
Gillette asks about creating cross-sections at Gore Creek as well as the
different between the High-W ater Mark and the 2-year flood line.
Hoblitzell explains why the 2-year flood line is a great proxy for the active
stream channel boundary. He defines bankfull flows, they form the physical
April 19, 2022 - Page 476 of 569
marks on the side of the bank. He talks about the US Army Corps of
Engineers definition for the OHW M as well as the limitations of the measure.
Hoblitzell says the 2-year flood elevation is a good objective baseline. Field
surveying will get you a bunch of different elevations from different people.
He talks about the safety benefits for larger setbacks.
Pratt asks about difference between the Army Corps’ OHW M method and
the OHW L.
Hoblitzell says the OHW M is based on physical indicators in field surveys.
Wadden adds that both measures try and determine the elevation where the
stream fills it banks.
Gillette says the lines now are a computer simulation, but the proposed
ordinance allows homeowners to do a visual survey for the appeals process.
Wadden says the OHW L is the best baseline for regulation. He
acknowledges that there will be instances where a homeowner can appeal
the OHW L to the Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) by
enlisting a qualified professional.
Gillette asks if the previous version of the proposal had appeals going to
Town Council.
Wadden says this was amended and the recent version has the P E C as
reviewing body for this kind of appeal.
Gillette asks if currently staff cannot make a determination is that correct?
Wadden says right now the buck falls to the property owner and surveyor to
provide that data.
Gillette questions the additional level of review.
Wadden says the higher level of review would only kick in during an appeal.
Pratt says the proposed ordinance requires a letter from the Army Corps for
the appeal. W hy can’t we just rely on the surveyor?
Wadden says that is why staff is recommending the OHW L over OHW M.
He talks about the subjectivity involved in OHW M determinations. A hired
consultant needs to have their lines verified by the Army Corps.
Perez asks for clarification between the OHW L and OHW M.
Wadden talks about the methodology for determining both measures.
Gillette asks about the appeal process, is that using statistical modeling or
observation?
Wadden says as proposed the town would adopt a series of elevations along
the stream based on the OHW L. An applicant could hire a consultant to
conduct a OHW M study as part of the appeals process.
Perez asks how often the OW HL is recalculated.
April 19, 2022 - Page 477 of 569
Wadden says the Town Council can choose to update it when they feel it’s
time.
Perez asks for clarification about the 2-year floodline.
Hoblitzell clarifies the timeframe for change, it is about 30 years for
significant change to occur.
Gillette asks what the P E C is reviewing during the proposed appeal
process? He not qualified to review these, could staff review these appeals?
Wadden says the appeals would come to the P E C with a staff
recommendation. This is a large enough decision that it rises to a town
commission.
Wadden continues presentation. The OHW M is an Army Corps
methodology that uses field indicators. The OHW L is a FE MA method. The
ordinance proposes that the OHW L is used for the baseline and the OHW M
for appeals. He talks about the method for finding the centerline-based
setback. He talks about the method for determining the OHW L in the
proposal.
Gillette asks what type of professional can determine the high-water mark.
Wadden says it would be a qualified professional.
Gillette asks if we want to strengthen that language.
Wadden says staff didn’t want to limit the number of people qualified to do
this.
Perez references the proposed appeal language. W hy are we using the
OHW M if it is not a reliable standard as presented?
Wadden says the method has drawbacks, but neither model is perfect. The
best outcome is to incorporate data from both methods and allow applicants
to bring that data into the equation. Additionally, it is important to have the
Army Corps verify that data.
Gillette asks about the process for verification from the Army Corps.
Wadden says there is a regional office, they typically verify in three to six
weeks in the summer months. They provide a letter that endorses or doesn’t
endorse the surveyor ’s line.
Bruno asks about the setbacks of neighboring communities. W hich method
do they use?
Wadden says it varies, some still use the centerline method. Most recently
adopted setbacks have used the OHW L as the basis.
Pratt asks about challenging the OHW L. Could I get a surveyor to remap
the elevations for the OHW L and get new cross sections?
Wadden clarifies could a property owner get specific cross sections for
their property.
April 19, 2022 - Page 478 of 569
Hoblitzell says the cross-section are used to determine the elevations. I t may
be more precise, it’s unlikely it will move the elevation towards or from the
stream.
Pratt asks if it will give you a different line.
Hoblitzell says the engineering models will get a similar line even across
different computer programs.
Wadden gives a case study on Middle Creek. Two qualified wetland
scientists found different delineations using the OHW M methodology.
Gillette asks if they’re on same side of stream.
Wadden confirms. The difference here is why Staff recommends that the
Army Corps verify the lines for appeals.
Perez asks if the Army Corps will verify these delineations.
Wadden says we have not done that yet, but we could, the Corps could do it
in the spring.
Phillips asks about the appeal language, and references Aspen’s appeal
language. He suggests that the language should require a licensed
professional for the appeal. W e can clean up that portion of language of who
can make the new determination. He likes the option of an appeal process.
He has no problem with the P E C reviewing this because it is elevated to that
level.
Wadden says he will follow up on that.
Gillette asks if the Army Corps has a stipulation on who has to prepare the
survey that they review.
Wadden says he can look further into it.
Gillette says the town language should be congruent with the Corps
requirements.
Perez references public comment, a memo from Mauriello Planning Group
regarding a grandfathering provision. Has staff reviewed this?
Wadden says an applicant will need a completed application submitted
before the code changes, the laws currently in effect will apply.
Gillette disagrees with this. He talks about his past experience; we don’t give
people enough time. There should always be some sort of waiting period
where people can plan ahead for changes.
Wadden says he understand the sentiment. He will need to speak to the
town attorney regarding that process.
Perez says there is specific language on grandfathering.
Wadden says staff opinion is that there should not be.
April 19, 2022 - Page 479 of 569
Gillette disagrees and thinks that there should be a grandfathering clause.
Like at the Evergreen, these projects take years to plan, there needs to be
an allowance.
Planning Manager Spence says you could delay the date of enactment.
However, we can’t go by applicants claiming maybe they’re thinking about
developing, that’s not a legal standard. There’s no grandfathering of
properties that might be considered.
Pratt agrees and recommends picking a deferred implementation date,
maybe J anuary 1, 2023.
Gillette wants to keep looking at it and maybe get more public comment.
Wadden references images of existing and proposed setbacks in relation to
the Evergreen Lodge
Gillette says the diagram is not clear without a scale.
Phillips says the appeal process is still available to applicants. He doesn’t
see a whole lot of difference between the existing and proposed in the
images. He says at some point we have to draw a line that allows us to keep
the river healthy. I f we keep kicking the can, it doesn’t help us protect one of
our greatest assets. I f we continue to allow variances, I don’t think we’re
doing much as a commission.
Phillips says if the Army Corps has a certain threshold, that is theirs not
ours. I f we’re requesting their verification then this is included in their
verification, we don’t need that exact language. He likes the fact that they will
ask for the Corps verification and put the burden on the homeowners to
show evidence. He says there are certain protections that we need to put
into place.
Gillette says an appeal on the lines may be different than the hardship
proposed on the hotel. The grandfathering or the delay is a better tool to deal
with these issues.
Phillips has no problem with a delay. He doesn’t want to see grandfathering
of unverified projects. He agrees with Pratt in terms of delaying the
ordinance.
Perez says we should continue moving through the Staff presentation.
Wadden reiterates the reasons for changing the setback, including the
direction from the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He reiterates why staff is
recommending the 25’ building setback from the OHW L. He says these
actions could help get Gore Creek off the 303D list of impaired waterways.
Perez asks for public comment.
Kurz returns. He was listening to the presentation. He would like to ask
Perez to continue running the meeting since he does not have video. He
says the whole issue is being taken seriously by everybody on the board
and community. He says staff is doing an amazing job with presenting the
materials. He agrees with comments that Phillips made, we’re losing site a
little bit of what we’re trying to do to protect the creek. W e get caught up in
April 19, 2022 - Page 480 of 569
individual issues and not looking at protecting the asset that is the creek.
Perez asks for a copy of the two presentations. She asks for public
comment. She says it is an opportunity for comments but not a question and
answer or debate session.
Gillette asks if the public can receive these presentations.
Bellm says they can be added to the P E C webpage.
Dominic Mauriello speaks on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge owners. He
talks about the work done by Heather Huston on Mill Creek and that they
would have appreciated the opportunity to look at that with the town. The data
displayed by the town regarding the setbacks in that area is probably not
accurate. He applauds the goals of the proposal and doesn’t have issues
with 10 foot no mow area. He references his letter to the P E C and asks
what are the things that are allowed within the setback.
He says the assumption being made is that the 2-year flood is the accurate
measure to be using. He says we need to look at the areas throughout town,
the 1.5-year measure might be more accurate for this proposal. The
problem is the implementation of this, 5 feet matters, it is not trivial to some
people. The point of the grandfathering is what Pratt suggested, giving
people time to get their applications in before the changes. He talks about
the two methodologies, there should be an allowance that you can go out
there and have everyone agree on the marking of the line. He says it would
be a good idea to look at the current GI S maps.
J essica Hernreich is a Vail Village landowner and citizen. She says if you
change the setbacks without a grandfathering clause you are setting up
some property owners for failure because they were built under the previous
regulations. She would also like to know more about how often the high water
line is changed or addressed. How is that reconciled with the purchasing of
water rights for snowmaking with Vail Resorts?
Wendell Porterfield appears on behalf of property owners in the 11th filing.
He wants clarification on how the OHW L is established. W ill the town be
required to revisit the dataset used to determine the OHW L? Regarding the
setbacks, who makes determination on structures that lawfully exist on a
certain date?
Blondie Vucich is an East Vail resident of 30 years. She says at one point
the creek had gold medal fishing status. Landscaping practices have
contributed to the degradation of the creek. The Vucich family reinstituted
riparian habitat on their property, they no longer mow or fertilize. The
proposed setbacks and moderation are not unreasonable, living here
requires coexisting with ecosystems.
Perez says the board has read a lot of written public comment that was
submitted.
Blondie Vucich says this type of shared information is really helpful and not
everyone goes back to the record to review the comments.
Dan J ohnson is General Manager at the Grand Hyatt Vail. He is thankful for
the thorough proposal and the concern they have is that Gore Creek is their
front yard. They have been good stewards over the years, they respect the
April 19, 2022 - Page 481 of 569
no-mow zone. The conversation about a deferred enactment and defining
intent to develop should receive more consideration.
Gillette asks what timeframe do you think is appropriate? As a community
member how many months do you think is appropriate?
J ohnson says four to six months may be appropriate for their projects. I t
should be more than 90 days; it also includes the availability of purveyors.
Len W right is a Vail resident and Planning and W ater Resources Manager
at Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. He thinks staff has done a
phenomenal job at addressing the complex topics. He says enhancing
riparian vegetation has the benefit of shading and better water temperatures.
The OHW L model is deterministic so you get the same answer every time,
his advice from a policy perspective is to be objective as possible. He
advocates for a fixed objective line, he cautions that a F E MA floodplain
model is different than the hydrology of a 2-year model, and advocates for a
more detailed modeling survey. Staff addressed the horizontal equity issue
but should also consider the vertical equity and the steepness of the banks.
I n terms of variances and appeals it would be good to consider locations
where you could get closer to the stream based on the vertical height.
Gillette asks if you’re suggesting that appeals should not use the Army
Corps method?
Wright says yes, the subjective piece changes season to season and expert
to expert. The real question is the appropriate flow rate to be used. He
doesn’t want to get in a situation where you pick your expert, would rather be
objective and have it defined from the Town’s perspective
Gillette asks where the number should lie.
Wright would step back from an opinion on that. He says climate change is
also changing the statistics which are referenced. The frequency of intense
events is changing.
Wayne Forman is an attorney representing 1 W illow Bridge Road. They
want more time to evaluate the proposal. The 10’ no mow zone is far less of
a concern than the 25’ setback that would put the building in non-conforming
status.
Tom Hopkins lives on the creek in East Vail. He fears a 25’ setback won’t do
much for the environment, it’s a minimal aspiration. Are there stretches
along the creek where a bigger setback could be accommodated, the golf
course for instance. And if we can do that, let’s take the opportunity before
there is a lot of development.
Perez asks if we could see how that could impact some of those areas.
Richard Strauss is from Arvada and visits Gore Creek and Eagle River for
flyfishing. He references his written comments and says the OHW M is the
line between public and private lands. He recommends the book “Public
Rights on Rivers.” He says that public rights should also be considered.
Perez says his forum is now to discuss these issues. She asks if there is
anything in particular regarding public or private rights that he would like to
reference.
April 19, 2022 - Page 482 of 569
Strauss suggests the book and says there are a lot of competing issues
regarding water rights.
Perez asks about the letter sent by Strauss, to make sure that the board
receives his letter.
Gillette says this is a legislative item, not a quasi-judicial item. The public is
allowed to lobby the P E C, but they need to debate in a public forum.
Heather Houston speaks from Birch Ecology. She wants to clarify the
mapping they did in the field. She says they did do a good job of
representing the high-water mark, it’s important to note that there is a new
culvert upstream. The photos shown in the presentation were in an
anomalous area. I t is not rocket science to see where there is a distinct
change in vegetation. They have to look closely at the banks on both sides,
and snow complicates the interpretation. She says the discrepancies shown
in the presentation were based on old data. She wanted to provide more
context to that section.
Gillette asks if she can explain the process with the Army Corps verification.
Houston says it’s a wetland delineation report, a verification goes to the
bottom of their stack. I t is rare for them to visit delineations these days. They
process things more quickly with a wetland permit application, a straight
delineation can take some time, she had a process that took more than six
months. The three to six weeks timeframe is not consistent with her
experience.
Gillette asks how she would value the verification.
Houston says it depends on the applicant, and the level of scrutiny the Corp
applies.
Gillette asks what kind of consultant has the expertise to dispute the line.
Houston says ecologists do wetlands delineations and there is no one
measure you have to look at everything.
Gillette asks what other kinds of ecologists?
Houston says surveyors have asked her for advice, most of the time its fairly
obvious, there’s a distinct change in vegetation and topography.
Hydrologists, ecologists, wetland scientists, and surveyors can do the work.
She doesn’t think the OHW M is guesstimating, it is a direct measurement in
the field. The modeling method is based on the quality of the inputs. Lidar
data may or may not be accurate enough for an individual property.
Perez asks for Houston to be promoted to be able to share some images on
her screen.
Houston shows a photo of the bank and explains the placement of her flags.
Gillette asks does this accurately depict the 2-year floodplain.
Houston says no, the 2-year floodplain is not equal to the OHW M in a place
like Vail. The 1.5-year measurement might be more equivalent.
April 19, 2022 - Page 483 of 569
Gillette says it’s an important thing to resolve, the closer we can get the line
to observation is important. We want to lower the discrepancy down from
what you see to what we map.
Houston says Black Creek Hydrology agrees on the 1.5-year line. I nstead
of speculating what the 2-year line is we should go out and measure it on the
ground. She doesn’t feel it is imprecise to measure on the ground.
Gillette asks about the cost of the measuring.
Houston says depending on the project and the size of the property it may
be around $2,000.
Pratt clarifies the distance between the 2-year statistical average and the
bankfull measurement.
Houston says you would expect to see the difference between the 2-year
line and the OHW M, as shown in the presentation. Depending on the
verticality of the bank, the difference between the 2-year line and OHW M
varies. She provides additional examples in photographs.
Gillette thanks Houston for the explanation.
Hoblitzell reiterates that the benefit of the 2-year line is that it is not typically
going to be outside of the bank. I t provides a safety margin that benefits the
stream. By picking a conservative flow (2-year) over 1.5 year were putting
our intent on the side of stream health, the errors fall towards that side.
Russ Craney is the General Manager of Vail Residences at Cascade
Village. All homeowners are in favor of the riparian zone proposal but are
concerned about the 25’ setback as it pertains to decks and other features.
I s there some give and take, can a two-story deck encroachment be offset
by a larger riparian zone? Regarding the suggested six month window for a
Design Review Board (D RB) submittal, he would suggest closer to a nine
month window.
J ason Carey is a Principal Engineer at River Restoration and consultant to
the Town of Vail. He wants to thank everyone for consideration on this
nuanced issue. He says everyone’s comments are generally correct
because it’s a dynamic system. He encourages the Town to set up a system
that can be regulated and managed by the staff. The task is not to fix a
dynamic system but set up a way to regulate and manage that. Staff has
done an admirable job of that.
Tom Vucich is an East Vail resident and wants to support the comments of
Phillips and Kurz. He wants to keep the big picture here and not get
burdened down with the minutia of specific properties. He hopes that the
P E C will support the effort of preserving the creek.
J essica Hernreich says that as a resident in the village, she would
appreciate if more consideration could be given to the appeals process
which sounds daunting in the given timeframe.
Gillette asks about the appropriate timeframe for delaying the enactment.
April 19, 2022 - Page 484 of 569
Dominic Mauriello likes the idea of delaying until the end of the year. W e’ve
had the current setback for 50 years and another nine months isn’t going to
make a difference. A minimum could be 120 days, but until the end of the
year could be good. Another thing to think about is separating the core area
from other areas of town.
Perez talks about her experience on the Denver Planning Board. She says
the delay there was 11-12 months but that was for rewriting the entire zoning
code, not one section. She says until the end of the year might be
appropriate in this case. She says it is a complicated issue and would
recommend that form based zoning could be applied. She says the P E C
needs to balance environmental and planning considerations.
Bruno says no one has had issues with the no-mow zone. W e need to
enforce this regulation. She would like to reevaluate 1.5 versus 2-year lines
and rethink if the Corps of Engineers is the best backup. A more detailed
model should be researched. She has no issues with delaying the adoption
of this and thinks that the setbacks should be universal and not have different
distances in different zones.
Gillette is more comfortable with the 2-year line given that it is conservative.
He thinks we should take the Corps verification off the appeals process and
should trust the ecologists. People didn’t get into the business to cheat it,
they got into the business because they care.
Kjesbo agrees with Bruno and Gillette. He agrees on the 2-year line and not
needing the Corps verification. He also agrees with delaying implementation
and not grandfathering projects. He also agrees 25’ is the minimum setback
that should be considered.
Gillette agrees with Kjesbo on using mapping for the high-water line and
using the surveying method for appeals.
Pratt brings up the setbacks for tributaries and would like to hear more
discussion on that. He doesn’t want the Army Corps involved in appeals. He
is in favor of setbacks and no-mow zone as long as we don’t impact too
many people negatively.
Kurz agrees on the 2-year line as well as on delaying the implementation but
not for too long. He doesn’t want to look at the core areas any different than
other areas as would defeat some of the purpose we’re trying to accomplish
here. He says the discussion is benefitting the community.
Perez is not convinced the OHW L is the right measurement. She is
concerned about creating more non-conforming properties. She thinks the
current system works fine and is clear. One of the board’s jobs is to make
things clear, not more confusing. W e haven’t gotten to the other Takings
concerns and if the proposal is clear it will be more easily enforceable. She
is also in favor of the no-mow zone.
Gillette says we need to give staff direction. Can we agree on delaying
implementation to the end of the year?
Kurz would prefer that was a shorter time.
Bruno says we’ve waited 49 years to fix this, a few extra months won’t hurt.
I t is the fair thing to do to not blindside people. This is a long-term plan and
April 19, 2022 - Page 485 of 569
J anuary 1, 2023 is a fair date and gets us to our goal.
Gillette is also in support of the High-Water Line, with an appeals process.
Bruno likes the 2-year line but would like to see if the Army Corps can give
a better timeframe on their process.
Gillette asks if staff needs clarification on additional items.
Wadden lists board comments: who is qualified to perform appeals using the
OHW M as well as insurance of multi-family properties and the implications
of non-conformity.
Perez clarifies Phillips had a family event and had to leave. She says any
determinations should include his feedback.
Kurz suggests tabling for a month to give staff time for the requested
information.
Gillette asks for staff input.
Wadden recommends returning at the next meeting.
Karen Perez moved to table to February 14, 2022. Brian Gillette seconded
the motion and it passed (6-0).
Absent:(1)Phillips
4.I nformational Update
4.1.Update on the implementation of the West Vail Master Plan. 30 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail
Planner:Matt Gennett
5.Approval of Minutes
5.1.J anuary 10, 2022 P E C Results
Perez has a correction to the minutes from J anuary 10th. She stated the
memo wasn't included in the packet, not that should couldn't read the item in
the packet.Ludwig Kurz moved to approve as amended.. Brian Gillette
seconded the motion and it passed (6-0).
Absent:(1)Phillips
6.Adjournment
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the
Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
April 19, 2022 - Page 486 of 569
P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL
C O M M IS S IO N
F ebruary 14, 2022, 1:00 P M
Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom
75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.Call to Order
1.1.Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_tX L0eRs9QKieoSkwg888J w
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
1.2.Attendance
Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, J enn
Bruno, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt
Absent: None
2.Executive Session
2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town
Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding
proposed code amendments.
15 min.
3.Main Agenda
3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a
new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback
Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043)
60 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden
Planner:Greg Roy
Peter W adden, the Watershed Education Coordinator begins presentation.
He reviews the changes made to the proposal since J anuary 24th.
He talks about the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He mentions that a healthy
creek depends on healthy riparian habitat. He talks about the community
input process. He talks about the number of non-conforming properties in
town under various scenarios. Under the 25-foot setback, there would be an
increase of about 5% of non-conforming properties
Perez asks if he is counting structures or number of units?
Wadden says structures.
April 19, 2022 - Page 487 of 569
Perez confirms the number of units could be higher than the number of
structures.
Wadden says the current numbers are comparing existing non-conforming
structures against conditions under the proposed language.
Perez wants to be clear that we’re talking structures not units.
Phillips asks about properties on Mill Creek, Booth Creek and Buffehr
Creek.
Wadden says this includes Gore Creek and its tributaries.
Wadden did not find anything that insurance rates would be impacted by
non-conformity for multi-family and commercial properties. I nsurance
agents don’t ask if a property is non-conforming when setting the rate for a
policy.
Wadden talks about Town Code 12-18-9, Restoration. Commissioners had
expressed concern about the one-year period here. Staff did not feel it was
appropriate to address this code language as part of this proposal.
Gillette and Perez say this needs to change before code goes into effect.
Spence says that can be part of the Planning and Environmental
Commission’s (P E C) recommendation to Town Council.
Pratt asks if this period can be extended.
Spence says that is correct, it hasn’t been a regulatory concern in his time
at the town.
Perez says it could be an issue with a multi-family building, the one-year
period will be deficient for that process.
Spence says that can be included in any recommendations to Town
Council.
Bruno recommends extending the time period to 15-months in the
recommendation.
Wadden says the effective date of the ordinance can also be included in the
recommendation.
Gillette thought it would be part of the ordinance.
Pratt says this applies to all fire damage; the town has been accommodating
with this process and it doesn’t need to be changed for the ordinance today.
Phillips feels this issue is separate from the ordinance we’re considering
today.
Spence says the key word is commenced in the language.
Kjesbo clarifies that the Town will work with the owners in these cases.
Phillips asks if cleaning up is part of that commencement.
April 19, 2022 - Page 488 of 569
Perez asks where that is defined.
Spence says it is a working policy.
Wadden says they would prefer that conversation is a separate discussion
and included outside the language of this ordinance.
Wadden and staff see no reason not to delay the effective date of the
ordinance. On the positive side it would give property owners additional time
to prepare for this ordinance. On the negative side, it would likely create
additional non-conforming properties near waterways before the new
regulations go into effect.
Perez asks if the presentation today was included in the packet?
Wadden says it was not.
Spence says delayed implementation could be included in the
recommendation that the P E C forwards. I t is often that the formal ordinance
isn’t completed until prior to Council. He says you’re reviewing the changes
to the code not the ordinance itself.
Wadden clarifies that the Eagle County setback is 75 feet from the bank and
the Environmental Protection Agency recommended setback is 100 ft from
the bank.
He reviews the methodology for the Ordinary High-W ater Mark (OHW M)
and the Two Year Floodline (TY F L). He talks about the benefits and
drawbacks of each method. The data the town is proposing to use was put
together by River Restoration. The benefit of the TY FL is that it is an
objective line from which to regulate.
Gillette asks about a creekside project and says a survey will include both of
those numbers. W hen it comes down to it, you’ll always have a survey,
whichever one number benefits them is the one they’ll use. He thinks we’ve
spent too much time on this.
Pratt thought that the Army Corps method only applies if you want to appeal
the TY F L.
Wadden says that is correct.
Gillette says we almost get a worse product by including this language in the
ordinance because applicants will take the better deal.
Wadden says ease of enforcement and recognition is the greatest benefit of
the objective line.
Gillette says the modeling was necessary to craft the ordinance but maybe
not to include in the ordinance.
Phillips asks how you establish a usable baseline without using one of these
methods.
Wadden says that is why staff is recommending this approach, it creates a
baseline for the regulation.
April 19, 2022 - Page 489 of 569
Phillips says in the last meeting there was a big back and forth about which
method to go with. He appreciates that staff is recommending one with an
appeals process. At some point we have to back up our setback baseline.
Wadden says staff’s opinions is that we should have a baseline to regulate
from, in this case the TY FL. He says the OHW M methodology would have
been more expensive to apply to the whole town.
Phillips clarifies that we backed off the 1.5-year floodline. None of the
experts actually said that the 2 year floodline benefitted the river more than
the 1.5 year floodline.
Wadden talks about the appeals process. W hat was hanged from last time is
that the property owner would not need their survey verified by the Army
Corps. Staff will review these submissions.
Gillette asks about the general variance process. He talks about a scenario
of a property accessed by a bridge across a creek, which is not allowed in
the ordinance.
Spence says that could be addressed in a variance process.
Wadden talks about the submittal requirements for an appeal.
Gillette asks about this specific language in the ordinance right now.
Wadden says this was not currently included but will be included at an
administrative level.
Perez asks for clarification.
Wadden says the decision on submittal requirements would be decided at
administrative level but the P E C not staff would have the final review.
Perez says she is uncomfortable that there are not currently criteria for the
P E C review. W hat are their review criteria?
Gillette brings up an example. I f a surveyor says this is the line, who are we
to say no. He thinks it should be a staff review that could be appealed to the
P E C.
Perez says this ordinance is incomplete without that review criteria.
Spence says it would be similar to other processes, staff accepts documents
from a qualified professional with a stamp. However, it does have to go to a
governing body.
Perez reiterates she would like the review criteria included.
Spence says the process is more of a correction than an appeal.
Perez says legally it has to be appealed.
Spence says it is similar to the other appeals process.
Wadden says that the method would have to follow the Army Corps
April 19, 2022 - Page 490 of 569
methodology.
Gillette asks what is a shapefile?
Wadden says it is a GI S file that shows location of the lines in question.
Spence says it allows staff to update the map layer.
Gillette asks if the GI S map will be updated based on each property that
comes back with data.
Wadden confirms. He reiterates why staff is recommending a 25 foot
setback. He talks about setbacks in neighboring communities.
Bruno asks when the current setback was implemented in Eagle County.
Wadden says 2006. Town studies show the 25 foot setback best
approximates existing setbacks without reducing them. He addresses the 1.5
vs 2-year flood elevation. The 2 year floodline is a slightly more conservative
near average baseline. I n places where the bank is steepest, the difference
between the two is very small. I n places where the bank is wider, it
increases.
Wadden asks why change setbacks from 1976? The Gore Creek Strategic
Plan instructs staff to do so. Existing setbacks have been ineffective in
protecting Gore Creek. Centerline setbacks are also inequitable. Vail has
changed a lot in 50 years, that can be addressed through changing
regulations.
Gillette talks about letter from Berkshire College. W hy didn’t we adopt those
items?
Wadden says there is an item to allow for control of noxious weeds.
Gillette references other items in letter.
Wadden says the best way to address invasive species was allowing
property owners to remove those species listed as noxious weeds.
Gillette asks about the uses of walkways, pools, patios.
Perez references the current language in the code.
Wadden says they tried to match it to the existing language regarding what
is allowed in setbacks.
Spence clarifies the existing language in Town Code 14-10-4.
Gillette asks if the ordinance would be better off referencing Town Code 14-
10-4.
Spence says there was community concern about that.
Gillette says we might not want driveways and parking in this setback.
Kjesbo likes the idea of relating the ordinance language to Town Code 14-
10-4.
April 19, 2022 - Page 491 of 569
Wadden says the intention was to use the same language as is currently in
the code. The change would be how the setback is measured, not what is
allowed in the setback.
Spence says we don’t want to add new language that is only applicable to
this setback,k that raises questions about other setbacks.
Gillette is concerned that the current language in the ordinance is confusing.
Says we should either reference 14-10-4 or spell it all out.
Spence suggests we should reference 14-10-4.
Perez says the way it is written it seems to limit only those specific items
described. Let’s relate it to 14-10-4.
Spence says that was staff’s original approach, they support that approach.
Perez references. Section C-1-d Does the word “public” modify the other
things enumerated, or does it apply to private things as well.
Wadden says private bridges would be addressed through the variance
process.
Spence says the intent is only public, staff can address the language there.
Perez references language “buildings lawfully existing subject to chapter
18.”
Wadden says that section addresses non-conforming properties.
Kjesbo references letters that asked what you can do with existing non-
conforming structures.
Spence says you can maintain what is existing as it is.
Pratt thinks staff did a good job explaining why they want 25 foot setbacks
on tributaries. Since the 25 foot number increases the number of non-
conforming structures is there a rationale to allow an option of a 20 foot
setback, but a 15 foot riparian zone.
Gillette says the Fire Department wanted a 15-foot buffer.
Wadden says the proposed setback would create uniformity throughout the
town. W hat Pratt is proposing could create challenges with fire protection.
Regarding tributaries it is valuable to create uniformity across town.
Pratt says the filtration occurs in the riparian zone.
Kjesbo asks if the town monitors the stream where it enters and exits the
town. How does the water quality change?
Wadden says the Town monitors nine sites for insects. At the bottom of the
pass the stream has healthy bug populations, by the time you get to Bighorn
Park it has failed the standards every year but one since 2009.
Pratt asks if somebody is talking about changing the state rules on
April 19, 2022 - Page 492 of 569
pesticides.
Wadden says it is in discussions. Currently local jurisdictions cannot pass
more stringent regulations than what the state has passed.
Gillette asks about section C-1. Was that better defined elsewhere?
Spence says in the current adopted code there is no allowed path, but it has
seemed like a good idea.
Wadden talks about the Town approach to informal pathways in the past.
Gillette asks about restoration of the first 10 feet.
Wadden says language addressing restoration is included.
Kurz asks for public input.
Wayne Forman represents 1 W illow Bridge and the HOA. He references
their letter from February 3rd. He asks about an artificial drainage on their
property and would like to see that explicitly excluded. Second, regarding
one year reconstruction they would like to see that time period extended with
this ordinance. He references Paragraph D-3 says the current language is
confusing as to a successful appeal and should be clarified; get rid of clear
and convincing evidence language.
Dan J ohnson represents the Grand Hyatt Vail. He says last time there was a
consensus to have the ordinance take effect J an. 1, 2023. He was
surprised not to hear that today and would ask for consideration of that
delayed ordinance.
Dominic Mauriello represents Evergreen Lodge. He agrees with Forman
regarding the section update. You need some criteria for review or change
when you can have an appeal. You can have an either or standard where
you measure from either line, whichever is less restrictive. He understands
from staff that the intent is to measure the streambank with the line, so why
not use OHW M. The setback today is a building setback, he talks about
what is allowed in a setback. He agrees that that section C-a should be
made very clear as there are issues with the existing code. Under B add
sidewalks. He talks about parking within setbacks.
He likes Pratt’s idea of allowing the exchange of setbacks and no-mow zone
on tributaries. I t’s not clear that you can do restoration in the no-mow zone,
that should be made clear. Last meeting we heard that if an application
comes in prior to the effective day of the ordinance it would be processed
with the current rules.
Spence confirms.
Mauriello suggests putting the effective date in the ordinance. He says
things can get lost in the process, the proposal should be complete now. He
references instances where the 2 year floodline in the town data is off.
Gillette asks if it matters.
Mauriello says the model is not accurate in some instances. I f we’re flexible
why are we concerned about changing the time outlined in the code for the
April 19, 2022 - Page 493 of 569
restoration process. He references the Matterhorn I nn.
Spence says staff will take any recommendation forwarded by this
committee.
Mauriello suggests you should include a complete copy of your comments in
the recommendation to Council. I t has been identified that the F E MA
mapping is off vertically by 4’ on Middle Creek. Should there be a provision
that deals with errors in the mapping of the TY FL?
Gillette says those errors can be addressed through the appeals process.
Spence says over time the layers will get better and better.
D M says look at the setbacks on pg. 28, 29, and 30 of the packet. He
supports measuring from the streambank but is concerned about the errors
in the mapping.
Gillette says every lawyer they’ve heard from has had a problem with the
language regarding the appeal. He likes the idea of either-or language.
J on Rediker says their needs to be an implementation date. He doesn’t see
a benefit to delaying, a delay would allow more non-conforming structures to
be built.
Mauriello references the setback lines shown on pg. 28 of the packet. He
shows the examples on pg. 29 and 30 as well. This reinforces the idea that
you also need the OHW M included in the ordinance.
Pratt says where you pointed is where there’s a beaver dam, that could
affect the high water mark.
Bill Hoblitzell says the maps are correctly delineated.
Gillette asks about the criteria for the appeal process. He likes the idea of
either-or language.
Bruno agrees. I f you can appeal with the OHW M, we’re already saying it’s
an acceptable method. Property owners can choose one of the methods.
Gillette says it could be more of a submittal requirement than appeal
process.
Wadden asks for commission support.
Gillette, Kurz, and Bruno support allowing the property owner to choose the
method.
The commission supports an effective date of J anuary 1, 2023.
Kjesbo says they want all the language in there when it is presented to
Council.
Perez talks about the enumerations in C-2-a and that it should references
section 14.
April 19, 2022 - Page 494 of 569
Gillette agrees. He asks about best management practices as mentioned in
the ordinance.
Wadden says that should be left somewhat broad as the standards of the
industry change.
Spence suggest the language could say “restoration specific with best
management practices.”
Kristen Bertuglia is the Environmental Sustainability Director at the Town of
Vail. She addresses the “either or” provision. That would take out the
objectivity that staff is trying to establish. I f we want to guarantee a win for
the creek, the only way to do that is to start with this baseline. I f you let the
applicant decide, she’s not certain we’ll end up with additional riparian area,
it’s something to consider.
Bruno says when you allow an appeal process you’re giving that opportunity
anyway.
Bertuglia agrees but says that the standard is a little bit higher.
Bruno asks for some clear criteria on an appeal process.
Bertuglia says it’s important that the Army Corps process is followed.
Gillette asks for clarification.
Spence says if the board directs staff to review, there would be no appeal
process to the P E C.
Gillette says staff can verify applicants used the proper procedures.
Phillips says the less restrictive measure is a treacherous road to go down..
W hy not adopt the more restrictive of the two, it also eliminates the
gamesmanship between the two methods. He talks about the appeals
process. From him there wasn’t a consensus to go to the lesser standard.
We’ve kicked this can down the road, the less restrictive route doesn’t
necessarily set a great baseline to repair the health of the creek.
Gillette says the modeling was trying to identify the high water mark, the
mark you see when you go out to field survey.
Perez doesn’t like eliminating going back to the P E C. The whole idea was to
have a public process that allows property owners to make their case. I t’s a
balancing act.
Pratt says whichever line is better is the wrong way to present it. We need
some basic criteria which we can base the regulation on.
Spence says it would be incorrect to replace surveyors with the commission.
Perez says criteria can be established with a scientific, objective approach.
We should establish the criteria to give property owners the opportunity for
the appeals process.
Gillette says the appeals process is referring to the line used for the setback.
April 19, 2022 - Page 495 of 569
Perez says the appeals process is to look at how the ordinance might be
burdensome.
Gillette says that is addressed by the variance language laid out elsewhere.
Spence says this is purely numbers.
Perez says we should look at some of the memos that have been received.
She asks about the point of the appeals process as presented.
Wadden says the point is to allow an applicant to appeal the lines and use
the OHW M where the TY F L may be in the wrong area. I t only references
those considerations.
Perez says there is a legal side to this of why there is an appeals process.
Gillette says the memo does not make sense.
Spence says the word correction could be substituted for an appeal. An
appeal could have the connotation of needing deliberation, while this is more
of a correction to the data.
Phillips agrees it’s a correction or clarification of the high-water mark. That
is separate from the variance process
Pratt agrees.
Wadden confirms the intent of the appeals process. Specific criteria would
be based upon the Army Corps methodology.
Spence says we don’t necessarily need criteria for a correction.
Gillette says you have to use the Army Corps method, we don’t need to
enumerate everything. That is a surveyor ’s job.
Spence says there will be specific language for restoration processes
following best management processes.
Gillette asks about the time period for restoration.
Wadden says staff doesn’t believe it should be included in the streambank
ordinance because of its impact in other areas.
Spence says changing the time period can be included in a
recommendation to Town Council.
The commission is in favor of the 25 foot setback over the 20 foot setback.
The commission is in favor of an effective date of J anuary 1, 2023.
Perez clarifies criteria is needed for the correction process not an appeal
process. She supports the effective dates, recommending to change the
restoration time period, and referencing 14-10-4 in C-2.
Bruno says its not an appeal process so much as a correction.
April 19, 2022 - Page 496 of 569
Perez asks for clarity from Town Attorney if this correction process meets
legal requirements.
Spence says he will work with the Town Attorney on this.
Brian Gillette moved to continue to February 28, 2022. Henry Pratt
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
3.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development
Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and
landscaping in the W ildland Urban I nterface to reduce the risk of wildfire
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-0002)
30 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada
Planner:Greg Roy
Paul Cada is the W ildland Program Manager. Cada gives a presentation on
proposed changes to W UI code amendments in Ch. 12 and 14, as well as a
separate code proposal for chapter 5.
Gillette asks a clarification about the existing exemption for reskins.
Gillette is concerned about removing the exemption for additions under 500
square feet.
Cada says as written only the part that’s added has to comply.
Gillette says from a design standpoint it might not match.
Cada says since 2019 we have not encountered a situation where an
addition hasn’t met design standards because of that.
Gillette gives an example about cedar shakes.
Cada says the materials adoption in 2019 doesn’t allow siding with openings.
Spence says the exemption doesn’t include prohibited materials.
Gillette asks if prior to this was there anything saying you couldn’t use cedar
shake. W hy would you have something that didn’t match the rest of the
house?
Cada clarifies the language from 2019.
Gillette says the exemption for tiny additions was there because would burn
anyway so why not have it be the same material.
Spence says it hasn’t come up in the last two years.
Perez says two years might not be enough to say.
Gillette agrees with the reskin proposal but doesn’t want to see the exemption
changed for additions under 500 square feet.
Cada says compliance siding cannot have things like shake. W ill a 250
square foot addition make a difference? Often it includes other things. W hat
April 19, 2022 - Page 497 of 569
we;’re trying to do is limit the number of exceptions. The intent as council
agreed is how to implement these codes quicker.
Spence says if the commission would like to forward a recommendation that
this exception is maintained they can do that.
Phillips asks for a straw poll.
The commission supports maintaining the exemption for additions under 500
square feet.
The commission is in favor of the reskin proposal.
The commission is in favor of mansard roof proposal.
Gillette talks about limits of disturbance, and how often you are required to
remove all the trees on site.
Cada says that is not true.
Gillette asks about a site with 15 foot property lines.
Cada references a landscape plan from 272 W Meadow. The Fire
Department will work together with projects to identify the best fit. I gnition
resistant was non-prescriptive to allow flexibility.
Gillette asks if you can have trees withing 15 feet of a house.
Cada says on existing structures, existing trees can remain.
Spence says there is not a section of the code that says you can’t. I t’s
based on the landscape guidelines.
Philips says this gives the Fire Department the opportunity to work with
homeowners and find the best solution.
Spence says staff had the same concerns as Gillette during the initial
proposal in 2019 which proved unfounded.
Cada talks about the review process with ignition resistant landscape
guidelines.
No one opposes the landscaping guidelines.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve, with amendment to keep exemption in 12-
11-3 relating to addition under 500 square feet. Brian Gillette seconded the
motion and it passed (7-0).
3.3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend
the regulations on landscaping to clarify how landscaping beneath decks
should be considered and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-
0001)
The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 14, 2022 P E C
Meeting.
2 min.
April 19, 2022 - Page 498 of 569
Applicant:Town of Vail
Planner:Greg Roy
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to March 14, 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the
motion and it passed (7-0).
3.4.A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major
amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons,
pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to
allow for reconfiguration of existing accommodation units, fractional fee units
and dwelling units, and to amend the Employee Housing Plan to locate a
portion of the existing onsite employee housing offsite, located at 1 Vail
Road/Lots A-C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (P E C21-0059)
This item will be renoticed for a later date.
2 min.
Applicant:Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau
Planner:J onathan Spence
4.Approval of Minutes
4.1.J anuary 24, 2022 P E C Results
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
5.Adjournment
Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the
Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
April 19, 2022 - Page 499 of 569
April 19, 2022 - Page 500 of 569
P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL
C O M M IS S IO N
F ebruary 28, 2022, 1:00 P M
Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom
75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.Call to Order
1.1.Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
1.2.Attendance
2.Executive Session
2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town
Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding
proposed code amendments.
3.Main Agenda
3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a
new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback
Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043)
20 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden
Planner:Greg Roy
Planner Roy introduces the item.
Peter W adden is the Watershed Education Coordinator. He gives a
presentation recapping changes made since the last meeting based on
feedback from the Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) and
public comment. He addresses proposed changes to the corrections
process since the last meeting. I n the previous meeting, the P E C directed
the change from an appeal process to a corrections process. The proposed
corrections process will use the same methodology as original process using
the Two-Year Flood Line. He outlines the proposed corrections process. He
addresses public comment from One W illow Bridge.
Wadden gives a diagram of the proposed ordinance and how cross-sections
would work in the proposed corrections process. He contrasts this with
previously proposed Army Corps Methodology which could create
inconsistency in setbacks between neighboring properties.
April 19, 2022 - Page 501 of 569
He talks about the Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy. Existing setbacks have
not adequately protected Gore Creek.
Perez thanks Staff for making changes. She finds the text amendment
somewhat deficient. The effective date the P E C recommended is not in the
text amendment, it should be in there.
Kendra Carberry says it is in the actual ordinance in Section 8.
Roy says it will be in the language of the ordinance before Town Council.
Perez says we should add it in proposed recommendation. Make it clear to
Town Council that that is in our recommendation.
Gillette says the date was in the text in the code in another section.
Roy clarifies those are used in a different manner.
Perez addresses the two-year period for rebuilds. She is wondering about
getting that language changed.
Phillips says changing that language within the building department code
would be problematic. Changing that could have considerable consequences
within the building code.
Gillette says it needs to be a separate process but done concurrently with
this process.
Perez is concerned that issue was not addressed on the agenda.
The original charts showed the number of non-conforming structures but not
units, so she is concerned about multi-family properties. The number of
properties impacted is higher, do you have that number?
Wadden says he has the number of structures.
Perez says this wasn’t addressed by Town attorneys. W e need to know the
numbers of other areas around town that will be impacted.
Wadden says it’s difficult to parse out individual units within a multifamily
development. W hen it redevelops, you’re not taking away the property rights
of an individual property.
Perez says that is not her concern. Her concern is the criteria under which
the P E C is asked to make a recommendation. She cites Criteria #2 and #4.
We have focused purely on the environmental issues, so she wants to
balance the other considerations. The number of properties versus
structures ties into development objectives and master plans. This is why she
wants the numbers. This is not a personal concern this a community
concern.
Wadden cites the numbers regarding structures.
Perez talks about structures with multiple units. The numbers are magnified
in multi-unit buildings. She would like to know the numbers of individual
properties impacted. She’s in favor of the no-mow zone and concept but
feels like we don’t yet have a clear picture.
April 19, 2022 - Page 502 of 569
Perez cites Section C-1-G, line. She cites the “or/and” language.
Wadden says it should be and/or.
Perez asks what is the intent? Can we get some clarity on this section?
Wadden defers to attorneys on code language.
Gillette says with duplexes or townhomes, this ordinance could impact some
property owners on a lot but not all of them depending on the location.
Wadden says when non-conformity comes into play when it is torn down
and rebuilt the whole building is impacted.
Perez asks what about cases of fire? W hat is the intent for language in C-1-
G?
Matt Mire thinks the language is and/or. I t was probably a typo.
Perez asks which one is it?
Mire assumes it is and/or but will clarify it.
Perez says this a text amendment, so we have to nitpick the details.
Gillette likes the idea that with the three cross-sections you can get rid of
some of the anomalies that would otherwise occur. Do we know if the 2-year
high water mark is correct? W ith the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHW M)
you’re not approximating it, you’re finding it in the field. W ith the floodlines
we’re approximating the high-water mark. W hat we really want to do is start
the setback from the actual edge of the creek. W hy don’t we look and see
what’s there?
Wadden says the 2-year floodline is not visible but is present and
immutable.
Gillette has asked surveyors who says the cross-sections can be more
expensive than finding the high-water mark. You’re not gaining consistency
moving from the high water mark to floodlines.
Wadden says he does not agree with that point.
Gillette questions how accurate the cross-sections would be as proposed.
Wadden clarifies the minimum requirements in the proposed corrections
process.
Gillette talks about an anomaly at Mill Creek Circle. A situation like that could
throw off a cross-section.
Wadden says this could be addressed by taking more cross-sections.
Kjesbo says you could take additional cross-sections to address those
situations.
Phillips says last time we agreed on the Two-Year Flood line (TY F L). The
modeling is not arbitrary, it provides at least a baseline for the setback.
April 19, 2022 - Page 503 of 569
Kjesbo says Staff wants one baseline not either or, then there is a consistent
baseline.
Gillette asks what if baseline is wrong?
Perez says last time we asked for criteria for the corrections process. The
current criteria are muddying the waters more.
Phillips says the cross-section points are not arbitrary, they are at both
property lines and the center.
Wadden says staff discussed this point so that property owners could not
cluster them where they want. The more data we have the better the model
gets. The corrections we receive will also change the line for adjacent
property owners.
Perez says the property line for the structure is not the same as a unit. This
is why we need more fine-tuning.
Wadden says it’s shared property in the case of multi-family.
Perez cites examples of areas she is concerned about. This effects the
entire town, it’s a good start to the criteria but it’s still not finalized because it
could be manipulated.
Wadden says it is less easily manipulated than the OHW M.
Gillette says the correction process will make the town modeling more
precise. But if the TY F L is wrong, it’s not going to correct for that error.
Wadden says it may not be precisely the bank in all cases. I t’s more
important to have a clear baseline for the regulation.
Gillette says the corrections process should address that by finding the bank
in the field.
Wadden says the intent is finding a clear and equitable baseline.
Gillette asks what if it is giving you less of a setback?
Wadden says the TY F L is more equitable because it doesn’t differ based on
the width of the creek at that point. The TY FL will always be the same no
matter who calculates it.
Gillette asks how is there human error identifying the OHW M but not the
TY FL?
Wadden says there is subjectivity to the OHW M process. Different
surveyors can find different results.
Environmental Sustainability Director Kristen Bertuglia says staff has
discussed some of these concerns. The TY FL is an actual elevation that
exists. W hereas with the OHW M there is more subjectivity. The TY F L can’t
be wrong, the more refined it is the better it is.
Gillette wants whichever method protects the creek better. Now you’re
April 19, 2022 - Page 504 of 569
saying your neighbor can change your lines based on their cross-sections.
Wadden says corrections should refine the line and improve it. The TY FL is
most susceptible to inaccuracy where it is farthest from a cross-section.
More cross-sections will make the model more accurate.
Phillips asks which process is more arbitrary.
Wadden says the OHW M is more subjective.
Phillips confirms that experts have said that the TY F L is the more consistent
mark. Water flow can change the OHW M measurement. He wants a
consistent baseline for citizens to look at. There is a corrections process if
they find inconsistencies. Surveyors say year to year the OHW M is all over
the place.
Wadden says Staff shares that opinion and proposed the TY F L as a more
objective baseline.
Bruno agrees with Phillips. We have to look at science and what is most
consistent and reliable. She appreciates that people have a chance to make
corrections. We’re heading in the right direction; our creek needs us to act.
Gillette clarifies that finding the OHW M is no longer in the proposed
corrections process.
Bertuglia says the corrections process now uses the same methodology as
the TY F L, rather than using the OHW M which is more subjective. The
proposed corrections process provides a way to correct it, but it’s not using
either/or method. The OHW M line moves year to year so we would end up
with checkerboard regulations. The variance process allows for people
whose property has special circumstances.
Gillette clarifies that the TY FL moves just as much as the OHW M year to
year?
Wadden says there is such imprecision in the OHW M process, the
centerline moved by 50 feet between one application and the next.
Gillette says there is human error in a cross-section. I t’s silly to say that one
is more accurate than the other.
Wadden says there could be error in both processes but that there is more
in the OHW M methodology.
Kurz cites section D-1-A, where the language is unclear.
Wadden says “which” will be added.
Gillette asks about the corrections process.
Wadden says some individuals might have more wherewithal to go through
corrections process with the OHW M as previously proposed.
Kurz asks for public comment.
Heather Houston says there is a lot of confusion between the TY FL and
April 19, 2022 - Page 505 of 569
OHW M. The TY FL relies on a lot of assumptions, it’s not fair to say it’s
more accurate than the OHW M. I t relies on specific topographic data and
vegetation. There are a lot of inputs in the model that rely on assumptions. I t
is estimating something that can be found in the field. The two sets of
flagging that were presented make that method seem more imprecise than it
actually is. She questions the assertion that the two studies show the
OHW M is more imprecise. The differences are a few inches in most cases.
The OHW M is not arbitrary, there is some interpretation but something
within six inches of each other is a pretty good result. The 2-year floodline
model depends on the accuracy of the inputs. The cross-sections are more
expensive than a survey.
Dick Parker references a memo he sent the P E C. He is a resident of Vail
Rowhouses since 1975. He represents the owners on the west half who are
in one building. His concern is that the proposed ordinance moves their
building into non-compliance, after they just went through the process of the
Vail Village Rezoning. W e’ve corrected one thing and we’ve moved to
another. We haven’t discussed topography in this discussion. On our site,
the aerial measurement is different than the linear measurement on grade.
We all have the same interests in mind, but this regulation as proposed
would put this building in non-compliance. He asks for consideration of the
unintended consequences of regulations as written.
Kurz says we only received your memo today.
Parker asks are we going to regulate human activity of using the stream,
which is a big factor. The city parks are mowed up to the stream. The big
factor is consideration, he appreciates Ms. Perez’s comments. He is
concerned about putting buildings into non-compliance.
Perez asks that the memo from today is put into the record.
Kjesbo asks about the concerns on non-conformity.
Roy says you only need variance if you’re looking to expand the portion that
is non-conforming. You do not need a variance to improve any other parts of
the building.
Kjesbo says you don’t need a variance unless you’re making the non-
conformity worse.
Perez asks about the example of redoing a patio.
Roy says you could maintain a non-conforming patio.
Gillette asks about a deck that is non-conforming, could you replace a rotted
deck?
Roy says removing and replacing it would require a variance.
Perez is concerned that replacing a rotted deck for safety would require a
variance. The language is lawfully existing, once you become non-
conforming you’re no longer lawfully existing.
Kjesbo says this point has to be clarified.
Parker says in the past non-conforming comes to interpretation of the
April 19, 2022 - Page 506 of 569
individual person working within the building department.
Wadden addresses the property that Mr. Parker is referring to.
Kjesbo says there must be a definition. You should be able to rebuild
something for safety without needing a variance.
Perez echoes that concern and cites the existing language.
Mike Smith talks about One W illow Bridge. He talks about the mapping lines
on this property. He understands that this could be a mapping issue and not
the data itself. He appreciates Staffs’ consideration of this issue. He still has
concerns; it’s not assured that the corrections process will address this
issue. They are also concerned about the cross-sections process in this
case. The variance process also does not provide comfort to property
owners. Significant uncertainty remains. The map should be revised to remit
the TY F L at 1 W illow Bridge. The 25’ setbacks will convert complying
buildings to non-conformance and the 1 year timeframe should be extended
from one to two years.
Dominic Mauriello speaks on behalf of Evergreen Lodge. Last time the P E C
said there needs to be a OHW M opportunity for people to question the
TY FL. That is no longer in the proposed ordinance, there is no longer a
provision for the OHW M. The OHW M does not change year to year. The
surveyors he talked to have been comfortable using the Army Corps
methodology. The corrections process is not as simple as represented. He
cites examples of variable data from past meeting. He says property lines
aren’t smooth and it’s hard to have a smooth line between those. Relying on
an engineered model is what’s causing the inconsistencies rather than going
out and measuring it in the field. W hat is the new lidar data that’s coming?
He appreciates that the effective date is not until the end of the year, does
that give more time to consider the new lidar data and take some OHW M
measurements?
Kurz asks for commissioner comments.
Phillips agrees with Gillette and Perez regarding the corrections process.
Surveyors are not agreeing on this issue across the valley. Perhaps the
OHW M could be in the corrections process rather than the latest proposed
method. He wants to find a baseline; we can’t keep kicking the can down the
road. W e need to seize the moment, and try to find some continuity with a
baseline that still provides the owners an option. I f you live on the river you
probably have the resources to go through the corrections process. W e’ve
sacrificed this creek too long.
Gillette says going back to the OHW M in the corrections process solves a
lot of these issues. I t’s a simple process that would happen anyways. He is
curious whether the Army Corps methodology eliminates problem with man-
made drainages. The concerns about clarifying what can be rebuilt is
important. W e need more definition before this ordinance goes into effect.
He agrees with Perez that we need to see progress on this before we
forward a recommendation. I t will have ramifications on day one of the
effective date.
Kjesbo says this will put more properties into non-conformance and we have
to have a remedy. I f something isn’t safe the owners need a way to rebuild.
He understands Staff’s desire for consistency in the regulation. Maybe we
April 19, 2022 - Page 507 of 569
should look at things this summer now that we’ve settled on an effective date.
He agrees with Perez, how does the number of individual structures impact
individual units?
Gillette asks if each individual owner on the creek was notified?
Wadden says in the case of HOAs, they were sent to HOAs.
Gillette asks if we should notify every single owner.
Pratt says being on the other side, it’s easier to notify the HOAs.
Perez says there’s no one size fits all but has concerns that about the
notification.
Bellm says we can’t email, the county provides addresses not emails.
Perez asks about other outreach efforts.
Spence says notice requirements are legal requirements that are part of the
town code. They are required by law, not subject to review by the P E C.
Staff will continue to do this until directed otherwise by Town Council.
Pratt is concerned one size doesn’t fit all. Everyone in this process has had
an example of a non-conformity. I t bothers him that they are going down that
road. W e all agree on the 10’ no-mow zone, why not pass a
recommendation to Town Council to enact that now. Then we could take time
on the setback issue. I f 25’ is good for Gore Creek, it seems excessive for
the tributaries, 20’ could be good for those. He agrees the OHW M should be
part of the corrections process and also understands Staff’s desire for a
consistent baseline.
Bruno leaves the meeting.
Perez agrees there haven’t been concerns about the no-mow zone. She
says the environmental concerns are important, but we need to look at the
units affected by non-conformity. She also wants to address the non-
conforming time period concurrently, as well as the language for rebuilds.
She knows the code section is complex and appreciates Staff’s efforts. She
says artificial drainageways should be an exclusion to the setback. She
thanks staff for the hard work, let’s take the time that it needs to get it right.
Kurz says the P E C has shown respect for both the public and the process,
as well as property owners. By delaying implementation, the P E C has
shown concern for the issue. He had hoped for a conclusion before some
Commission members terms run out. He is concerned about kicking the
can, we potentially weaken the outcome of what we want to do. Because of
the input in the process, we’ve come a long way in getting to the right place,
even if we’re not quite there yet. He commends Staff and Wadden during
this process. Eventually this will be a star in the cap of this community. He
asks for a tabling so that comments from today can be incorporated moving
today.
Gillette asks about the date for term limits.
Bellm says end of March.
April 19, 2022 - Page 508 of 569
Pratt asks if it’s possible to split the 10’ mow-zone from this and get that
approved.
Roy says we can’t discuss an ongoing application with Town Council unless
we get a recommendation today.
Perez reminds Wadden about the language changes in C-1-G, D-1-A.
Roy says Staff is asking for a vote not a tabling today.
Gillette doesn’t think that is appropriate. W e’re supposed to vet legislation,
we shouldn’t vote until that is complete. The comments from the P E C need
to be submitted to the Council.
Perez says if you want an up or down vote today, it won’t be a good vote.
Roy says the P E C comments would be included in report to Council.
Gillette says not all of the P E C’s concerns from last meeting were included
in the latest proposal.
Perez says the proposal is still unclear, we’re not there yet and would like to
see this through to completion.
Perez moves to table. Gillette seconds.
Kurz asks for further discussion of the motion.
Wadden says he won’t interrupt the process. I f this commission wants to
table, he won’t interrupt.
Pratt says it cannot be discussed with Council until the P E C votes.
Phillips would like Council to know where the process is, we’re close to
finishing this up.
Bellm says Council will get the minutes from this meeting.
Spence says staff will provide Council with an update. W e won’t discuss the
specifics but will make them aware of the status of the application. He
clarifies that Staff can’t look for direction from them out of order. The
minutes will also be available to them.
Gillette clarifies does the creek have gold medal trout status.
Wadden says gold medal status is present from Red Sandstone Creek to
Eagle River. C D P HE status is not there on the whole creek.
Phillips says Gold Medal status was lost on the upper creek in the mid-
eighties.
4.Approval of Minutes
4.1.February 14, 2022 P E C Results
Perez has a clarification on page two that she asked for the number of units
April 19, 2022 - Page 509 of 569
5.I nformational Update
5.1.Aquatic Entomologist, Dave Rees, will provide an update on macro
invertebrate populations in Gore Creek as surveyed in September 2020.
40 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail
Planner:Pete W adden
6.Adjournment
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the
Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Daily February 25, 2022
April 19, 2022 - Page 510 of 569
P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL
C O M M IS S IO N
M arch 14, 2022, 1:00 P M
Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom
75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.Call to Order
1.1.Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_tX L0eRs9QKieoSkwg888J w
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
1.2.Attendance
Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Henry
Pratt, Reid Phillips
Absent:J enn Bruno
2.Site Visits
2.1.Four Seasons
3.Main Agenda
3.1.A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major
amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons,
pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to
allow for reconfiguration of existing accommodation units, fractional fee units
and dwelling units, and to amend the Employee Housing Plan to locate a
portion of the existing onsite employee housing offsite, located at 1 Vail
Road/Lots A-C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (P E C21-0059)
60 min.
Applicant:Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau
Planner:J onathan Spence
Planner Spence introduces the project and gives a short verbal introduction
on what is included in the staff report. He goes over how since the 2017,
when an S D D was last amended, there was only some buildout of what was
approved at that time. The floor plans submitted with that amendment were
not followed and other units were converted instead of the approved units.
The applicant is proposing to amend the unit mix and move Employee
Housing Units (E HU) off-site and out of town. The applicants are looking for
a decision today, but staff is recommending this item be continued to a
future meeting to allow for revision and a holistic approach to the E HU
replacement.
Perez wants to know why these units are underutilized. I f we allow these
units to move out of town how does the Town enforce the deed restrictions?
April 19, 2022 - Page 511 of 569
Spence answers that deed restrictions and housing plans are usually very
specific and include a specific unit in question but due to the size of the
request that is not available at this time.
Perez says she will wait until after the presentation to ask more questions.
Kurz compliments the narrative and says he still has concerns to be brought
up.
Andrew Sellnau asks that Gary Barnett starts the presentation off.
Gary Barnett goes over how they came to own the property, the
improvements they made, and how it is now one of the finest hotels in Vail.
One of the lingering issues they have not tackled is the E HUs on the site
and how they have been underutilized. Employees come with families or
pets and do not want to go in double occupancy rooms. They believe the
units would be better utilized as hotel rooms and housing would be better for
employees outside of town. They believe they’ve worked well with the town
and would like approval as they are getting close to construction season.
Sellnau starts off with the history of the S D D in 2001 and as amended in
’03, ’05, and ’17. The E HUs were conceived and built to house 56
employees. They have not seen dorm rooms used in other areas of town.
Town code currently has a minimum of 200S F per employee, these dorm
rooms are 166S F per person and don’t meet the current code as it was
changed after their original approval. The dorms don’t have kitchens, so
employees have to cook in the microwave, or they can use the on-site
employee cafeteria for their meals. Three meals are provided daily. The
dorms have J ack/J ill bathrooms between units, so they service four
employees per bathroom.
Pre-covid and post-covid the dorm rooms are used and desired by J -1
program employees but have not been found to be desired by those that
come with families or pets. These units are useful for visa employees
throughout the year, so we plan to keep half of them on-site. The dorms will
house about 12% of the employees who are more transient than the majority
of employees. W here these units are not useful is for year-round and long-
term employees. Looking at options for how to repurpose them the best way
to develop them is into hotel rooms. I f they were to be repurposed into
alternative employee units, they would significantly restrict in unit
configuration and number of replacements.
The price has been maintained at $600/mo per employee and that amount
has not changed over the years.
Sellnau goes over the chart of the utilization. They have never been able to
meet the requirement of having a full 56 employee occupying the units. They
would like to see the utilization at 100% but are significantly short of that.
They would like to achieve three things, come up with a solution of unit
utilization, change the unit mix of the hotel, and find units off-site to meet
their employee housing requirement.
They’ve met with the V LHA on three occasions and made amendments to
the plan accordingly. They’ve looked at this over the last five years as the
units have not been fully occupied and believe that Vail has changed over
the time since these units were built. That at one point Vail was very
seasonal and hotels could run off of seasonal employees, but now that Vail is
April 19, 2022 - Page 512 of 569
more year-round, a need for year-round employees and housing for them,
has emerged. The proposal that has gone through three iterations. First was
replacing the 16 units on site with 16 bedrooms offsite, from Vail all the way
to Edwards through master leases on those bedrooms. The feedback was
that master leases was not a good idea and difficult to ensure that was
provided on a consistent basis. The second proposal was to replace 16 units
with 16 deed restricted bedrooms. The V LHA said that the replacement
should be based on employees not bedrooms. Now the latest, and current,
iteration is to replace 32 employees with 32 employees based on the
bedroom equivalency chart in town code.
To abide by this chart the change from dorm rooms to bedrooms would
come with an increase in square footage. Sellnau goes over how town code
has changed since these units were originally developed and currently how
larger square footage is required. I n addition to looking at replacing these in
the Town Four Seasons needs to look outside of the town in order to make
this successful. They believe it would be a significant challenge to find this
amount of deed restrictions within Town limits. Numbers from the Vail I ndeed
program are given in relation to the success of the program. The applicant
believes Vail Health struggled with this and thus paid a fee in lieu. They
relate to recent Town ballots and Council questions about whether money or
units could be used or found outside of Town.
Four Seasons is not proposing to remove all the units outside of town, just
16 out of 28. The other 12 would remain in the building. They plan to ask
employees if they could purchase deed restrictions on the homes that the
employees currently own. They could also try to provide a down payment
assistance to employees that are currently renting so that they could move
into a home that would then be deed restricted. I f units were still needed,
they would then go to outside owners to purchase a deed-restriction and,
hopefully, getting a master lease on those units if they came up for rent.
Approximately 70% of their employees live outside of Vail and in order to get
deed restrictions on their homes Four Seasons would need to be able to
provide deed restrictions outside of Vail. Limiting it to the Town of Vail would
be unworkable and would not solve the underlying issue that is faced. They
would like to find a solution immediately. The proposal is that up-to 32
employees would be able to be provided off-site. Sellnau gives examples of
how the numbers would work on a rolling basis. As units are provided off-site
the on-site equivalency would be able to be remodeled into accommodation
units.
The purpose of doing it through an S D D process is because they are in an
S D D and must do so. I t also allows for some leniency through the S D D
process, and their proposal can be flexible. Goes over some of the criteria
for an S D D amendment and how the proposal is meeting the stated criteria.
Allowing them to go off-site would be a chance to preserve units in the valley
for employees rather than short term rentals. They are unaware of other
properties that have attempted to move this many units off-site and the
challenges that provides. For that reason, using the deed-restriction program
that requires a multiplier should not be applicable in this situation.
More criteria are gone through and how this proposal is meeting them.
Going from unoccupied and underutilized dorm rooms to new deed
restricted housing will not increase foot or vehicle traffic. I f the units were
occupied it would be increasing traffic, but as they were empty, it would not
actually increase the traffic from how it exists today.
April 19, 2022 - Page 513 of 569
A slide is shown on the “summary and benefits” of the proposal. The net
effect of this is that the square footage will increase and the misconception
of how employees will be housed in the 2020s will be corrected.
Applicant presentation is over.
Perez found the presentation was disturbing as they have been checking the
box that they were meeting the deed restriction when the units were sitting
vacant for more than three months, which is the maximum allowed in Town
Code. W hy did they wait so long to come to the Town to fix the situation if it
has been going on for five years?
Sellnau says that they were preoccupied with fixing the interior issues to the
hotel and to fix the other units to get ready to sell them and fix the unit mix
from hotel keys to produce occupancy. They also thought perhaps that the
underutilization was due to the lack of business at the hotel. But saw as
business picked up the occupancy of the E HUs did not follow suit.
Perez asks why not reconfigure the existing on-site E HUS. Perez is
concerned with decreasing onsite and in the building housing. Have you
used “best efforts” instead of what you said you did, which is that a
“reasonable” effort was made?
Sellnau said it is impossible to reconfigure the E HUs without significant
reduction in hotel rooms.
Perez says you’re essentially asking for a variance. One of the things
you’re looking at is providing housing for families. Your units now would
provide housing for two employees and you’ll be going to one with a family
and be housing less of your employees. I t makes Perez uncomfortable that
the Town would not have jurisdiction to require these deed restrictions to be
followed. We would like you to go back and develop a more comprehensive
plan that says we’ve approached employees and have solutions compared to
just ideas of how this will be accomplished. The proposal is not sufficiently
definite to show that you are able to meet the requirements.
Barnett says that they would only end up with 3 or 4 units that would work
with reconfiguration of the existing units. W e still have on-site housing, but it
would be a shame to not increase the value or utilization of the units by
changing them.
Perez says the housing crisis isn’t new and that this should be an “and”
solution and not an “either/or”. Saying we aren’t adding car trips because
they are underutilized isn’t an argument because the existing units should
currently be utilized.
Pratt asks if the S D D requirement is based on beds, units, or square
footage?
Spence says it mixed over time, it was based on square footage and beds
with previous code language but was always an employee requirement in
essence. The difference was how it was calculated. The choice to go from
dorm to a larger unit with multiple bedrooms adds square footage per the
table but is not above and beyond the requirement. Staff watched the V LHA
meeting, and the V L HA said they would come back with a written
recommendation, but that was not presented or approved at subsequent
April 19, 2022 - Page 514 of 569
meetings.
Pratt asks if the E HUS turned to A Us would be accessed by the existing
balcony or from inside the hotel.
Sellnau states that they would be accessed from the inside.
Pratt, if the original requirement was based on square footage, and you
remodeled to different units, but kept the same square footage, that he would
be in favor of that approach.
Sellnau, believes that is not how the S D D reads, and that they have to
provide 28 type 3 E HUs and have to provide housing for 56 employees. The
square footage amount was removed in 2003 and switched to employees.
Pratt would be in favor of keeping the same square footage and just mixing
the type of units provided.
Sellnau seems to think there would be a significant requirement still left over.
Perez adds that it would be an “and” solution and would be in addition to
other units.
Barnett asks whether that would be the best use or not.
Perez adds that having fewer units occupied would be an improvement from
where you said you are today.
Barnett said that the costs could be too much for the benefit received. The
remodel would cost too much for too little gain.
Pratt asks about the multiplier for an E HU conversion as mentioned in the
staff report.
Spence adds that the deed restriction exchange program is there for the
review of relocating existing E HUS to different location. He explains the idea
of core area housing, core to core movement of E HUs is mitigated at a
square foot ratio of 2:1, core to outside core is a ratio of 3:1 that must be
provided.
Kjesbo asks that when an application is proposing a major amendment to an
S D D do they have to come into compliance with current code?
Spence states that the current code is the barometer we use to review
applications and make recommendations.
Kjesbo, so the dorm units today wouldn’t meet the requirement today?
Spence, correct.
Kjesbo was on P E C in ’03 and’05. The benefits when P E C approved the
Four Seasons S D D was the housing on site. Now the proposal is to move
57% as far down valley as Edwards. The rules have changed, and the
adjustments needs to meet code. Highline was just approved with dorm
rooms and if we approve this, they could come in with an application to do
the same thing and move their required housing down valley. W e approved
5000sf of housing on site and that was the major benefit of the S D D.
April 19, 2022 - Page 515 of 569
Kurz was in this same chair 20 years ago when this was approved. He
remembers how after serious negotiations the town was all happy with the
results. I t put employees in the middle of town with no need for cars and was
self-sustained. They thought this would make a huge impact and he believes
it did. W e applaud you on sticking with those negotiations, but now we are
turning this around by having people live as far away as Edwards. By
moving more people down valley there is a direct impact with parking and
transportation. I understand the upgrade of the units is important, but the
proposed cost would be significant. He looked at the schedules and it could
have been a management issue as to why employees didn’t stay in the units.
There could have been things done different to allow them to stay. Offsite as
far as Edwards is not in the best interest of the community. He agrees that
Vail has changed.
Pratt asks about some of the A Us going to D Us and how the proposal states
that they will be in the rental program, are they required to be?
Sellnau responds that they are not required to be. Out of the 12 D Us from
last time that were converted they have 11 that are still in the rental program.
More guests are looking to stay in condos or homes similar to Airbnb and
V RB O. They find that guests still like the amenities of the hotel mixed with
those more livable units. The concern that the condos would be sitting there
empty has not been realized.
Pratt says how they alluded to Vail Health used the pay in lieu, and that
should be an option here as well. Agrees that the remodel of the on-site units
would be best.
Phillips says how you’ve made no accommodation for employee parking on
site.
Sellnau employees either carpool or use public transportation.
Phillips asks if employee parking is provided on site?
Sellnau says there is no parking dedicated to employees on site.
Phillips says that this proposal is basically to create an E HU pathway for
some of your employees with houses down valley to restrict them as E HUS,
correct?
Sellnau says yes, they live there today but they could sell to someone else
or create a V RB O tomorrow and it would no longer be employee housing.
Perez, the proposal is basically to utilize what is already there, not adding
the housing stock.
Sellnau says that’s true, but no guarantee that those non-deed restricted
homes will not be sold to someone who is not an employee. W e see
tremendous turnover and people cycle from hotel to hotel and place to place.
We see a fair amount of turnover year in and year out and if they relocate,
they’ll sell their home.
Pratt, they could sell the deed restricted housing to people that work
someone else, and that housing is gone for the Four Season and possibly
the town.
April 19, 2022 - Page 516 of 569
Sellnau whoever lives there would have to work in the town.
Perez it doesn’t meet the Four Season obligation then. These units are for
Four Seasons employees.
Barnett, we intend to provide that housing to put less burden on the housing
base in the Town of Vail.
Pratt corrects the record that there was a housing problem 44 years ago,
not just 20. Kjesbo concurs.
Kurz asks how likely that inventory is available for deed restrictions?
As a further example of another option Spence says you can buy a deed
restriction or you can buy a house, put a deed restriction on it and hold the
house as a financial asset and use it for employee housing.
Barnett asks if anyone looked at what it costs to buy in Vail lately.
Sellnau, said they could do that in the proposal as it is stated today.
Perez says it would be more palatable.
Barnett says it would be difficult to do except outside of Vail.
Public comment is opened and closed with no public comment.
Pratt clarifies that the motion is based on what was presented today.
Karen Perez moved to send a recommendation of denial. Rollie Kjesbo
seconded the motion and it passed (5-0).
Abstain:(1)Gillette
Absent:(1)Bruno
3.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a
new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and W aterbody Setback
Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043)
45 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden
Planner:Greg Roy
Planner Roy introduces the item and summarizes the changes from the
previous meeting.
Peter W adden is the Watershed Education Coordinator. Wadden
summarizes the changes made from the last meeting. He talks about the
objectives of the stream corridor protection ordinance. He talks about the
proposed corrections process. He talks about the policy in the Gore Creek
Strategic Plan. He talks about the number of non-conforming buildings and
acres protected under various scenarios. He talks about why staff
recommends a 25’ setback.
April 19, 2022 - Page 517 of 569
Pratt asks about the corrections process. I s there a vehicle for the Town to
challenge a surveyor ’s word?
Wadden says at previous meetings the P E C had indicated that they did not
want staff making qualitative reviews.
Pratt notes that half of the increased acreage is on the tributaries. He would
not have expected that.
Kjesbo asks about a 20’ setback on tributaries. I t would take a lot of units out
of non-conformity. A 25’ setback on tributaries adds many more units into
non-conformity.
Wadden says it is a large number of units but a small number of structures.
Roy says they are most likely multifamily structures which couldn’t develop
individually.
Kjesbo says an individual owner can get permission to renovate their unit if
their HOA agrees.
Phillips thanks staff. The scientific recommendation is a 25’ minimum
setback, we’re at the lowest threshold compared to other resort towns in the
west. 20’ on tributaries might be a palatable compromise. Given the
corrections process, it is a stamped surveyor that must provide that
information. The town could invalidate it if that requirement is not met. Some
people will keep hiring surveyors until they get the right result. He would like
a provision for peer review of a surveyor ’s result.
Gillette thinks that might be available already. Staff already reviews
applications for compliance, he doesn’t think this is different.
Wadden says in the larger code there is a mechanism for staff to challenge
submitted surveys.
Phillips is content as long as we have a backstop for these concerns.
Pratt wants to protect public interests as well as private.
Gillette clarifies the difference in non-conforming structures with 20’ versus
25’ setback.
Pratt says W adden has done an outstanding job with this. He hasn’t
previously seen a controversial application handled this well.
Perez agrees. C-1-G, C-2-B, “lawfully existing” language. She still has
concerns about the term “lawfully existing” in the proposed language, as well
as the timeframe allowed to rebuild non-conforming structures.
Roy says the proposed language is lawfully established.
Perez asks about the recommended revision on 12-18-9?
Roy says that it’s in the memo to Town Council.
Perez says the P E C recommendation was these be presented
simultaneously.
April 19, 2022 - Page 518 of 569
Roy says we will bring this to Town Council.
Perez asks if this is in the memo?
Roy says it was attached to it.
Pratt wants a strong recommendation to Council that they evaluate the one-
year timeframe to rebuild in 12-18-9.
Gillette says the language in the existing code is inadequate in describing
what is allowed in setbacks. He thinks an amendment to that section of the
code should be made.
Roy clarifies the sections in Title 14 regarding setbacks that address these
issues.
Dick Parker is a resident of the Vail rowhouses. He thinks Wadden has
done a good job with the presentation. He has one point of concern left. The
proposal is talking about an aerial view and not topography. He asks for a
corrections provision if the aerial view differs from the linear measurement
and puts a building in non-compliance.
Pratt asks about the science of aerial view versus linear measurement.
Wadden says if we allow choice between these, applications could take the
measurement which would reduce the area protected by this ordinance.
Roy says setbacks look at a site plan view and not topography. I t would be
inconsistent with the rest of the town code to do so.
Gillette says the 10’ no mow zone will be better on a flat parcel versus steep.
Wayne Forman speaks on behalf of the One W illow Bridge Road HOA.
They would like to see that it’s not the intent of setbacks to be drawn from
artificial discharges, just to make that clear. He asks about the language in
D-1 regarding the owner.
Kelli Rohrig owns a landscaping business in the valley. She says we need to
protect our waterways. She has seen the degradation to the creek as a
result of landscaping practices in the last two years. The setback will help
this issue, she agrees with the proposed ordinance.
Pratt asks about the code’s definition of property owner.
Roy says someone representing the property owners can act in this regard.
Kjesbo says the health of Gore Creek is the most important factor. He would
like Council to know the comment that it would be putting more units into
non-compliance. But the protection of the creek is ultimately the most
important thing.
Kurz says we have been working to produce a perfect ordinance, which is
impossible. W hat we have today gets the closest we can to that, it balances
various interests and protects the waterways.
Motion of approval with the comments from the P E C. The first is that the
April 19, 2022 - Page 519 of 569
timeframe to rebuild a non-conforming structure in the event of calamity be
extended from one year to two years. The second is that the proposed
language “lawfully existing” be changed to “lawfully established”. They also
recommend being able to replace non-conforming structures in the event of
a safety issue.
Pratt says council should also be made aware of the number of non-
conformities created.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommendation of approval. Henry Pratt seconded
the motion and it passed (6-0).
Absent:(1)Bruno
3.3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend
the regulations on landscaping to clarify how landscaping beneath decks
should be considered and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-
0001)
20 min.
Applicant:Town of Vail
Planner:Greg Roy
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to April 11, 2022. Henry Pratt seconded the
motion and it passed (6-0).
Absent:(1)Bruno
3.4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, Title 12
Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail
Town Code to correct out of date references and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (P E C22-0003) 2 min.
The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 28, 2022 meeting.
Applicant:Town of Vail
Planner:J onathan Spence
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to April 11, 2022. Henry Pratt seconded the
motion and it passed (6-0).
Absent:(1)Bruno
4.Approval of Minutes
4.1.February 28, 2022 P E C Results
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve as presented. Karen Perez seconded the
motion and it passed (6-0).
Absent:(1)Bruno
5.Adjournment
April 19, 2022 - Page 520 of 569
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the
Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Daily March 11, 2022
April 19, 2022 - Page 521 of 569
Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance
Vail Town Council
April 19, 2022
970.479.2144 | lovevail.org
Pete Wadden
Watershed Education Coordinator
pwadden@vailgov.com
April 19, 2022 - Page 522 of 569
Gore Creek Strategic Plan Goals
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
“The Gore Creek Strategic Plan (Plan) provides a
framework ……………designed to address current water
quality impairments and aquatic health issues affecting
Gore Creek and its tributaries.
Because these impairments are not attributed to a single
pollutant through extensive research by many entities,
actions target the three known causes of degradation:
1.Pollutants from land use activities
2.Drainage from impervious surfaces
3.The loss of riparian and streamside vegetation,
reducing the natural ability of these areas to protect
Gore Creek from effects of land use activities and
urban runoff”
April 19, 2022 - Page 523 of 569
Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
To that end the plan recommends Town of Vail:
•“Update stream setback,
riparian zone, vegetative buffer
zone and other water quality
definitions and maps”
April 19, 2022 - Page 524 of 569
How was the proposed ordinance developed?
Lovevail.org
.ittle intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Began with GCSP Policy Recommendations
Review of the best science on the subject
•EPA recommends 100 foot, three zone buffer-considers 25 feet the minimum for
inner zone
Review of setbacks in peer communities across Colorado and reality on the ground in
Vail
•25 feet is the smallest adopted by any community in CO
Community outreach and input
PEC Recommendation of Adoption to Town CouncilApril 19, 2022 - Page 525 of 569
Community input process
Lovevail.org
.ittle intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Stakeholder Sessions via zoom
April 26, 2021
April 28, 2021
TYFL Dataset available Jan. 2022
Map application available Jan. 2022
Direct Mailings to all Vail Property Owners
Press Releases
Vail Daily Articles
Facebook
Nextdoor Digest
Twitter
Vail Homeowners
Association
Newsetter
April 19, 2022 - Page 526 of 569
Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Update Titles 8, 9, 12 and 14 to establish a Stream Protection and Overlay/ Hazard Zone to
achieve riparian and buffer objectives defined by this Plan.
Restrict land uses in near stream zones to preserve or reestablish important vegetated
buffers, reduce impervious cover, and eliminate potential sources of pollutants to the
stream.
Model zoning overlays and associated land use restrictions after EPA recommendations for
a three-zone Riparian/Forested Buffer
April 19, 2022 - Page 527 of 569
Goals of an effective regulation
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
•Create a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for
building and riparian setbacks on private property in Vail
•Promote the establishment of a contiguous riparian buffer along Gore
Creek and its tributaries
•Limit turfgrass and hardscape and deter excessive chemical use within
a delineated buffer zone
April 19, 2022 - Page 528 of 569
Criteria for an effective regulation
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
To be successful this ordinance must:
1.Establish a net increase in the amount
of riparian buffer
2.Establish a net increase in the
distance of buildings and structures
from Gore Creek and its tributaries
3.Have a clear, objective and
measurable baseline in the field
4.Be consistent, fair and equitable
April 19, 2022 - Page 529 of 569
Selected building setbacks from around Colorado
Lovevail.org
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Jurisdiction Stream setback
Glenwood Springs 35 feet from bank
Eagle County 75 feet from high water line
Pitkin County 100 feet from bank
Aspen
Additional review within 100 feet of
bank
Fort Collins Minimum 50 feet from bank
Steamboat Springs 100 feet from bank
Estes Park Minimum 50 feet from bank
Colbran 100 feet from bank
Summit County 25 feet from bankApril 19, 2022 - Page 530 of 569
Existing centerline based setbacks
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
•50 feet on Gore Creek
•30 Feet on tributaries
April 19, 2022 - Page 531 of 569
Centerline setbacks can be ineffective and inequitable
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Gore Creek varies in width from about 25 feet to about 100 feet
50 feet
April 19, 2022 - Page 532 of 569
Centerline setbacks can be ineffective and inequitable
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Gore Creek varies in width from about 25 feet to about 100 feet
50 feet
April 19, 2022 - Page 533 of 569
Achieving equity and consistency through a setback from TYFL
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
In places
where the
creek is
widest, a
centerline-
based
setback is
ineffective.
Gore Creek varies in width from about 25 feet to about 100 feet
April 19, 2022 - Page 534 of 569
Effective regulation needs an established baseline
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Two Year Flood Line= FEMA methodology
•Same process used to model FEMA 100 year floodplain
•Location determined by town provided data (Lidar and field-verified elevation data)
•Surveyor uses elevation data to find the line in the field
•Objective-Line in the field will be consistent no matter who surveys it
April 19, 2022 - Page 535 of 569
Change to Building Setback
Lovevail.org
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Setback Scenario
Number of acres protected
from development
Existing 26.27
25 feet from TYFL 30.83
30 Feet from TYFL 36.72
Number of non-conforming buildings
Existing-102
25 Feet from TYFL-128
30 Feet from TYFL-165 April 19, 2022 - Page 536 of 569
Corrections process-Forwarded from PEC
1.Property owner wishes to have TYFL corrected
2.Property owner hires qualified professional to delineate
OHWM using Army Corps methodology
3.Property owner submits correction request including:
•Delineation stamped by state licensed surveyor
•Photos of cross of flags or other markers used to
delineate OHWM
4.Community Development Director will review and approve
application
a.If submittal criteria are met, basis for setbacks on that
property will move to OHWM
5.Should property owner feel they have a hardship –variance
process applies as in every other setbackApril 19, 2022 - Page 537 of 569
Staff recommends clarity and continuity in corrections
copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area.
Clear, consistent, objective baseline
•Goal of TYFL = establish a baseline for regulation that approximates
the stream bank
•Goal of the Corrections Process = Allow property owners to refine
modeling and/or mapping discrepancies
Corrections process should use same methodology –Why?
•Equity
•Consistency of regulation
•Consistency of measurement
•Ability to update maps according to corrections
•As more granular data are available, if a property owner submitted a
correction=improved accuracy of overall data set
April 19, 2022 - Page 538 of 569
Corrections process-Staff Recommendation
1.Property owner wishes to have TYFL corrected
2.Property owner hires surveyor to survey a minimum of three cross
sections on property
3.Cross sections are used by an engineer to model 2-year flood elevation
4.Property owner submits correction request including:
•Stamped letter from engineer stating 2-year flood elevation
•Photos of cross sections
•Lat/long or UTM locations of cross sections
•GIS shapefile delineating location of 2-year flood line
5.Community Development Director will review and approve application
a.If submittal criteria are met, line will be moved and recorded in
town’s data set
6.Should property owner feel they have a hardship –variance process
applies as in every other setback April 19, 2022 - Page 539 of 569
Cross Sections
copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area.
April 19, 2022 - Page 540 of 569
Corrections process should be consistent, objective
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
OHWM= Army Corps Methodology
•Requires surveyor to look for changes in vegetation, cut banks and erosive marks
•Corrections process would be a change in methodology from baseline
•Subjective-two qualified experts have been shown to delineate different lines on the
same stream
TYFL= FEMA methodology
•Same process used to model FEMA 100 year floodplain
•Corrections process introduces new data of the same type
•Objective-Line in the field will be consistent no matter who surveys it
April 19, 2022 - Page 541 of 569
Why change setbacks that have been in place since 1976?
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
•Adopted GSP policy instructs staff to “Update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative
buffer zone and other water quality definitions”
•Existing setbacks have proven ineffective in protecting Gore Creek
•Existing setbacks are not equitable April 19, 2022 - Page 542 of 569
Vail has changed a lot in 60 years
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Vail achieved urban density along Gore Creek in less than 50 years-
much of that development occurred before there was any stream setback.April 19, 2022 - Page 543 of 569
A Creek is more than water in a channel
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
It is a living, ever-
changing ecosystem.
If Vail wants a
healthy creek, the
community needs to
give it some space.
April 19, 2022 - Page 544 of 569
Is the Town Council comfortable with Ordinance Number 6 Series of
2022 as proposed?
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
April 19, 2022 - Page 545 of 569
Lovevail.org
Little intro copy area. Little
intro copy area. Little intro
copy area. Little intro copy
area. Little intro copy area.
Little intro copy area.
Pete Wadden
Watershed Education Coordinator
pwadden@vailgov.com April 19, 2022 - Page 546 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: E RW S D Temporary Construction L icense Agreement Extension
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Tom Kassmel, Town E ngineer
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove extension of Temporary Construction
L icense
B AC K G RO UND:
L ast year E RW S D began replacing a 50+ year old sewer main bridge that crosses the Eagle River
in Dowd J unction adjacent to the Gore Valley Trail pedestrian bridge. The Town granted E RW S D
a temporary construction license agreement to allow E RW S D to use town property for access and
staging. T he license expired on November 15, 2021 and ERWSD is requesting to extend the license
through October 15, 2022.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N:
S taff recommends approving this request and directing the Town Manager to extend the existing
license agreement in a form approved by the Town attorney.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Staff Memo
E RW S D Request
April 19, 2022 - Page 547 of 569
To: Town Council
From: PW Department
Date: 4/19/22
Subject: ERWSD Temporary Construction Access and Staging License Agreement
Extension
I. SUMMARY
Last year ERWSD began replacing a 50+ year old sewer main bridge that crosses the
Eagle River in Dowd Junction adjacent to the Gore Valley Trail pedestrian bridge. The
Town granted ERWSD a temporary license agreement on town property to allow
ERWSD and their contractor to access the river via the Gore Valley Trail and utilize an
existing gravel road and area that leads down to the river as access and staging.
The granted license expired on November 15, 2021 and ERWSD is requesting to
extend this license through October 15, 2022 to complete the project.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving this request and directing the Town Manager to extend the
existing license agreement in a form approved by the Town attorney.
April 19, 2022 - Page 548 of 569
April 13, 2022
Tom Kassmel, P.E.
Town of Vail
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Kassmel,
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) is requesting an extension of the Temporary
Construction License Agreement, dated February 12, 2021 for use of Town of Vail property in Dowd
Junction for construction of the West Vail Interceptor. Supply chain delays and interruptions in 2021
beyond the control of the contractor or ERWSD delayed procurement of the bridge and ductile iron pipe,
ultimately pushing out the construction schedule for the new utility bridge and related utility work until late
summer/fall 2022. The original agreement and Exhibit has been included herein for your reference in
review of this request. The original agreement expired in November 15, 2021, the District requests that
the Agreement is extended to expire on October 15, 2022.
The Contractor will continue to utilize the staging area northeast of the pedestrian/bike trail for staging
and construction of the remaining project components. The Contractor will be accessing the staging and
construction area across the existing pedestrian bridge. The temporary trail that was constructed last
year will remain in place to separate construction and pedestrian traffic until all other work is complete.
The temporary trail will be removed, and the site will be returned to its original state prior to the Contractor
demobilizing from the site in October of 2022. The District and its Contractor will continue coordination
with the Town of Vail related to the staging area and any impacts to the trail for construction activities in
the 2022 construction season, beginning in late May 2022. Thank you for consideration of this request
and for your ongoing coordination with the District to ensure a successful completion of these critical
utility improvements.
Sincerely,
Jenna Beairsto, P.E.
Project Manager
April 19, 2022 - Page 549 of 569
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE AGREEMENT (the
"Agreement") is made and entered into this / 2-tn day of f(h:uo..r~ , 2021 (the
"Effective Date"), by and between the Town of Vail, a Colorado municii;aT corporation with
a principal place of business at 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 (the
"Town"), and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, with a principal place of
business at 846 Forest Road, Vail, Colorado, 81657 ("Grantee") (each individually a
"Party" and collectively the "Parties").
In and for the consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth
herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows :
1. Grant of License . The Town hereby grants to Grantee a temporary non-exclusive
license (the "License") to enter, re-enter and use for construction access and construction
staging purposes the real property described as Eagle County Assessor's Parcel No.
2103-222-00-001, a portion of land within Section 22, Township 5, Range 81, known as
the 'Dowd Junction Parcel" (the "Property") as shown on the attached Exhibit A, to
facilitate the Dowd Junction Collection System Improvements, West Vail Interceptor
Aerial Crossing (the "Project") in, upon or adjacent to the Property . The License shall be
used only for gaining access to and for construction staging for the Project by Grantee,
its contractors, architects, engineers and agents, and thereafter restoring the surrounding
property.
2 . Term. Grantee shall have and exercise the right to ingress and egress in, to, over
and across the Property for any lawful purpose needful for the full enjoyment of the rights
granted by the Town to Grantee hereunder for the period commencing on April 1, 2021
and terminating on November 15, 2021 . Should construction not be completed within
said period, the Parties may extend the term of the License by mutual agreement.
3. Grantee's Obligations.
a. Grantee agrees that it shall cause any portion of the Property which is
disturbed during construction of Project to be returned to its original condition existing at
the time of Grantee's entry thereon, all at the expense of Grantee or its contractors or
agents, no later than November 15, 2021.
b. Grantee agrees that it shall provide safe and separate trail access to and
across the existing bridge as identified in the Exhibit A.
c . Grantee agrees that it or its general contractor will procure an insurance
policy which includes and covers the Property that is the subject of this License, and to
name the Town as an additional insured thereon. Such insurance policy shall at a
minimum include liability and property damage insurance, with a combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per person and $2,000,000 per
occurrence. A Certificate of Insurance showing the Town as an additional insured shall
be provided to the Town within 30 days of the Effective Date, and annually thereafter.
(00806689 .DOCX 13 )212/2021
/:\DOWD JUNCTION COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 201B\3.0 PERMITS\TOV\TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
LICENSE AGREEMENT(OOB06689-3_XAF7F5)).DOCX
April 19, 2022 - Page 550 of 569
The failure to provide the Certificate of Insurance shall be grounds for immediate
termination of this License by the Town .
d. While the License is in effect, Grantee , at its own expense, shall provide for
all required maintenance of the Property , including snow removal.
4 . Indem nificat io n. To the extent permitted by law and subject to Sections 15 and 17
below , Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town and its officers , insurers ,
volunteers , representative , agents, employees, heirs and assigns from and against all
cla ims , liability, damages , losses, expenses and demands , including attorney fees, on
account of injury, loss, or damage , including without lim itation claims arising from bodily
injury , personal injury , sickness , disease , death, property loss or damage, or any other
loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this
Agreement or the License granted herein if such injury , loss , or damage is caused in
whole or in part by , the act, omission , error, professional error, mistake , negligence , or
other fault of Grantee , any subcontractor of Grantee, or any officer, employee ,
representative , or agent of Grantee . This obligation shall survive term ination of the
License.
5. Town's Rights. The Town retains the right to the undisturbed use and occupancy
of the Property insofar as such use and occupancy is consistent with and does not impa ir
any grant herein contained .
6 . Warranty . The Town warrants that it has the full right and legal authority to make
the grant of the License.
7. Bindi ng Effe ct. Each and every one of the benefits and burdens of th is Agreement
shall inure to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives , heirs , successors
and assigns of the parties hereto, provided however that the rights granted to Grantee
hereunder shall terminate on the date specified in Section 2 hereof.
8 . No Waiv er. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or
breaches of this Agreement by the Town shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other
terms or obligation of this Agreement.
9 . Integ rat io n. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties ,
superseding all prior oral o r written communications .
1 O. Third Pa rt ies. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement.
11 . Notice . Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing , and shall be deemed
sufficient when directly presented or sent pre-paid, first class U.S. Mail to the Party at the
address set forth on the first page of this Agreement.
12. Seve rabil ity . If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason , the remaining provisions
hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
{00806689 .DOCX / 3 }2
2/'212021
April 19, 2022 - Page 551 of 569
13 . Modification. This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the
Parties .
14. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the
Parties hereto shall be assigned by either Party without the written consent of the other.
15 . Governmental Immunity. Each Party and its officers , attorneys and employees ,
are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement ,
the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S . § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, or
otherwise available to each Party and its officers or employees.
16. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Town under this Agreement
are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law . The expiration of this
Agreement shall in no way limit the Town's legal or equitable remedies, or the period in
which such remedies may be asserted .
17. Subject to Annual Appropriation. Consistent with Article X, § 20 of the Colorado
Constitution , any financial obligation of a Party not performed during the current fiscal
year is subject to annual appropriation , shall extend only to monies currently appropriated ,
and shall not constitute a mandatory charge , requirement, debt or liability beyond the
current fiscal year.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date
first set forth above .
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
{00806689 .DOCX / 3 }3
2/212021
April 19, 2022 - Page 552 of 569
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
L, COLORADO a
corporation
L~
EAGLE RIVER WATER AND
SANITATION DISTRICT
By : ~814~4
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 11: day of
h:-At1, 1t~t V , 2021 , by ,.;J. L 11 ru gpu.Sb as 4,etllttA--L... ./YJeroltti'~-
of The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District.
My commission expites: tJ/4 -/o•MA <" ,---..LJI'~
y~ ~~
Notary Public
{00806689.O0CX / 3 }4
21212021
April 19, 2022 - Page 553 of 569
Exhibit A-Temporary Access and Staging Area
April 19, 2022 - Page 554 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: 2022 Ford P ark S ummer Managed P arking Program
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Greg Hall, Public Works Director, S teph K ashiwa P arking Operations
Manager
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: I nput and approval requested
B AC K G RO UND: E ach spring the summer activities and events calendar is reviewed by the Ford
P ark User Groups, including representatives from Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Vail Valley
Foundation ( G R FA ), B etty F ord A lpine Gardens, Bravo! Vail and Walking Mountain S cience
Center as operators of Vail Nature Center). The proposed managed parking program calendar is
attached.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove the 2022 Ford P ark S ummer Managed P arking
P rogram
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
2022 Summer Calendar
April 19, 2022 - Page 555 of 569
Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid
Parking
Wed ‐ 5/11/22 CEO Spring Drive Training
(HOLD)
1:00pm 4:00pm Ford Park
Lot
Ford lot Reserved
Hard to Recycle Event Ford Park
Lot
Ford lot Reserved
Sat ‐ 5/21/22 AEG ‐ Trey Anastasio Band 5:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Wed ‐ 5/25/22 BMHS Graduation
Rehearsal
12:30pm 3:30pm GFA Managed Parking
12:00pm‐3:30pm
Thu ‐ 5/26/22 VMS Graduation 2:00pm 5:00pm GFA Bus (1) 1:30pm‐
5:30pm
Managed Parking
1:30pm‐3:30pm
Fri ‐ 5/27/22 BMHS Graduation 4:00pm 8:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Managed Parking
3:00pm‐6:00pm
Sat ‐ 5/28/22 Memorial GFA Bus (1) Managed Parking
Sun ‐ 5/29/22 AEG ‐ Jake Owen 6:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Mon ‐ 5/30/22 HOLD AEG ‐ Ben Harper &
Stephen Marley
GFA Bus (?) Paid Parking?
Wed ‐ 6/1/22 AEG ‐ JRAD 5:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:30pm
Thu ‐ 6/2/22 AEG ‐ JRAD 5:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:30pm
Fri ‐ 6/3/22 Plant Sale 10:00am 4:00pm Managed Parking
AEG ‐ Michael Franti and
Spearhead
6:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Thu ‐ 6/9/22 GoPro Mountain Games
(GMG)
Bus (3) 7:30am‐
3:30pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐4:00pm
Mountain Games Music ‐
Twiddle, Mihali & G. Love
5:30pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (3) 3:30pm‐
10:30pm
Paid Parking
4:00pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 6/10/22 GoPro Mountain Games
(GMG)
Bus (3) 7:30am‐
3:30pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐4:00pm
Mountain Games Music ‐
Govt Mule/Warren/Grace
Potter
5:30pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (3) 3:30pm‐
10:30pm
Paid Parking
4:00pm‐8:00pm
Sat ‐ 6/11/22 GoPro Mountain Games
(GMG)
Bus (3) 7:30am‐
3:30pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐4:00pm
Mountain Games Music ‐
Mishka (opener)/Julian
Marley & the Wailers
5:30pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (3) 3:30pm‐
10:30pm
Paid Parking
4:00pm‐8:00pm
Sun ‐ 6/12/22 Mountain Games Bus (3) 7:30am‐
5:00pm
Wed ‐ 6/15/22 CO Children's Chorale
Performance
7:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (1) 3:30pm‐
8:30pm
Managed Parking
4:00pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 6/17/22 King of the Mountain
Volleyball
all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
7:30pm
Managed Parking
(Ford) 7:00am‐
7:00pm
Vail Craft Beer Classic 4:00pm 7:00pm Lower
Bench
Sat ‐ 6/18/22 King of the Mountain
Volleyball
all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
7:30pm
Managed Parking
(Ford) 7:00am‐
7:00pm
Vail Craft Beer Classic 12:00pm 8:00pm Lower
Bench
Sun ‐ 6/19/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
King of the Mountain
Volleyball
all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
4:00pm
Managed Parking
(Ford) 7:00am‐
4:30pm
2022 Ford Park Parking Calendar
April 19, 2022 - Page 556 of 569
Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid
Parking
AEG ‐ Umphreys McGee 5:45pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Tue ‐ 6/21/22 Vail Lacrosse Tournament
(youth)
all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
4:00pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐4:30pm
HSN ‐ The High Hawks 5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Wed ‐ 6/22/22 Vail Lacrosse Tournament
(youth)
all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
5:30pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐5:00pm
Thu ‐ 6/23/22 Vail Lacrosse Tournament
(youth)
usually half
day
Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
3:00pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ St. Paul Chamber #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sat ‐ 6/25/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
3:00pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ St. Paul Chamber #2 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sun ‐ 6/26/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
3:00pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ St. Paul Chamber #3 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Mon ‐ 6/27/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Managed Parking
7:00am‐7:00pm
Tue ‐ 6/28/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
4:00pm
Managed parking
7:00am‐4:30pm
HSN ‐ Jocyln & Chris 5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Wed ‐ 6/29/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
3:00pm
Managed parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ DSO #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Thu ‐ 6/30/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
?pm
Managed parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ DSO #2 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 7/1/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
3:00pm
Managed parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ DSO #3 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sat ‐ 7/2/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
3:00pm
Managed parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ DSO #4 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sun ‐ 7/3/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30am‐
7:00pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐7:00pm
Mon ‐ 7/4/22 Vail Lacrosse Shootout all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (3) 6:30am‐
7:30pm
Managed Parking
7:00am‐7:00pm
Bravo ‐ DSO #5 Patriotic
Concert
12:30pm 4:30pm GFA
Tue ‐ 7/5/22 HSN ‐ TUSK, Feetwood Mac
Tribute
5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:30pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 7/8/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:30pm
Sat ‐ 7/9/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #2 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:30pm
Sun ‐ 7/10/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
April 19, 2022 - Page 557 of 569
Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid
Parking
Bravo ‐ TPO #3 (Movie
Night)
6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
10:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Tue ‐ 7/12/22 Stars Variety Show Managed Parking
Thu ‐ 7/14/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #4 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 7/15/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #5 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sat ‐ 7/16/22 Bravo ‐ TPO #6 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sun ‐ 7/17/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Tue ‐ 7/19/22 HSN ‐ Hayes Carll 5:30pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Wed ‐ 7/20/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #1 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 7/22/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #2 5:00pm 8:45pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sat ‐ 7/23/22 Vail Invitational Soccer
Tournament
8:00am 3:00pm Ford Park &
VAF
Managed Parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ NYP #3 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Sun ‐ 7/24/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Vail Invitational Soccer
Tournament
8:00am 3:00pm Ford Park &
VAF
Managed Parking
7:00am‐3:30pm
Bravo ‐ NYP #4 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Tue ‐ 7/26/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #5 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Wed ‐ 7/27/22 Bravo ‐ NYP #6 5:00pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Thu ‐ 7/28/22 3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30a‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
7:00am‐7:00pm
Fri ‐ 7/29/22 3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30a‐
4:00pm
Paid Parking
7:00am‐4:30pm
VDF Opening Night 6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
10:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐7:00pm
Sat ‐ 7/30/22 3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30a‐
4:00pm
Paid Parking
7:00am‐4:30pm
VDF NYCB: Moves 6:30pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
10:30pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐7:00pm
Sun ‐ 7/31/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
3v3 Soccer Youth all day Ford Park &
VAF
Bus (2) 6:30a‐
4:30pm
Paid Parking
7:00am‐4:00pm
Mon ‐ 8/1/22 VDF ‐ Limon Dance
Company
6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
10:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Wed ‐ 8/3/22 VDF ‐ UpClose: New Works 5:00pm 9:00pm GFA Bus (2) 3:00pm‐
9:30pm
Paid Parking
3:30pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 8/5/22 VDF ‐ IED I 6:30pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
10:30pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Transrockies (Camp
overnight on field)
VAF
Sat ‐ 8/6/22 Transrockies (Camp
overnight on field)
12:00am 12:15pm VAF
VDF ‐ IED II x2 Bus (2) 2:30pm‐
10:00pm
Paid Parking
3:00pm‐8:00pm
Sun ‐ 8/7/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Mon ‐ 8/8/22 VDF ‐ Now: Premieres 6:30pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
10:30pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Tue ‐ 8/9/22 VDF ‐ Closing Night Dance
for $20.22
6:30pm 9:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Fri ‐ 8/12/22 Vail Wine Classic all day VAF
AEG ‐ Primus 6:00pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Sat ‐ 8/13/22 Vail Wine Classic all day VAF
AEG ‐ Primus 6:00pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Sun ‐ 8/14/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
April 19, 2022 - Page 558 of 569
Date Event Name Start Time End Time Location Express Buses Managed/Paid
Parking
AEG ‐ Amos Lee & CO
Symphony
6:00pm 11:00pm GAF Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Tue ‐ 8/16/22 AEG ‐ Maren Morris & the
Lone Bellow
6:00pm 11:00pm GAF Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Wed ‐ 8/17/22 AEG ‐ Andy Grammer & Fitz
& The Tantrums
6:30pm 11:00pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Thu ‐ 8/18/22 HSN ‐ Grupo Fantasmo 5:30pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Fri ‐ 8/19/22 Triple Bypass Load In Ford Park
(HOLD) AEG ‐ Lettuce Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Sat ‐ 8/20/22 Triple Bypass Ford Park
AEG ‐ Nate Bergatze 7:00pm 10:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
11:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Sun ‐ 8/21/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Triple Bypass Load Out Ford Park
CO Ski Museum Event 3:00pm 10:00pm GFA Bus (1) 2:00pm‐
10:00pm
Managed Parking
2:30pm‐6:00pm
Tue ‐ 8/23/22 HSN ‐ Elellovators 5:30pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
9:00pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:30pm
Sun ‐ 8/28/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
(HOLD) Vail Pioneer Days 11:00am 7:00pm Managed
Tue ‐ 8/30/22 HSN ‐ North Miss Allstars 5:30pm 8:30pm GFA Bus (2) 4:00pm‐
8:30pm
Paid Parking
4:30pm‐8:00pm
Sun ‐ 9/4/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Sun ‐ 9/11/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Sun ‐ 9/18/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Sun ‐ 9/25/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
Sun ‐ 10/2/22 Farmers' Market Bus (1) 9:30am‐
3:30pm
April 19, 2022 - Page 559 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award with Fehr & Peers for Vail Mobility & Transportation Master Plan
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Tom Kassmel, E ngineer
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A sk questions.
B AC K G RO UND: The Town of Vail has budgeted to complete an update to the 2009 Vail
Transportation Master Plan. The new plan will ultimately provide an updated Master Plan for
Mobility and Transportation within Vail for the foreseeable future. The Town received 3 proposals.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Award the contract to Fehr & Peers in the amount of $300,000
in a form approved by the Town A ttorney
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Staff Memo
April 19, 2022 - Page 560 of 569
To: Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Date: April 19, 2022
Subject: Vail Mobility & Transportation Master Plan Contract Award
I. SUMMARY
The Town of Vail has budgeted $300,000 to complete an update to the 2009 Vail
Transportation Master Plan. The new plan will ultimately provide an updated Master
Plan for Mobility and Transportation within Vail for the foreseeable future. The plan will
update traffic, transit, and parking projections and provide implementation
recommendations for each; as well as provide updates on other past transportation
related topics such as traffic speeds and traffic calming, noise, loading & delivery,
special event logistics, AGS/rail, and tunneling/capping I-70. The new master plan will
specifically focus on all modes of mobility and explore emerging technologies that will
enhance mobility and transportation experiences throughout Vail.
The Town advertised a Request For Proposals (RFP) for this work in February and
received three proposals in March.
Fehr & Peers $300,000
Toole Design $325,000
Felsberg, Holt, & Ullevig $475,000
After the thorough review of each proposal and interviews with both Fehr & Peers and
Toole Design, town staff is recommending the town proceed with Fehr & Peers.
The proposal cost is within budget; however it is anticipated that there will be additional
costs for third party venders for “Big Data” collection, and additional costs for marketing
and public engagement. The budget was set several years ago and with inflation the
current budget does not accommodate these additional expected future project cost s.
As this is a multi-year project, staff recommends that Council award the contract and
reevaluate supplemental budget needs this fall during the 2023 budgeting process.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends awarding the contract to Fehr & Peers in the amount of $300,000 in
a form approved by the Town Attorney.
April 19, 2022 - Page 561 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 5, S eries of 2022, Second Reading, A n Ordinance Amending
Various S ections of the Vail Town Code Relating to A lcoholic Beverages, to Reflect Changes in
S tate L aw
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny second
reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022.
B AC K G RO UND: The Colorado General Assembly recently passed, and the Governor recently
signed into law, House B ill 18-1023 and House Bill 18-1025, which will move sections of Title 12 of
Colorado Revised S tates into a new Title 44, effective October 1, 2018 and the Town Council
wishes to update the Vail Town Code accordingly.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny second reading of
Ordinance No. 5, Series 2022.
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022
April 19, 2022 - Page 562 of 569
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022
ORDINANCE NO. 5
SERIES 2022
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE VAIL
TOWN CODE RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, TO REFLECT
CHANGES IN STATE LAW
WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly recently passed, and the Governor
recently signed into law, House Bill 18-1023 and House Bill 18-1025, which will move
sections of Title 12 of Colorado Revised States into a new Title 44, effective October 1,
2018; and
WHEREAS the Town Council wishes to update the Vail Town Code accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 3-5-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
3-5-2: LOCAL AUTHORITY DESIGNATED:
Pursuant to the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-46-
103(4), section 12-47-103(9) C.R.S. §§ 44-4-103(4), 44-3-103(27), and the
Town Charter § 8.6, there is designated a Local Licensing Authority of the
Town (the "Authority"), a commission composed of five members appointed
by the Town Council, for the licensing of locations within the town to sell
alcoholic liquors and fermented malt beverages and for the local
administration of the Colorado Liquor Code of 1935, and the Colorado Beer
Code Fermented Malt Beverages Act, in accordance with said statutes.
Section 2. Section 3-5-8 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
3-5-8: CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS AND HEARINGS:
The Local Licensing Authority shall conduct its proceedings in accordance
with the provisions of the Colorado Liquor Code of 1935 and the Colorado
Beer Code Fermented Malt Beverages Act. In order to ensure due process
of law the Local Licensing Authority shall conduct its hearings and make its
determinations as nearly as practicable in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Colorado Revised Statutes section C.R.S. § 24-4-105, as
amended. Written records of its proceedings shall be maintained, which
shall be open to public inspection.
Section 3. Section 4-2-1 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
April 19, 2022 - Page 563 of 569
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022
Section 4. Section 4-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
4-2-2: STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF OPTIONAL PREMISES
LICENSE:
The following standards for the issuance of optional premises licenses or
for optional premises for a hotel and restaurant license are hereby adopted
pursuant to the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-
135.5 C.R.S. § 44-3-310, as amended.
* * *
B. Eligible Facilities:
1. An optional premises may only be approved when that
premises is located on or adjacent to an "outdoor sports and recreational
facility" as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-103(13.5)(b)
C.R.S. § 44-3-103(33)(b), as amended. The types of outdoor sports and
recreational facilities which may be considered for an outdoor premises
license include the following:
a. Country club.
b. Golf courses and driving ranges.
c. Ice skating areas.
d. Ski areas.
e. Swimming pools.
* * *
E. Advanced Notification. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes
section 12-47-135(6) and (7) C.R.S. § 44-3-310(3) and (4), as amended, no
alcoholic beverages may be served on the optional premises until the
licensee has provided written notice to the state and local licensing
authorities forty eight (48) hours prior to serving alcoholic beverages on the
optional premises. Such notice must contain the specific days and hours on
which the optional premises are to be used . In this regard, there is with no
limitation on the number of days which a licensee may specify in each
notice. However, no notice may specify any date of use which is more than
one hundred eighty (180) days from the notice date.
April 19, 2022 - Page 564 of 569
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022
Section 5. Section 4-2-3.A of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
4-2-3: TEMPORARY PERMITS:
A. Statutory Authority Authorization. This Section is enacted in
accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes sections 12-46-106.5 and 12-
47-106.5 C.R.S. § 44-3-303 which authorize a local licensing authority, at
its discretion, to issue a temporary permit to a transferee of a fermented
malt beverage license or a liquor license issued by the state licensing
authority.
Section 6. Section 4-2-4 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
4-2-4: BED AND BREAKFAST PERMIT:
A. Statutory Authority. This Section is enacted in accordance with
Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-118.5 C.R.S. § 44-3-412, as
amended, which authorizes a Local Licensing Authority, at its option, to
issue a bed and breakfast permit to a person operating a bed and breakfast
establishment.
* * *
E. Cancellation. A bed and breakfast permit may be suspended or
revoked in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-110
C.R.S. § 44-3-412, as amended, if the permittee violates any provision of
Colorado Revised Statutes article 47 C.R.S. Title 44 Article 3, or any rule
adopted pursuant to said Colorado Revised Statutes article 47 C.R.S. Title
44 Article 3, or fails truthfully to furnish any required information in
connection with a permit application.
Section 7. Section 4-2-5 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
4-2-5: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TASTINGS:
Pursuant to section 12-47-301(10)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. §
44-3-301(10)(a), the Town hereby authorizes alcoholic beverage tastings at
licensed retail liquor stores and liquor licensed drugstores in the Town,
subject to the limitations contained in section 12-47-301(10), Colorado
Revised Statutes C.R.S. § 44-3-301(10), and subject to the approval by the
local licensing authority of a tastings permit.
Section 8. Section 4-2-6 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
4-2-6: SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS:
A. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-48-107(5)(a)
C.R.S. § 44-5-107(5)(a), the local licensing authority ("Authority") elects not
April 19, 2022 - Page 565 of 569
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022
to notify the state licensing authority to obtain the state licensing authority's
approval or disapproval of applications for special event permits.
* * *
C. Upon receipt of an application for a special event permit, the
Authority shall, as required by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-48-
107(5)(c) C.R.S. § 44-5-107(5)(c), access information made available on
the state licensing authority's website to determine the statewide permitting
activity of the organization applying for the permit. The Authority shall
consider compliance with the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes
section 12-48-105(3) C.R.S. § 44-5-105(3), which restricts the number of
permits issued to an organization within a calendar year to fifteen (15),
before approving any application.
* * *
E. Each application for a special event permit shall be accompanied by
an application fee in an amount equal to the maximum local licensing fee
established by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-48-107(2) C.R.S. §
44-5-107(2)(c).
Section 9. Section 5-13-7.B. of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
5-13-7: EXEMPTIONS:
* * *
B. A retail liquor store, as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes section
12-47-103(31) C.R.S. § 44-3-103(48), may provide a disposable paper bag
to a customer with no fee if the disposable paper bag is provided for the
containment of carry out alcoholic beverages as defined in Colorado
Revised Statutes section 12-47-103(2) C.R.S. § 44-3-103(2).
Section 10. Section 6-3C-4.A. of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
6-3C-4: DRINKING IN PUBLIC:
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 lots in the Town except by written authorization
of the Town Council. It is unlawful for any person to possess 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"
April 19, 2022 - Page 566 of 569
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022
means the regular seal applied by the United States government over the
cap of all malt, vinous or spirituous liquors. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
it is shall not be unlawful for any person to have in his or her their possession
or under his or her their control one open container of vinous liquor removed
from a licensed premises pursuant to and subject to the limitations set forth
in compliance with Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-47-411(3.5)
C.R.S. § 44-3-423, as amended.
Section 11. Section 6-3C-5.C.1 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
6-3C-5. SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS:
C. Illegal Possession or Consumption of Liquor By Underage Persons:
1. As used in this subsection, unless the context otherwise
requires:
* * *
PRIVATE PROPERTY: Any dwelling and its curtilage which is being used
by a natural person or natural persons for habitation and which is not open
to the public, and privately-owned real property which is not open to the
public. "Private property" shall not include:
a. Any establishment which has or is required to have a license
pursuant to article 46, 47, or 48 of title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S.
Title 44, Article 3, 4, or 5; or
* * *
Section 12. 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 Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsect ion, 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 13. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 14. The amendment of any provision of the Vail 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.
April 19, 2022 - Page 567 of 569
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2022
Section 15. 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 5th day of April, 2022 and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the 19th day of April, 2022, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
_____________________________
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this 19th day of April, 2022.
_____________________________
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
April 19, 2022 - Page 568 of 569
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C: Adjournment 7:50 pm (estimate)
April 19, 2022 - Page 569 of 569