HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-09 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL EVENING MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 1993
5:00 P.M.
A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 9, 1993, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob LeVine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Before discussion of agenda item No. 1, there was Citizen Participation. Roger Tilkemeier stated he
was actively involved in Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's Rangeland Reform campaign, more
. commonly known as "the grazing fee issue." Mr. Tilkemeier noted he had taken the time to go
through the Rangeland document line by line and had made extensive notes about his concerns,
which he then communicated to Mr. Babbitt in writing on September 10,1993. Mr. Tilkemeier felt
rangelands were in worse shape than ever. He was especially concerned about the water rights issue
in Secretary Babbitts proposed reform. Mr. Tilkemeier referenced a memorandum to Senator Hank
Brown, Senator Ben Campbell, and Congressman Scott McInnis dated November 8, 1993, from
Andrew P. Daly, President of Vail Associates, Inc. (VA). In that memo, Mr. Daly expressed alarm
at Secretary Babbitt's apparent lack of sensitivity to the needs and desires of the people who would
be most affected. Because Secretary Babbitt's proposal had been presented from an agricultural point
of view, Mr. Daly's memo stated that, until recently, it was not fully understood how far reaching
the Rangeland Reform proposal really was and what its direct effect would be on the industry here
and in the municipalities of the west. Further, in Mr. Daly's memo, it was expressed that while Vail
was designed in an alpine theme for skiing, it was observed that guests to Vail and the touring public
also wanted a "Western Experience," including open space and pastoral scenes of grazing livestock.
Mr. Daly added in his memo that that was all part of the recreation package in demand locally and
internationally. The VA memo asked for satisfaction from Congress, Secretary Babbitt, and the
President, regarding the issues of water rights, affected interests, property rights, lease tenure, grazing
fees, and biological research legislation. The memo indicated further concerns centered around
property rights, economic impacts and mitigation provisions, which were not currently included in
the Bill. Mr. Tilkemeier urged Council to write Congress with its concerns and to endorse VA's
• position. Mayors Osterfoss advised the issue would be taken under advisement. Jim Gibson felt
TOV should draft a resolution supporting Mr. Tilkemeier's concerns, and felt TOV should take a
strong stand now.
Item No. 1 was Resolution No. 15, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing Vail Town Council's
support for and urging voter approval of Ballot Question No. 1 which, if approved by the voters, will
remove the revenue restrictions of Article X, Section 20, which is commonly known as Amendment
One and/or the Tabor Amendment. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised
this resolution discussed and set forth concerns regarding Amendment One's impact on the Town
of Vail's Ballot Question No. 1, to be before the voters on November 16, 1993. Mr. Moorhead read
the resolution in its entirety. There was discussion about the benefits of this resolution. Kent Rose
noted Eagle County had voted down Amendment One last November, citing that it did not work for
resort communities dependent on weather. He felt it was necessary to be able to keep revenues from
"good years" to have to be able to spend during "bad weather years," and strongly encouraged voters
to vote "yes" on Vail's Ballot Question No. 1. Before a motion was made there was brief discussion
concerning the Denver/Boulder CPI. Steve Thompson discussed local growth definition. Mery Lapin
indicated 50% of Vail's revenue came from sales tax. Mery Lapin moved to approve Resolution No.
15, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously.
Item No. 2 was a presentation of the Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. While technical
equipment was being set up for this presentation, Council completed discussion of this date's Work
Session agenda including the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Design Review
Board (DRB) reports.
Russell Forrest then noted Vail was approximately 90% built out and proceeded to introduce the
Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes nNM
Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plan consultant, Marty Zeller. Mr. Zeller made a slide
presentation including objectives of the plan, a process chart including an inventory of lands of the
present draft plan, an analysis of background documents and surveys, a recreation needs assessment
from the August,1993, public meeting, a recreation needs assessment priority summary, an inventory
of undeveloped lands, a hazard and sensitive area map, a concept diagram showing active urban and
commercial systems with a proposal to connect traaeads, a trails plan showing the existing system
and action parcel alternative trail system to relieve pressure on Forest Service land, a slide indicating
identified priority actions, followed by criteria to evaluate and prioritize five priority actions, a
priority plan map, a sum of action plan map showing 61 parcels requiring action in the East Vail,
Center Vail and West Vail areas, proposed protection techniques, a proposed land management
system consisting of two parts - TOV, Forest Service, and VA cooperative management and TOV
property management, a review of Real Estate Transfer Tax Funds (RETT) availability, an action
agenda of first and second year activities including affected parcels and budget, and third, fourth,
and fifth year (1998) activities including affected parcels and budget, and a slide outlining next steps
for the plan: a draft plan review by the task force, public meetings, amendment of the plan, PEC
review, and adoption of the plan by Council. A large "Land Opportunities and Action Plan" map
remained on display through discussion of this item.
Mayor Osterfoss called for public input. Bob Armour expressed desire to maintain the Davos
Trail/Trapper's Run area as open space. He referred to a previously submitted petition to that affect,
and asked Council to begin immediate negotiation with the current owners of that property to
acquire that parcel. Russell Forrest advised this area was listed in the Plans top priority list and was
part of the Plan's first year action. Mayor Osterfoss noted Council had directed staff to move ahead
with the appraisal process of the area and that was now underway.
A lengthy discussion followed concerning the stream walk proposal within the presented draft Plan.
Kristan Pritz explained this was a controversial issue with the community and briefly discussed the
history of the stream walk concept since 1973. Russell Forrest followed with a "slide walking tour"
presentation of the stream walk areas to highlight and discuss some of the pros, cons, and
alternatives related to private property rights and environmental impacts of the various stream walk
areas. He noted this project would require Army Corps of Engineers approval.
Bill Amos, George Knox, Johannes Faessler, Sheika Gramshammer, Jeanne Bailey, Kathy Douglas,
Greg Stutz, Rick Rosen, Carey Vaughan, Ben Duke, Bill Wilto, Kent Rose, Rick Travers, Bruce Benson,
Joe Treadlove, Jim Wear, Ned Shwayder, and Nancy Tyler expressed opposition to the proposed
stream walk through residentially developed areas, primarily agreeing this was public land, but
feeling strongly that the privacy of homes already built there should be respected. These individuals
also expressed strong concern about environmental impacts to the stream tract in the areas proposed
for development. Ms. Bailey submitted a petition of 102 signatures. The petition read, "We the
undersigned concerned citizens who support the proactive preservation of natural open space and
strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are vehemently opposed to the
proposed stream walk between the Covered Bridge and the Lions Head area. We respectfully
petition the Vail Town Council to permanently delete this concept from the Town Master Plan on
the grounds that it will destroy the environmental sanctity of the Gore Creek and its surrounding
• lands, that it will adversely affect the wildlife habitats of this area, that it is not necessary to enhance
Vail further as a destination resort, that it negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhoods, and
because we believe that it is a community responsibility to protect and preserve as many of these
pristine areas as possible for future generations to come." In addition, at the time of this meeting,
letters of opposition citing the same primary concerns had been received from H. Benjamin Duke,
Jr., Wendell and Arlene Haley, John and Jean Wisenbaker, Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Martz, Todger
Anderson, Bruce D. Benson, Adrian A. Kearney, Richard and Margaret Garbe, Lorraine and Harley
Higbie, Jr., Ned Shwayder, Nancy Tyler, and D. Kistler.
Flo Steinberg was in favor of the stream walk. She stated she did not see where problems expressed
by those in opposition would be any worse with the proposed stream walk and felt those opposed
were a special interest group that Council should not cater to.
Ms. Bailey noted this area had all three wetlands criteria and an environmental impact study would
be required. Russell Forrest confirmed that. He indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers would
look at the planned use of the area, and if TOV could not get a permit, this project would not occur.
There would have to be dialogue to identify issues, concerns, and alternatives with the Army Corps
of Engineers as they do not want any change in the flow of the stream or anything that would
exacerbate the hundred year flood plain. There is not necessarily a permit required, TOV would
need to consult with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to make certain that TOV's
current insurance rating would not be jeopardized by development of the stream walk area.
Jeanne Bailey, observed the need for Army Corps of Engineers approval, consultation with FEMA,
and an environmental impact study, and felt there was a very big expense in maintaining the stream
walk. Further, Ms. Bailey felt that no one was going to stay on the stream walk path, they were
going to get off that two foot to get even closer to the creek. She felt the path was not only giving
Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes XIM93
people an access to the creek, but it was inviting them to walk all around_
Rick Rosen suggested Council take it upon themselves to remove the controversial part of the stream
walk and continue on with the process to get the Comprehensive Planrefined and approved to move
forward, so there was not a situation where there was a remote part of the entire plan causing the
entire plan to be stopped or delayed.
Diana Donovan stated she supported the stream walk. She felt if Council was going to pull a section
of the stream walk out, she believed that a provision of that should be that landscaping on public
parts of private property between homes and the stream should be removed and returned to natural
area along the stream.
Kristan Pritz clarified that TOV had never used people's property values as design considerations.
Mayor Osterfoss called for Council members comments on the whole Open Lands Plan and,
additionally, on the controversial stream walk portion. She asked for specifics as staff had asked for
direction.
Bob Buckley felt it was a very positive move that TOV had undertaken such a comprehensive study
of the lands in Vail. He strongly emphasized the need to purchase land. He said the real estate
market was very volatile at this time, and opportunities to purchase land would pass by if TOV did
not take advantage of some of the opportunities to purchase land at this time. He felt that was the
number one priority. With regard to the stream walk, he felt the portions of it that were already in
• place were an incredible amenity for Vail guests, particularly guests who were wheelchair bound.
At the same time, he was cognizant of the impact this proposed stream walk had on existing
property owners and he felt very strongly that these owners purchased their land in good faith and
there was no prior representation to many of these owners that there would be a public walkway
between their homes and the creek. He found that to be a very strong argument for protecting those
property rights. He felt TOV should stay out of those areas where property rights would be affected
and should focus on the areas where property owners would not be impacted. He suggested taking
a hard look at the section of the stream starting at Ford Park going past the Nature Center to the east
below the tennis courts which he felt was an area where impact on private property would be
minimal. He was very much against the section of stream walk proposed to be developed from the
Covered Bridge down to Lionshead except in those areas where there were already stream walks.
He felt the public was already offered variety. He also agreed strongly with Diana Donovan that
TOV those areas where the stream tract had been landscaped should be restored to a natural state.
He did not think people should be landscaping on properties that did not belong to them. He felt
that landscaping was a misrepresentation to future buyers and it was a disturbance to the stream
tract. He felt the stream tract should remain wild in public areas.
Rob LeVine said he was very much in favor of the stream walk. However, he felt there were other
things TOV needed to do which were of equal if not higher priority, and was concerned about
spending limited funds on this particular project at this time. He felt, in general, the Comprehensive .
Open Lands Plan was one of the best things that had happened before this Council. He felt the
• public should have access to public lands. He discussed the 8' wide asphalt bike path behind first
floor units at The Antlers. He said he was initially concerned about it, but in terms of property
values, he said his property values had doubled since that day, so he did not feel that there would
be a detriment to property values by the addition of the proposed stream walk. He added the
wildlife in The Antler's area had remained. The path had not altered or damaged the environment
at all, so he did not feel environmental problems were an issue either. He sympathized with the
people whose privacy would be bothered by the stream walk, but these were public lands and
nobody told the property owners there to build their houses there, they chose to do that. In his final
analysis, he felt it was not worth the money to further research and develop the stream walk at this
time. He would like to see as much access to the stream as possible because he felt it was in the best
interest of not only tourists, but people like himself, who would enjoy walking next to the creek, but
he was willing to set aside the parts of the stream walk that would go right next to houses, at least
temporarily.
Jim Gibson felt the stream walk, as presented, did not stand a chance of being constructed. He
thanked Russell Forest and all of the people who had worked on this project because he felt it was
a tremendous job. He felt it was one best things TOV had done in a long time and he felt everyone
should support the continuation of this plan to ensure that the kinds of things that could be seen
happening would come to fruition. He did not feel the stream walk was appropriate for several
reasons, privacy being one. Had this stream walk been built before any homes were built, he felt that
would be another matter. He felt people would have then built there with the knowledge that the
stream walk was there. But, as that was not the case, he did not feel it should be constructed now.
He noted, of the slides shown, it was obvious that the topography there contained some areas not
meant for stream walks, and TOV should not try to put them there. He felt that in the areas where
improvements could be made without impacting privacy and without impacting the stream, TOV
should make improvements, but he suspected there were only a few pocket areas where that could
Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 1nY93
be done. He felt it would be a great amenity for TOV to develop those areas, as it had in other spots.
The stream walk had proven to be very successful. Again, he was totally opposed to it if it invaded
anybody's privacy whatsoever or created problems for the stream itself. He did not think it was a
necessary project because it did not provide access that was not already there in some form or
40 another, and it would not create anything new in the way of an exciting experience. He wanted to
look at it again in terms of the pocket areas that might be developed for some enjoyment, but he did
not have a good picture of that. He suggested Russell Forrest develop a scenario that would let all
of the owners and attendees at this meeting know where these areas were and how they might be
developed, keeping in mind that, from his view, it should not impact privacy or the natural wonders
of the stream itself. He was in favor of taking the stream walk out of the Plan except for those areas
where it was felt something could be developed.
Mery Lapin noted the great amount of time Tom Steinberg had spent on the open lands project over
the last several years. Mery stated that because he had a financial interest in this isssue because he
owned land at 232 West Meadow Drive, he did not intend to vote on this issue. If he did not have
a technical conflict of interest, he felt he had a moral conflict of interest. He indicated the comments
he planned to make would be made from the aspect of a private citizen. He stated he was against
putting a stream walk in the proposed locations. He felt the proposed stream walk area was a major
refuge to the animals who were bothered by asphalt. He felt many animals had been pushed there
from other parts of Town where there had been development and activity. He felt that should be
a major concern. He felt this was a quality of life issue. He felt the more open space kept, the better
off Vail's future was, because everyone gained from that in the end, and if that meant not putting
a stream walk in when there were other alternatives or substitutes, it was better for all in the long
run. He was completely opposed to having the stream walk anywhere between the Covered Bridge
and Lionshead.
Tom Steinberg was for the stream walk. The overall open space and trails plan was the primary
issue and he did not want the stream walk issue to be viewed as if it were the only part of this
project. One question that had been raised by the consultants was how TOV was going to pay for
the land purchases and trail systems. He noted it was suggested Real Estate Transfer Tax (REIM be
used as a source of bonding in order to speed this process up, and this was not a new idea. When
the RETT was first passed, it was done so in order to buy up open space in Vail to keep it from being
developed, and, Tom felt, that was why Vail was what it was. He felt the best thing Council ever
did was to pass the RETT to buy open space and develop the parks, etc. He advised that the funding
for the lands already purchased was approaching payout and he felt it should be seriously
considered to use extra RETT tax to go out and buy up the open space that was left before it was all
gone. He felt if that was not done, it would be regretted. He felt the plan presented tonight was an
excellent start and appreciated the discussion, including compromises and alternatives. He felt Vail
could get the best of the stream walk and not necessarily have to give it all up. He felt there were
other things that should be proceeded with beside the RETT bonding. He hoped this whole Plan
could move forward as rapidly as possible because he felt time was of the essence. He said he
always felt that most people were reluctant to go near the stream because of their respect for private
property. He felt TOV needed to let people know it was okay to fish in the streams, that the sides
of the streams were public property, and that small unobtrusive signs saying "Welcome to Gore
• Creek. Use it. Enjoy it. Protect it." should be installed. He felt people should know they had
permission to use what they own. The people owned that stream tract. He noted responses from
citizens of the Town to the annual citizen surveys consistently supported the stream walk and open
space use. He added the idea was not to develop a stream walk like the one in the heavily impacted
area between the Covered Bridge and Ford Park. There would be no asphalt, no bicycles, not even
gravel, just a wood chip one or two foot wide path that disintegrated and went back to nature
wherever it was put it, particularly west of the Chapel. He�challenged the property owners on West
Meadow Drive, to come in, and TOV would help with a joint improvement venture.
Mayor Osterfoss thought that the Plan as a whole met the priorities Council had established. Those
priorities included acquisition of land as a top priority, open space preservation, and plans to look
at zoning changes to permanentize certain areas to make it difficult for those areas to ever be sold
or changed from an open space designation. Another priority was the existing trail and bike system.
She felt there were many links in that system that deeded to be completed, and the idea of the trail
going around the perimeter of the Town was a very positive one. Further, she felt working in
conjunction with the Forest Service and VA made a great deal of sense. She felt Tom Steinberg's
suggestion about bonding with RETT funds was worth exploring given the timeliness of the issue,
but that was something TOV would have to wait until next November to take to a vote. Mayor
Osterfoss hoped between now and then TOV would be able to consider some open space purchases.
With regard to the stream walk, she was encouraged by the alternate route plan and Bob Buckley's
• suggestion about increasing the stream walk along the Ford Park area. She felt many enjoyed the
bike path, which was also a stream walk through the Katsos area. She felt the fact that TOV had put
a parking lot in that area was positive in terms of enabling people to enjoy the stream along an
existing bike path. She agreed with Jim Gibson's suggestion for looking for more pocket open spaces
along the stream area. She also felt the idea Diana Donovan had raised about restoring to natural
open space the areas of the stream tract on TOV property between private property and public
Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 1119W
property would be unanimously supported by everyone present at this meeting because there seemed
to be great emphasis on environmental concerns and preservation. She felt the property owners who
had landscaped onto public property needed to be located and asked to restore the areas to open
space. She also felt Tom Steinberg's idea about signage letting people know these were public areas
would make more sense than trying to pursue a structured walkway through residential areas. She
felt the Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plans was a job well done to this point, and she looked
forward to moving forward as quickly as possible. She hoped the new Council would have the
enthusiasm this Council had for this issue.
Joe Macy stated in the research he had done, when Vail was originally platted, the stream tracts were
held out from commercial and residential development to prevent development from happening
there and to allow the public to enjoy that land. He stated the Gore Creek was recognized before
there was ever a house in Vail, other than the original houses before Vail started. Gore Creek was
recognized as an essential amenity, as the crown jewel of Vail and needed to be preserved for public
enjoyment. The trails plan which identified the stream walk was also zoned to allow for the type
of development that the stream walk would entail and it would provide for public access for the
fishermen, the locals, tourists, and the physically challenged. He felt it was eminently buildable,
permittable, and he offered to help staff at no charge. It was the public's land and the public should
be able to use it.
After brief further discussion, Mayor Osterfoss summarized the next steps for the Comprehensive
Open Lands Plan. She said input from tonight would go back to the committee, and the committee,
as a result of this input, may recommend some changes in the draft plan. That draft would go to
• the Planning and Environmental Commission, there would be a public meeting to review that, then
it would go back to the PEC to go through the approval process. Recommendations would come
from PEC to Council involving additional public meetings in that process, and then final approval
would be considered by Council.
It was clarified that the input tonight was that the plan would be re -drafted to include the stream
walk in certain areas of the draft plan presented tonight, perhaps with incorporation of pocket parks
along it, but with some diversion around the most sensitive areas, i.e. privacy -wise and topography -
wise, and that there would be further review of some of the alternative routes mentioned, and that
resources for the stream walk would be re -prioritized. Further, West Meadow Drive would be upped
in terms of a priority for action. There was also consensus that the stream tract should be restored
to natural open space in areas where private property owners had landscaped onto public property.
Signage to indicate the stream was public property was considered an important component. The
stream walk would be deleted beside the Sonnenalp and the River House/Edelweiss and the Up the
Creek. Jim Gibson asked Russell Forrest to bring the re -draft back to Council to let them know of
their recommendations, but in general, most of what was discussed in the way of the stream walk
would be deleted from the Plan. But the concept of public access to the stream was critical and the
idea of having areas where people could have that access was critical. Mery Lapin added access to
and exit from the stream had to be arranged so that it was not done on private property. Russell
advised their next step was preparation of a written document and they would try to address this
meeting's input. Mayor Osterfoss added that Jim Shearer apologized for the fact that he had to leave
• before commenting.
Before adjournment, discussion regarding the Vail Recreation District (VRD) contract was scheduled
for the November 16, 1993, Work Session.
Additionally, Jim Gibson stated he wanted to acquaint Council with a serious change of heart on his
part. He stated for the last six weeks he had had serious misgivings about the Performance and
Conference Center. After review of materials on this issue, he stated he was going to vote no on this
issue because he believed, although the concept was great, the plan had become too grandiose. From
a fiscal or financial view, he thought TOV should be issuing a bond issue somewhere in the range
of $8,000,000.00 for a facility like this. He was also concerned with the operating deficit of close to
$1,500,000.00 per year. He felt Council deserved to know this because he had voted for it and voted
for the ballot issue. He believed that from a fiscal view $8,000,000.00 was close to the limit TOV
ought to be investing in a feature of this sort for the Town of Vail. He was also concerned about the
private contribution portion of this project, stating he felt there was no real handle on it. He was
concerned there would not br private contributions at all. His third concern was about the survey
done. He was not convinced by some of the results, especially the quoted usage of over 200 days
annually.
Pam Brandmeyer noted that a portrait of Council would be taken on Tuesday,11 /16/93, at 7:00 P.M.,
in Council Chambers.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes Ilt9/93
a
•
ATTEST:
�nrr��hamc
Holly L. M Cutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Delo
CAMINSNOV9.93
Respectfully submitted,
��.-Osterfoss,
Mayor
Vail Town County Special Evening Meeting Minute. IVW93
i5 ctfa • ►I
No" � — ♦ 111111.111 � 1/1/1111111111��f�'�ti. ��
P4z- Fi�E
1.v1711 1l/9 .PETITION
A rFK / c— TO
rm Sims.' .
/ THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
����i��11111111111♦♦111111111111111/1/111111♦
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSREAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAEL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY -
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
♦11111111111111♦♦11111111111111111111111111♦
PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE
l r-7 LA-D &qlN C
LA"Pv-t— 6o &A (I U"4
�os4. b� S�n)L,-R i'Aoof1
06-� �5 �CiS C,)6 f �olv/ `4.'ta C"A'
r
it
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WELL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE .THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE
r• ('t-'jj5 L 2 �2- 69
12.Z61
nog. ' iw-', ur-, 2z69
f
�-i�--
l'�ic�r�an J,
G6i. � jib A11Y ia.�11I�� �81�,� �P.Li
iiiiiiiii�iiiiiii♦1e1ii1e
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
♦♦iiie�ii�eeeeieee�e�eeese�e�eie���ee�e♦eiee♦
WE . THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WIIO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE ' PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
♦♦iiiiiii�iii�ieiioiiioio�ie�iiioieii�iiiiio
PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS -- I ATIT i
AeI9 r S-L. .JC�r Ft or
A
ail �,�' �I►�
Wiz. u F4 C�N r ' f
�o�lo�o000♦01000♦l0000000♦
n7"+. TiT illhT .
r
THE
o0000000000��
WE THE UNDERSIGNEIT
PRESERVATION OF NA .
QUALM OF LIFE IN T
STREAMWALK BETW.19i
RESPECTFULLY PE TM ... wl;
CONCEPT FROM.
ENVIRONMENTAL S
WILL ADVEIiSI}T�Y
NECESSARY..'.,',, 9
IMPACTS Tr3Prh. lid
COMMUNTTV'
AREAS A3 P.
00000��°
PRINT
r
t� z:
s
0
WILT �s l�ii r
1�=���►o��e0000�00000♦
t � Sj1pPORT TIIE PROACTIVE
3 r
' 'm IN MAINTAINING THE
i S kD TO THE PROPOSED
lI(IIE►D AREAL WE
L ' 'i DELETE THIS
ILI,. DESTROY THE
WI rr h K "ANDS; THAT IT .
j$IT&I C3I! .:THL4 ;CHAT' IT IS NOT
DES7 i'1�ATION2ES01; fiI9 'NEGATIVELY
DS, AND BECAUSE WE; BELT THAT IT IS A
►N I PItLSERE AI��iY 0IESE :PRISTINE
40�40*i
Ad%CC[drr^kC��
F-A
•
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE
3351 s Vim! L. Cls 12�
l l� 315zs�i /5 ej
!ibam
�) Rwa It a
U�`7 7- i U�ppt w� c 6 y/0
')Z/ EAR
277 � o�
l
PC). aox /09-
11111/111111111111111111♦
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
♦♦1111/111111111111111111111111/1�1111♦♦1111♦
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WELL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT .IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT TT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
♦ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
PRINTED NAME STREET ADnRESS SIGNATURE
Q rpLw 0,0c4r-, Q)��'QVO
- U
♦IOa��1111111111111�1�1�1♦ �
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
♦♦11111111111111111111111111111111111111♦♦11♦
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITTLENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT 1S A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
♦111111111111111111111111111111111111111111♦
PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS / SIGNATURE
c� y IJ n p, 6a x �-i 2 2van s q C�hac�vut y- L)I'vc"jo
s
A
i�
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALIFY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE
i.41:
AA
a31 tit lk am 'Rcl . Awn
2 SG CUf 6X 351- ML IV -AA A/
TI "�.z--
Roy- cc
Vitt 'i rt M M" 13®k 13$S- (� ac,� CO SaS i
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS NATU
33 z
_.
f�I ! r
47 `% i 3-(J lV O -1 ur. t 'u x
(\ r..< c��lTt Jc�
0
DO
WE TOE UNDERSKINCO CONCERNXD CITIMS Wkjo $VPPOR,'r THE AROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF ::AT 10RAL OPXN SPArf, AND S'naoINGLy 13ELIEVE IN MAINTAANING THE
QUALIVY OF LIFE IN THE '.AIL VAUE'V, AM VEREM"NTLY OPPOiED TO THE PROPOSED
STRE&IMWALK BEMEEN M COVEM"D AND THE LXQN811VA0 AREA. VVE
RESFECTFULLY PETITION THE VARY, TOWN COUNCIL TO PEILMAINENTLY DELETE Tilts
CONCEPT F-ROM THE T01,", IMM-TER PLAN ON 'I CROUIND$ THAT iT WJLI� DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CRIaK AND ITS SURROMING LANDS, TOAT IT
WILL ADVEIRSOLY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE II AITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT AT 15 NOT
NECESSARY 1*0 8MIANCE VAJL MWMEA AS A DESTENATION RESOVCV, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACV4 THE SUIRAOUNDING NEIGHBORROODS, AND DECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMULNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PPJ.SERVR AS MA?q*V'Df THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS MSSIZILE FOR TMIRE cENERATIONS TO COME
4 0 + + 4 + 10 4 + 0 4
. ........ .
v
'-A
♦eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee•�ee
PETITION
TO
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
♦♦eeeeeeeeeeeeeleeeeeeeeeleeeeeeleeeeeeeeeee♦
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE
RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS
CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT
WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A
COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE
AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
♦eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee�eee♦
PRINTED NAME STREET
STREET ADDRESS / IGNATURE
J
• �vs�� �s�lw�irJS ti�S�fl ���v IiA��c411��•
JF. "'R)