HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-16 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Afternoon Meeting1.Call to Order (2:30pm)
2.Presentation/Discussion (2:30pm)
2.1 Castle Peak Update (2:30pm)10 min.
Information update only, no action requested of Council.
Presenter(s): Shelly Cornish, Castle Peak Executive Director
Background: In 2014, the Town of Vail joined the campaign to
build Castle Peak and donated $200,000.00. Now, ten years
later, Castle Peak is in the process of updating their supporters
on their impact.
2.2 Employee Housing Update (2:40pm)30 min.
Listen to presentation and provide feedback.
Presenter(s): Krista Miller, Human Resource, Safety and Risk
Management Director and Jason Dietz, Housing Director
Background: Town Council requested an update on the Town
of Vail Employee Rental Policies and rate. The purpose of this
agenda item is to provide background information to Town
Council and identify topics that are being evaluated.
2.3 Art in Public Places Artist in Residency Project Update
(3:10pm)
10 min.
Listen to presentation and provide feedback.
Presenter(s): Greg Hall, Public Works Director and Molly
Eppard, AIPP Coordinator
Background: The Ford Park Artist Studio has been in the
works since June 2003. Staff will be providing the most
current update to the project process, updating next steps, and
requesting permission to negotiate a contract for construction
for the building.
2.4 Safe Passages for Wildlife Project Update (3:20pm)15 min.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
Afternoon Session Agenda
Town Council Chambers and virtually by Zoom:
https://vail.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_dtEWN8CRS6Cn_gakfnA9WQ
2:30 PM, July 16, 2024
Notes:
Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time
Council will consider an item.
Town Update 4
TOV Employee Housing Memo
TOV Employee Housing and Rent DiscussionPP
Artist in Residency Council Memo 2024-07-16
1
Listen to presentation.
Presenter(s): Julia Kintsch, Principal and Senior Ecologist of
Eco-Resolutions
Background: Update on the Safe Passages for Wildlife
Project.
3.DRB/PEC (3:35pm)
3.1 DRB/PEC Update (5 min.)
4.Information Update (3:40pm)
4.1 May 06, 2024 AIPP Meeting Minutes
4.2 May 14, 2024 AIPP Meeting Minutes
4.3 June 10, 2024 AIPP Meeting Minutes
5.Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee Reports (3:40pm)
5.1 Matters from Mayor, Council and Committees (15 min.)
5.2 Town Manager Report (5 min.)
5.3 Council Matters and Status Update
6.Executive Session (4:00pm)
(90 min.) Executive Session pursuant to:
1.C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a) - to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any
real, personal or other property interest, C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) to hold a conference with the
Town Attorney, to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, and §24-6-402(4)(e) to
determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations develop a strategy
for negotiations and instruct negotiators and on the topic of agreements between the Town of
Vail, Triumph Timber Ridge LLC and First Bank related to the redevelopment of the West side
of the Timber Ridge Apartments.
7.Recess 5:30pm (estimate)
I-70 East Vail Pass Wildlife Crossing Project
DRB Results 7-3-24
PEC Results 7-8-24
May 6, 2024 Minutes
May 14, 2024 Minutes
June 10, 2024 Minutes
TM Update 2024-07-16
2024-07-16 Matters
Meeting agendas and materials can be accessed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail website
www.vailgov.com. All town council meetings will be streamed live by High Five Access Media and
available for public viewing as the meeting is happening. The meeting videos are also posted to High
Five Access Media website the week following meeting day, www.highfivemedia.org.
Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon
request with 48 hour notification dial 711.
2
3
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
TIME:10 min.
SUBMITTED BY:Stephanie Bibbens, Town Manager
ITEM TYPE:Presentation/Discussion
AGENDA SECTION:Presentation/Discussion (2:30pm)
SUBJECT:Castle Peak Update (2:30pm)
SUGGESTED ACTION:Information update only, no action requested of Council.
PRESENTER(S):Shelly Cornish, Castle Peak Executive Director
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
Town Update 4
4
Castle Peak Update
5
An Essential Service
• Since the very beginning, the vision for Castle Peak has been to
provide essential senior care and living services to all in need in our
community.
• This vision was born out of the generosity of local donors, towns, and
businesses. We are grateful for your town’s generosity in helping to
create Castle Peak.
6
Helping Lifelong Residents Age in Place
• The experience, generosity and insights of older generations make our
community whole.
• As the only senior living community in Eagle County and Summit County,
Castle Peak remains a critical resource for these lifelong residents who
helped build the valley that we have all come to know and love today.
7
Compassionate Care at Every Level
• Since 2016, Castle Peak has been providing compassionate care
and services to an average of 140 residents per year.
• 44 bed skilled nursing facility
• 22 long-term care
• 10 transitional care/rehab
• 12 memory care
•20 assisted living apartments
8
National Recognition
• Castle Peak recently received the Pinnacle Customer Service award for
scoring in the top 15% of senior care in the nation in the following
categories.
• Overall Satisfaction
• Quality of Food
• Cleanliness
• Individual Needs
• Laundry Service
• Dignity and Respect
• Professional Therapy Services
9
Castle Peak Care & Services Data
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Medicaid Private Pay Medicare Other
Castle Peak: Payer Source
10
Castle Peak Care & Services Data
Occupancy Impact:
Compassionate and
competent employees
Supportive residents and
families
Quality care and strong
connections with Vail Health
and Valley View Health
Systems
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
YE 2019 YE 2020 Current 2023
Castle Peak SNF: Occupancy
State Avg (CO)
11
Castle Peak Care & Services Data
12
Castle Peak’s Growing Challenges
• While the need for Castle Peak is greater than ever today, the rising cost
of living, lack of affordable housing and workforce crisis have immensely
increased the cost of providing care in Eagle County.
• Government reimbursement programs have not kept pace with the cost of
care in the region. The Medicaid gap is approximately $150 per day per
Medicaid resident.
• Fortunately, we have found some short-term solutions and partners to
help us continue providing essential care and services to all older adults
in need, including residents utilizing Medicaid.
13
Solutions
• Improving operational efficiencies, increasing occupancy and reducing
pool labor use is an ongoing focus.
• Eagle County has chosen to invest in supporting this important service
in the valley for 2023 and 2024. While this level of support does not
cover the entire operating gap at Castle Peak, it does bring it within
reach so we can work to continue serving all older adults in need,
including those individuals utilizing Medicaid.
• Seeking other charitable support and partnerships is ongoing.
• While the operating environment is challenging, we remain
encouraged by the mission of Castle Peak and the committed
community members engaged in finding ways to support this
important work.
14
Christine and Gary’s Story
“They still have their two favorite things: each other and the fresh
mountain air, their lifeblood. Two things they never want to be without.
And thanks to the generosity of the valley in creating Castle Peak,
they won’t ever be without them.”
15
Thank YOU!
We remain grateful for your community’s support in making
Castle Peak a reality!
Questions?
Shelly Cornish
Castle Peak Executive Director
Shelly.Cornish@cassialife.org
970-432-1100
16
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.2
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
TIME:30 min.
SUBMITTED BY:Stephanie Bibbens, Town Manager
ITEM TYPE:Presentation/Discussion
AGENDA SECTION:Presentation/Discussion (2:30pm)
SUBJECT:Employee Housing Update (2:40pm)
SUGGESTED ACTION:Listen to presentation and provide feedback.
PRESENTER(S):Krista Miller, Human Resource, Safety and Risk Management Director
and Jason Dietz, Housing Director
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
TOV Employee Housing Memo
TOV Employee Housing and Rent DiscussionPP
17
TO:Vail Town Council
FROM:Town Manager
Human Resources Department
Public Works Department
Housing Department
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBJECT: Employee rent discussion
I.SUMMARY
Town Council requested an update on Town of Vail employee rental policies and rates. An
internal committee, made up of representatives from the above-mentioned departments are
working to identify necessary adjustments to the town’s employee rental policy amid efforts to
address both current demand for housing and focus on strategies that will address future needs.
The purpose of this memo is to provide background information to Town Council and identify
topics that are being evaluated.
II.BACKGROUND
Like many local employers and resort mountain communities in the region, the Town of Vail
developed an employee housing rental program to address employee recruitment and retention
issues. The town realized that affordable housing was key to maintaining a stable workforce in
order to reduce rising overtime costs, to minimize time and money spent on training and to bring
the high employee turn-over rate under control. The very first employee housing unit was the
Town Manager’s residence acquired in the 1980’s. Later on, the town’s created the Fire
Resident program which housed 12 resident students. Prior to 1998, the town “master leased”
units (at a financial loss) to house only a handful of seasonal bus drivers. With the completion
of Buzzard Park in 1998, the town established policies, procedures, and affordable rental rates
for the new program.
Since that time, affordability issues in the Vail Valley have exacerbated the demand for
employee housing. Town of Vail employee turnover also creates demand when the
organization loses an employee that already had housing and now is being replaced with
someone outside the Vail Valley or neighboring communities.
To combat the increased demand, the town has added 20 homes (30 beds) to the rental pool,
with considerable investment ($14.3 million) in the last three years. The town’s rental inventory
is now 83 units, with 110 total number of bedrooms. On average the town’s houses 85
employees (some with families) out of the town’s 380 total staff, or 22%. During peak winter
season the town houses closer to 27% of employee. This does not include employees who
18
Town of Vail Page 2
purchased deed-restricted homes (and must re-sell back to TOV if they leave TOV
employment). Several recently purchased units still have non-TOV tenants which will become
available to town employees this fall and several vacant units are in transition with employees
moving in and out. The town has a master lease as well, to help mitigate the demand.
III.DISCUSSION
The process for managing the town’s inventory of employee housing has become complicated,
employee housing needs continue to expand and the Towns current methods for managing
employee housing are challenged by increased demand. This memo outlines the current
methods used by the Town to manage employee housing and explores additional pathways to
be considered as our housing needs and programs continue to grow and evolve. Staff will need
to obtain legal advice on the taxability of rents in all options considered.
Below are the current criteria for who can live in town housing and definition of critical
employees:
1.Who gets to live in employee housing?
Criteria for housing eligibility (listed in order of priority) was established in 1998 with
the completion of Buzzard Park and is still in place today.
1st - Seasonal employee/full-time seasonal employee
2nd - Full-time Critical Service Employee
3rd - All Others (in this order):
Full-time Essential Service Employee
Full-time “in transition” employee (new hires in need of a short-term
lease)
All other full-time TOV employees
2.Who is critical?
The criteria for determining this was life safety and emergency response personnel.
Critical: Firefighters, Police Officers, Dispatchers, Plow Operators, Mechanics,
Building Mtc. Specialists, IT (911 mtc), Code Enforcement Officers, and Community
Information
Essential: Full-time bus drivers
The Town has approximately 25-30 seasonal employees (depending on the season), 147
“Critical Service” positions as defined above plus more than 44 “Essential Service” positions
which together represents nearly 58% of the municipal workforce. Current hiring trends show
that almost all hires are in need of housing. Approximately 75% of the town’s rental units are
occupied by seasonal employees, or those in critical or essential positions. In addition the
Town’s entry level employees starting wage is 50% of Eagle County AMI for a single household.
Many of these positions perform public-facing core services (Public Works streets and
maintenance workers, Parking staff, Welcome Center staff, among others).
Staff will also re-evaluate the above critical and essential positions. As the housing market has
become exponentially more difficult over the last few years, consideration may be given to
19
Town of Vail Page 3
transitional housing needs for leadership roles as well as future retirements in supervisory
positions. The town’s turnover rate is a key component in driving demand for employee
housing. Turnover has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from 12-18% in
recent years.
Another topic requiring evaluation is the timeline of housing: Should the town focus on 2 year,
5 year or “forever” housing? Does the town focus on meeting short-term needs with incentives
to move out of town-owned housing, or does the town allow retirees to remain in town-owned
housing with the “community-focus” in mind?
Rental Rates
Buzzard Park was the first employee housing property owned and operated by the Town of Vail
and this has historically been the baseline of the rental structure. With 21 studios and 3 small
one-bedroom units – this baseline allows us to set other rents (higher and lower) based on type
of unit, size of unit, amenities in the unit and complex, employee living situation (roommate/non-
roommate) while also taking into consideration local employer-based rents and evolving market
conditions.
The Town also recognizes the importance of balancing the rental rate structure with the
increasing demands on recruitment and retention – the two primary strategic goals of the
internal housing program. The past two years have seen significant increases in TOV employee
rents – between 9% and 12% to bring our baseline in line with other employer-based rents and
the upward trend of rental rates in general. Rates are expected to increase 11/1/24, with an
amount yet to be determined. Please see the chart below for a range of employee rental rates
by unit type.
Unit Type TOV Rental Rates
Single Bedroom (shared unit)$734 to $900 per month
Studio $875 to $1,025 per month
One Bedroom unit $925 to $1,140 per month
Two Bedroom unit $1,468 to $1,694 per month
Three Bedroom unit $2,541 to $2,700 per month
It is important to note that with a few exceptions periodically, the employee housing units are
occupied primarily by front-line employees across the organization. Several of our units also
have rates based on single/double occupancy. Employees in higher level positions who need
housing (mainly transitional), may pay higher rental rates. The Town’s entry-level position
starting pay equates to 50% of Eagle County AMI for a single person; please note that AMI as a
calculation includes not only wages, but other income such as investments or
pension/retirement income.
With a desire to update the town’s method for determining rental rates, staff will be considering
a few alternatives to the town’s rent structure, such as:
1. Rent as a percentage of wages or household income
2. Rent based on a percentage of a government index rental rate, i.e., 80% of HUD fair
market rental rates is used by another local government agency as their baseline.
3. Tiered rent based on number of years in employee housing (rent increases become
larger the longer an employee stays in TOV housing)
20
Town of Vail Page 4
4. Housing stipend as an alternative to providing physical homes
In selecting a different method of calculating rental rates, the town will need to consider many
factors, such as complexity in administration, how rents compare to entry-level pay, and
retaining flexibility for special situations and changing circumstances. Before implementing a
new rent structure, the town will need to obtain legal advice on taxability of rental benefits
with each option.
1. Rent as a percentage of wages or pay grade or household income
The town is seeking legal advice on the implications of setting rents based on a percentage of
employees’ wages or pay grade. Charging different rents for the same unit type will have
unintended tax consequences, so additional research is needed for this option. Further
complications exist with couples and families residing in our housing in which multiple income
sources or multiple bedrooms may be applicable.
This methodology is also more complicated to track, maintain and communicate to employees.
The complex administration of this option has risk of human error and could be more difficult to
substantiate in the case of an audit.
2. Rent based on HUD guidelines or other market data
A published government resource or local survey could be used as a baseline to set employee
rental rates. A human resources fall 2023 survey of local employers and units targeted for the
local workforce showed the following averages by unit type:
Unit Type Average Rental Rates
Single Bedroom (shared unit)$720 per month
Studio No comparison responses
One Bedroom unit $1,320 per month
Two Bedroom unit $1,663 per month
Three Bedroom unit $2,006 per month
Below is a chart showing the 2024 HUD rental rates (rental rates include utilities), which are
published annually. One local government agency shared that they set rents based on 80% of
the “Fair Market Rent” HUD rates. The employees are then taxed for the 20% benefit they
receive from the discounted rent. While the Eagle County HUD rental rates are the highest for
Colorado (increased 13-16% from the prior year), they are close to maximum allowed rents for
single households at the 80% AMI for Eagle County.
21
Town of Vail Page 5
3.Tiered Rent based on Years in TOV Housing
Staff will research the ability to charge a premium or extra fee on employee rents depending on
how long the employee remains in TOV housing. For example, the longer an employee stays in
TOV housing the higher the amount paid. The intent of this is to encourage employees to
ultimately move on from town-owned housing. There are challenges to this alternative, as the
town has already experienced in attempting to limit the number of years in employee housing.
When it comes time to move out of employee housing, the market rents are often too high for
many employees to afford,and/or it’s difficult for employees to come up with the required funds
to invest in housing. The town does not want to lose valued employees and in the last several
years has halted the practice of limiting the number of years in housing.
4.Housing Stipend
Staff will also research housing stipends provided by neighboring organizations. While an
expensive proposition, a local agency indicated that their stipend (given to employees not in
employee housing)allows employees to move out of their housing because it narrows the gap
between employee housing rental rates and the outside market rates.
Other Housing Assistance
In addition to the rental housing discussed above, the Town offers additional resources to
support employees across the continuum of housing such as,the Employee Home Ownership
Program (EHOP), access to the Vail InDEED program and sales of deed restricted units directly
to town employees. All these methods and more will be analyzed for effectiveness and impact
on the town’s goal for employee housing.
Currently the town has 22 employees living in deed-restricted housing units. Five of those
include a term in the deed restriction whereby the employee must sell the unit back to the TOV
when they leave TOV employment.
The EHOP is an equity share loan program that helps bridge the affordability gap between the
purchase price and the primary mortgage. This program has benefited 59 employees since
inception, with 22 current employees participating. The EHOP program might increase
participation if limits are increased from the $75K outside Vail and $120K within Vail available
investment from the town (deed-restricted properties capped at 10% of purchase). The program
has been a success with a return on the town’s investment, and all returns are funneled back
into the EHOP program.
22
Town of Vail Page 6
EHOP By the Numbers:
15.5 Years (2009-2024)
58 loans totaling $2.39 Million
Average loan: $41,223
IV.SUMMARY
The town’s employee housing rental program has been an effective tool to annually recruit
seasonal workers and keep a core group of critical employees available for work response.
Next steps include the gathering and analysis of data,contracting with EPS to analyze current
and future TOV employee housing needs and strategies, establishing a goal for employee
housing, and determining potential solutions for managing the increased demand. Staff will
return to Town Council with regular report-outs and ultimately propose strategy and budget
implications for a variety of solutions.
8 1 4 0 3 4 5 4 6 2 6 5 3 1 4 2
EHOP LOANS BY YEAR
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 ytd
23
Town
Employee
Housing
Update and
Discussion
Vail Town
Council
July 16, 2024
24
Town Housing Inventory
Town of Vail | Employee Housing | vail.gov
Current Town Housing
Inventory
• 83 units
• 110 bedrooms
• 85 employees housed out of
380 total town staff
• 22% of Town staff
housed
• 20 children are housed
(11 families)
• 1 master leased unit
Note: within the last 3 years
TOV added 20 units costing
approximately $14.3M
25
Criteria to Live in TOV Employee Housing
Town of Vail | Employee Housing | vail.gov
Housing eligibility priority est. 1998
1. Seasonal employee
2. Full-time critical service employee
3. All others (in this order)
i.Full-time essential service
employee
ii.Full-time employee transitional
housing
iii. All other full-time TOV
employees
Critical: Firefighters, Police Officers,
Dispatchers, Plow Operators, Mechanics,
Building Mtc. Specialists, IT (911 mtc), Code
Enforcement Officers, and Community
Information
26
Current Rental Rates and HUD Fair Market Rents
Town of Vail | Employee Housing | vail.gov
Unit Type TOV Rental Rates Local Survey*
Single Bedroom (shared unit)$734 to $900 per month $720 per month
Studio $875 to $1,025 per month No comparison responses
One Bedroom unit $925 to $1,140 per month $1,320 per month
Two Bedroom unit $1,468 to $1,694 per month $1,663 per month
Three Bedroom unit $2,541 to $2,700 per month $2,006 per month
*Local survey of employers and affordable units in Eagle County
HUD Fair Market Rents
27
Town Employee Housing
Town of Vail | Employee Housing | vail.gov
Rental Strategies to Consider
1. Rent as a percentage of
wages or household income
2. Rent based on a percentage
of HUD Fair Market Values
3. Tiered rent based on years
in employee housing
4. Housing stipend as an
alternative to providing
physical homes
5. Others?
*Operational considerations along with
legal advice may be needed to verify
implications for implementation of each
option.
28
Town Housing Inventory
Town of Vail | | vailgov.com
Next Steps
• Establish a goals for employee housing
• Conduct an internal housing needs
assessment to analyze current and future
TOV employee housing needs and
strategies
• Analyze the effectiveness of our current
program
• Research and analyze the potential
solutions for managing increased demand
• Establish budget implications to achieve
the goal
• Provide regular reports back to Town
Council
Town of Vail | Employee Housing | vail.gov
29
Questions and
Comments:
30
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.3
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
TIME:10 min.
SUBMITTED BY:Greg Hall, Public Works
ITEM TYPE:Presentation/Discussion
AGENDA SECTION:Presentation/Discussion (2:30pm)
SUBJECT:Art in Public Places Artist in Residency Project Update (3:10pm)
SUGGESTED ACTION:Listen to presentation and provide feedback.
PRESENTER(S):Greg Hall, Public Works Director and Molly Eppard, AIPP Coordinator
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
Artist in Residency Council Memo 2024-07-16
31
1
TO:Vail Town Council
FROM:Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, and Transportation
Molly Eppard, Art in Public Places Coordinator
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBJECT:Art in Public Places Artist in Residency Project Update
I.SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to:
Provide Town Council with an update of the Artist in Residency project progress.
Request permission to negotiate a contract for construction of the Artist in
Residency Building.
Update the Town Council on next steps regarding the project.
II.BACKGROUND
Timeline as related to the design development of the Ford Park Artist Studio:
June 2003 – Conditional Use Permit approved by PEC for the proposed use of an
Artist in Residency Studio at the site on lower bench in Ford Park.
December 2016 – $50,000 received from East West Partners for mitigation of
Manor Vail development to reexplore benefits of a dedicated visual arts space and
to pursue design development of the existing structure as defined by the 2013 Ford
Park Master Plan:
o The Creekside area is a narrow strip of land south of Betty Ford Way and
north of Gore Creek. A few small structures (i.e. the “art shack”, an open-air
picnic shelter) are located in this area. Art in Public Places (AIPP) may
pursue remodeling or enhancing the art shack at some point in the future.
AIPP had placed permanent art installations in this area and also runs
summer art programs in this part of the Park. Art programs may include
activities such as interactive events, educational and participatory activities,
and temporary art installations. The passive use and the limited number of
permanent improvements within this area make it an excellent transition to
the more natural, undisturbed Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area.
December 17, 2019 – Informational update to Town Council on the findings, report,
and structural evaluation by Harry Teague Architects.
32
2
May 4, 2021 – Council directs AIPP to pursue design development as
recommended by staff after review of post structural evaluation with Harry Teague
Architects:
o Given the expense of working within and modifying an imperfect existing
structure, with pretty much no useful components, it makes by far the most
sense from an economic standpoint to build a new structure from scratch. In
addition, a new somewhat larger building could be designed within the site
parameters and accommodate the anticipated arts uses.
October 19, 2021 – Informational update to Town Council on further design
development.
February 15, 2022 – Informational update to Town Council on further design and
program development
August of 2022 – The Art In Public Places Board revised the program and design
intent to reflect an Artist in Residency space and have the building reflect the artistic
nature of the building. Building size was reduced from an approximately 1000 SF
space to a 700 SF space.
January 3, 2023 – Presentation of the proposed studio space design as approved
by AIPP Board for the purposes of a year-round multi-disciplinary Artist in
Residency Studio by principal architect Harry Teague of Harry Teague Architects,
Basalt, CO. Ask permission to proceed through the entitlement process for the
building.
February 21, 2023 – Planning and Environmental Commission approval of
Conditional Use permit.
October 4, 2023 – Design Review Board Approval for the building.
December 2024 – Conceptual Pricing package released to contractor for pricing.
January 10, 2024 – Conceptual pricing received from contractors.
February 20, 2024 – Revised pricing based on Value Engineering process.
March 5, 2024 – Town Council reviewed the building and revised to the budget to
ensure the project would continue to move forward.
Design Finalization and Contractor Selection
The project design team issued a 75% CD package to the estimating contractor for pricing.
In going out to the market with multiple sub input/bids the project cost has trended higher
than originally anticipated and expected to exceed the 2024 budget of $1.4M for this
33
3
project. Additional funds will be needed to ensure an adequate contingency during the
construction phase of the contract.
The 100% construction plans are being wrapped up incorporating all the value engineering
and cost reductions the design team, estimating team and town staff identified. The final
plans are scheduled to be submitted to the Building Department for review and issuance of
the building permit.
The town staff is asking permission to negotiate the construction project as a sole
source without going out to bid. Per the Town Code, “The Town Manager shall have the
right to enter into negotiations for a contract to construct a particular local improvement or
to perform work thereon without submitting it for bid with the prior approval of the Town
Council if the value of the contract is greater than $50,000.“
The reason a sole sourced negotiation is being requested is due to concerns that with the
small scope of the project, attracting a qualified contractor for construction will be difficult.
Staff is also concerned with complicated logistics due to site constraints including the
location and size in addition to the sensitivity of constructing a project in the middle of the
lower bench of Ford Park during the town’s busy fall schedule. It will be important to have
a contractor that has performed successfully in the past under similar circumstances
verses making a contractor selection based largely on the lowest bid. If given permission
to negotiate, the town will require the General Contractor to obtain multiple sub-
contractor bids in a competitive environment for all the items of work.
A negotiated process will also allow the project to stay on schedule. When a building
location was determined, the design team and Town staff evaluated alternate building
locations, with each location having pros and cons regarding the placement and
positioning. After careful consideration, the original building site was selected, however,
the alternate site location process took time and delayed final completion of the plans and
building permit submittal.
Delaying construction until latter in the fall, will cause the project to incur additional winter
condition mitigation costs, which would most likely be more than potential savings from a
competitive bidding process.
If given permission to negotiate the contract, staff will return to the Council for the
construction contract award in August and finalize any budget adjustments at a later
meeting.
VI.ACTION REQUESTED
Provide direction on the procurement of a Contractor for the Artist in Residency
Building. The staff is requesting permission to negotiate the construction contract
with RA Nelson.
34
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.4
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
TIME:15 min.
SUBMITTED BY:Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability
ITEM TYPE:Presentation/Discussion
AGENDA SECTION:Presentation/Discussion (2:30pm)
SUBJECT:Safe Passages for Wildlife Project Update (3:20pm)
SUGGESTED ACTION:Listen to presentation.
PRESENTER(S):Julia Kintsch, Principal and Senior Ecologist of Eco-Resolutions
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
I-70 East Vail Pass Wildlife Crossing Project
35
I-70 East Vail Pass Wildlife Crossings Project
Vail Town Council :: July 18,2024
36
Despite high traffic volumes, wildlife-vehicle collisions are the 3rd leading
cause of crashes reported to law enforcement on East Vail Pass
(CDOT, 2013-2022)
Every hour that the I -70 Mountain Corridor is closed the state’s economy takes
an almost $2 million hit – Shoshana Lew, CDOT Executive Director
37
Colorado Corridors Project – Lynx locations, 2015 - 2023
COPPER MOUNTAIN
VAIL PASS
38
I-70 East Vail Pass
Feasibility Study (2020)
Funded by:
Vail Resorts, Arapaho Basin, Center for Large Landscape Conservation
39
I
-
7
0
W
B
I
-
7
0
E
B
Existing Span Bridge
Wildlife Mitigation
COPPER MOUNTAIN
VAIL PASS
40
I
-
7
0
W
B
I
-
7
0
E
B
Wildlife Mitigation
Existing Span Bridge
Planned Wildlife Crossing
Wildlife Fence
COPPER MOUNTAIN
VAIL PASS
41
42
I-70 East Vail Pass Wildlife Crossings Partnership
July 2022
43
Project Status
2022 - 2023
ü CDOT assumes project leadership
ü Agreements
⎼Summit County / CDOT
⎼Summit County / Summit County
Safe Passages
ü $1.09M secured for design from
state, county, and private sources
ü CDOT selects consultant team and
initiates the design and
environmental review processes
2024
ü Summit County receives $450K from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
ü Grant award leverages additional $275K in matching funds from the Colorado Safe Passages Fund
44
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
(2020)
CDOT INITIATES
DESGIN
(2022)
60%
ENGINEERING
DESIGN
FINAL
DESIGN
RAISE
CONSTRUCTION
FUNDS
CONSTRUCTION
Funding Roadmap
2024
o Raise $1M to complete design →
project becomes ‘shovel ready’
o Apply for federal construction grants
(Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program)
Ø NEW: $6.4M allocated from the state’s cash
match fund for grant proposals seeking funds
under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
COUNTIES – TOWNS – SKI AREAS – GRANTS – STATE – PRIVATE DONORS
45
Vail Pass is the gateway to Vail
Wildlife is a very important value for 84% of
Eagle County residents
High visibility project will support future crossings projects
elsewhere in Eagle County and across the State
46
www.summitcountysafepassages.org
47
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Jamie Leaman-Miller, Community Development
ITEM TYPE:DRB/PEC Update
AGENDA SECTION:DRB/PEC (3:35pm)
SUBJECT:DRB/PEC Update (5 min.)
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
DRB Results 7-3-24
PEC Results 7-8-24
48
Design Review Board Minutes
Wednesday, July 3, 2024
2:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
Present: Roland J Kjesbo
Kit Austin
Mary Egan
Rys Olsen
Herbert Roth
1. Virtual Meeting Link
Register to attend Design Review Board Meetings. Once registered, you will receive
a confirmation email containing information about joining this webinar.
2. Call to Order
3. Main Agenda
3.1 DRB24-0132 - Stupp Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (landscape)
Address/ Legal Description: 1602 Matterhorn Circle/Lot 1, Timber Vail Subdivision
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Robert Stupp
DRB24-0132 Documents.pdf
DRB24-0132 Plans.pdf
Rys Olsen made a motion to Table to a date uncertain; Herbert Roth seconded the motion Passed
(5 - 0).
3.2 DRB23-0147 - LeMay Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (stucco/entry/railing)
Address/ Legal Description: 2317 Garmisch Drive/Lot 20, Block H, Vail Das Schone Filing 2
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Brian LeMay
DRB23-0147 Documents.pdf
DRB23-0147 Plans.pdf
Existing Conditions Photos.pdf
Rys Olsen made a motion to Approve with the findings the application meets Vail Town Code
Section 14-10-3; Roland J Kjesbo seconded the motion Passed (5 - 0).
3.3 DRB22-0011.003 - Rawhide Equity Partners LLC
Final review of a change to approved plans (HVAC/Window Trim/Roof/Driveway)
Address/ Legal Description: 4250 Spruce Way/Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Rawhide Equity Partners LLC, represented by Rawhide Equity Partners LLC
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2024
1
49
DRB22-0011.003 Proposed Powell Brava Roofing
System.pdf DRB22-0011.003 Plan Changes.pdf
Rys Olsen made a motion to Approve with the findings the application meets Vail Town Code
Section 14-10-5; Herbert Roth seconded the motion Passed (5 - 0).
3.4 DRB24-0155.001 - Wengert-Neff Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (window/mullion)
Address/ Legal Description: 1234 Westhaven Drive A81/Cascade Village - Liftside Condominiums
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Donna Wengert Neff, represented by Pierce Austin Architects
Photo - South Elevation.pdf
DRB24-0155.001 Plans.pdf
Rys Olsen made a motion to Approve with the findings the application meets Vail Town Code
Section 14-10-5 and 14-10-4; Roland J Kjesbo seconded the motion Passed (4 - 0).
3.5 DRB24-0212 - Geneva LLC
Conceptual Review
Address/ Legal Description: 1721 Geneva Drive/Lot 9, Matterhorn Village Filing 1
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Geneva LLC, represented by Blueline Architects p.c.
DRB24-0212 Plans.pdf
Conceptual
3.6 DRB22 -0212.002 - Baker/Rocky Mtn Juniper/Russell
Final review of a change to approved plans (windows)
Address/ Legal Description: 1101 Vail View Drive C/Lot 11, Casolar Vail II
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Michael Baker, Brendan McCarthy & William Russell, represented by Pierce
Austin Architects
DRB22-0212.002 South Elevation.pdf
DRB22-0212.002 East Elevation.pdf
Mary Egan made a motion to Table to a date uncertain; Rys Olsen seconded the motion Passed (4 - 0).
3.7 DRB24-0216 - 298 Rockledge LLC - ET
Conceptual review (new duplex)
Address/ Legal Description: 298 Rockledge Road/Lot 16, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: 298 Rockledge LLC, represented by KH Webb
DRB24-0216 Rockledge.pdf
Conceptual
3.8 DRB24-0214 - Vail Gymnastics Center
Final review of an exterior alteration (rooftop mechanical equipment)
Address/ Legal Description: 545 North Frontage Road West/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1
Planner: Heather Knight
Applicant Name: Vail Gymnastics, represented by Pierce Austin Architects
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2024
2
50
DRB24-0214_Presentation.pdf
Rys Olsen made a motion to Approve ; Mary Egan seconded the motion Passed (4 - 0).
3.9 DRB24-0159 - 9 Vail Road 24 LLC
Final review of an exterior alteration (landscape/gate)
Address/ Legal Description: 9 Vail Road 2E/Lot B, Vail Village Filing 2
Planner: Heather Knight
Applicant Name: 9 Vail Road 24, represented by Zehren and Associates
DRB24-0159_Presentation2.pdf
Rys Olsen made a motion to Approve with Conditions that gate on north side of the property is to
be removed from project scope.; Mary Egan seconded the motion Passed (4 - 0).
3.10 DRB24-0210 - Lodge at Lionshead
Conceptual review
Address/ Legal Description: 360 E Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1
Planner: Heather Knight
Applicant Name: Lodge at Lionsead, represented by KH Webb
DRB24-0210_Architectural.pdf
DRB24-0210_Renderings.pdf
DRB24-0210_Materials.pdf
Conceptual
3.11 DRB24-0242 - Los Amigos
Conceptual review of an addition
Address/ Legal Description: 278 Hanson Ranch Road 221/Lot A-C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Los Amigos, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
DRB24-0242 Conceptual Plans.pdf
The 62 Narrative.pdf
Conceptual
4. Staff Approvals
4.1 DRB24-0197 - Montaneros Condos
Final review of a tree removal
Address/ Legal Description: 684 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3
Planner: Heather Knight
Applicant Name: Montaneros Condominiums, represented by Old Growth Tree Services
4.2 DRB24-0119 - Mustang Condos
Final review of a tree removal
Address/ Legal Description: 1859 Meadow Ridge Road/Lot 15, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision
Planner: Heather Knight
Applicant Name: Mustang Condos, represented by Earth-Wise Horticultural
4.3 DRB24-0217 - Boettner/Ober
Final review of an exterior alteration (ac unit)
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2024
3
51
Address/ Legal Description: 2333 Upper Traverse Way 29/Parcel B, Vail Das Schone Filing 1
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Mark Obernesser & Rachel Boettner represented by, Rachel Obernesser
4.4 DRB24-0220 - 1150 Ptarmigan Rd
Final review of a sign application
Address/ Legal Description: 1150 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 7
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: 1150 Ptarmigan Rd LLC, represented by Paragon Homes
4.5 DRB24-0199 - Kaplan Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/doors)
Address/ Legal Description: 2335 Bald Mountain Road A1/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Krista Kaplan, represented by Renewal by Anderson
4.6 DRB24-0211 - Gravity Haus
Final review of an exterior alteration (decks)
Address/ Legal Description: 352 East Meadow Drive/Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Gravity Haus, represented by Pierce Austin Architects
4.7 DRB24-0077.001 - Meek
Final review of a change to approved plans (venting/grills)
Address/ Legal Description: 44 West Meadow Drive 5/Lot I, Vail Village Filing 2
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Meek Family, represented by RA Nelson
4.8 DRB24-0153.001 - Oneill Residenc e
Final review of a change to approved plans (exterior changes)
Address/ Legal Description: 2820 Aspen CT B/Lot 14, Vail Village Filing 11
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Thomas Oneill & Ann David
4.9 DRB24-0231 - Eby Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (AC/condenser)
Address/ Legal Description: 660 Lionshead Place 572/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead Filing First Addition
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Patricia Eby, represented by R&H Mechanical
4.10 DRB24 -0233 - Mockingbird Investments LLC
Final review of an exterior alteration (AC/condenser)
Address/ Legal Description: 660 Lionshead Place 454/Vail Lionshead Filing 1 First Addition
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Mockingbird Investments, represented by R&H Mechanical
4.11 DRB24-0234 - Kelly Residence
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2024
4
52
Final review of an exterior alteration (AC/condenser)
Address/ Legal Description: 660 Lionshead Place 368/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 First Addition
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Kim Kelly, represented by R and H Mechanical
4.12 DRB24-0235 - Pequa Petro Inc
Final review of an exterior alteration (AC/condenser)
Address/ Legal Description: 660 Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 First Addition
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Piqua Petro Inc, represented by R and H Mechanical
4.13 DRB24-0166 - Hilliard West LLC
Final review of a tree removal
Address/ Legal Description: 1801 Sunburst Drive A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Hilliard West, represented by George Lamb
4.14 DRB24-0237 - Ronck Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (Tree Removal)
Address/ Legal Description: 4301 Glen Falls Lane/Lot 1, Forest Glen Subdivision
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Bryan & Catherine Ronck, represented by Old Growth Tree Service
4.15 DRB24-0219 - A2Z Holdings LLC
Final review of an exterior alteration (tree removal)
Address/ Legal Description: 383 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 3
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: A2Z Holdings LLC, represented by Rocky Mountain Tree Care
4.16 DRB22 -0307.003 - White Longspur Capital LLC Final
review of a change to approved plans (Walls/deck/drains)
Address/ Legal Description: 466 Forest Road/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 3
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: White Longspur Capital LLC, represented by KH Webb
4.17 DRB24-0236 - Vollmer Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (Windows)
Address/ Legal Description: 303 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Kevin Vollmer, represented by Ulf Built
5. Staff Denials
6. Adjournment
Roland J Kjesbo made a motion to Adjourn ; Mary Egan seconded the motion Passed (5 - 0).
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2024
5
53
Present:David Tucker
William Jensen
Robert Lipnick
John Rediker
Scott McBride
Brad Hagedorn
Robyn Smith
1.Virtual Link
Register to attend the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Once registered,
you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining this webinar.
2.Call to Order
3.Worksession
4.Main Agenda
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: PHH Design Development
4.1
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to
Special Development District No. 4 (Cascade Village), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special
Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use
project on the property known as the Cornerstone site, located at 1276 Westhaven Drive/
Cornerstone Parcel, Liftside/Cornerstone Subdivision and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC24-0016)
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
Monday, July 8, 2024
1:00 PM
Grand View Room
PEC24-0016 Staff Memo July 8, 2024.pdf
Attachment_A._Vicinity_Map.pdf
Attachment B. Narrative-Project Description.pdf
Attachment C. Amendment Materials June 27, 2024 Update.pdf
Attachment D. Cornerstone Plan Set_Part1.pdf
Attachment D Cornerstone Plan Set_Part2.pdf
Attachment D. Cornerstone Plan Set_Part3.pdf
Attachment D. Cornerstone Plan Set_Part4.pdf
Attachment E. Massing Model.pdf
Attachment F. March 11, 2024 PEC minutes (Worksession).pdf
Attachment G. June 10, 2024 PEC Minutes.pdf
Attachment H. Seter, Vander Wall and Mielke representing Cascade Village Metro District, May 20,
2024.pdf
Attachment I. Caplan and Ernest representing applicant response letter, June 24, 2024.pdf
Attachment J. Applicant’s Presentation to the PEC, July 8, 2024.pdf
1
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 54
Timestamp: 0:00:25
Spence presents the changes from the previous meeting. These include changes by reducing the
“Owner’s lounge” at the lowest level of the site and adding one additional EHU in the building. He goes
over the potential public benefit that is included in the application. He also goes over the deviations of the
project from the requirements of the SDD. Height and parking are the main variations of the proposal.
The parking spaces were found to be undersized by the PW team as recently as the previous week. It
will need to be determined if those spaces were originally striped that way or if that was a change at
some point.
Rediker has a question on how the reduction in the owner’s lounge has allayed staff’s concern on the
topic.
Spence answers that the reduction in size and locating it in the rear of the lowest level allows for the
greatest commercial frontage.
Rediker, so the PEC would have to determine that this is the appropriate use on that level of the site?
Spence, that is correct. He refers to the CC1 district as the example but the determination can be made
by the PEC.
Rediker asks if there needs to be an amendment to the SDD.
Spence states that the PEC would have to determine that this is an appropriate use in this location.
Hagedorn asks if this is a ski club and if so that it would have to be considered the basement to allow.
Spence, that is correct.
Smith, does the town have a master plan for this area of town?
Spence, the SDD is largely the plan overall for the area. There is no separate master plan for this area.
Gennett, underlying this area is the land use plan for ski base area and there is no underlying zone
district for this area.
Jensen, SDD ski club locker space, this is similar to the village?
Spence, The SDD borrows the CC1 zoning designation for uses on the first floor from the Vail Town
Code. It uses those as the appropriate uses.
Rediker, Question on parking. Can you explain to me on the conclusions on the availability of the parking
spaces for this use not designated for other uses?
Spence, the 2016 parking analysis that was done analyzed the uses at that time. Some of those uses
have been discontinued since then, so the number may be greater than reported. The current undersized
spaces are a concern to the Town Engineer as it makes the spaces very hard to utilize. We encourage a
restriping plan so it will give us an actual number of spaces per Code and how many needed per current
and future use.
Rediker, are we concerned with parking for the EHU?
Spence, those will be in the garage as well and will most likely be 5-6 spaces.
Rediker, we need 30 spaces, but those have to be proper size?
Spence, I believe the town engineer would be in support of that.
2
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 55
Hagedorn, there were concerns about the easements at the last meeting from public. Where has staff
fallen on that?
Spence, per the legal team, that is a civil matter that staff and the PEC does not concern with.
Robyn, when did the spaces become undersized? Were the size requirements changed or were they
always like that?
Spence, we do not have that information on that. We don’t know when it was done, but spaces need to
meet current day standards.
Robyn, are there other active permits in that SDD?
Spence, there are some permits for the event space above the parking area for safety items.
Robyn, can we get a site visit? When do we make that request?
Spence, now works, we can see when we can get that done to visit and the level of the current
construction of the space. Prior to the meeting on July 22nd may be good.
Robyn, asks for at least 4 hands on this request for a site visit on July 22nd.
All members support this ask.
Jensen, are all the spaces in the garage undersized?
Tom Kassmel, Town engineer, says they did not measure all of the spaces but the majority of the spaces
are around eight feet in width. He estimates that about 90% are 8' wide, some are a little less and a
handful are 9' wide.
Jensen, this could be a 15% loss?
Kassmel, this could be a significant loss of spaces.
Rediker, we’ll have to see staff’s analysis and see what the number will be with the restriping of the
spaces. We can update the table when we have those measurements in place?
Spence, we will work with the applicant to get that done.
Lipnick, how many spaces will be lost?
Kassmel, we don’t know, maybe up to 20.
Applicant Presentation
Gabby Voeller, from SE Group
The team went back through the commercial linkage and the inclusionary zoning requirements and goes
over the table of those requirements. The three retail establishments, offices and other uses are in the
table. She goes over commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning requirements and how the application
is providing the housing as required.
Joseph goes over some of the other comments from the PEC at the previous meeting. He shows the
property owners in the area, easements on the site (including drop off and access through the site), the
ticket office that does not sit in any easement). He shows the plaza level from the drop off and how the
site plan meets that requirement of providing access through the site. The Paseo level shows the
3
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 56
easements at that level going east/west on that site, and where the ticket office is being located.
Alonso goes over that they had presentation with the metro district and Vail Resorts to go over the
proposal. They’ve also had conversations with ERWSD on the easements and requirements. Holy Cross
has also been worked with to determine if they have concerns.
Joseph goes over the floorplan changes to the site and shows how the additional retail space has been
added at the Paseo level.
Alonso, there is an access point from the owner’s lobby, but that is the only part that now fronts on the
paseo.
Joseph goes over the change that added an employee housing unit to the building.
Alonso goes over the CMC building and the employee housing. Originally accounted for 22 beds but the
plan showed 25. For clarification the site is broken into 3 clusters where there are gathering spaces and
ahs natural light coming in. They do share the kitchen and bathroom area, but they have more lounge
areas.
Joseph goes over the potential public benefit. He counts a lot of the landscaping changes that are being
done on and off-site to create gathering spaces for users of the site. Part of the hotel site will have a
gathering space as well as the improved drop-off area. Wayfinding will be added to help direct people to
the site. A site plan that shows how the project will improve connectivity to the site by adding areas to get
to the lift from the hotel entrance and from Westhaven Drive.
He goes over the retail that is being added to the site. He goes over the site plan from the last application
compared to the current. The previous one did not have retail on the ski lift side. He shows renderings
comparing the two elevations and how the previous approval was lower in most areas, but also higher at
some points. It was one continuous building and roof ridge compared to the current proposal of two
buildings.
The applicant has met with the AIPP team to show the areas of potential public art. They were
encouraged to make it in areas where it will be most viewable by the public.
Alonso adds that the team is in conversations with the owner of the parking deck and are working
towards an agreement with him.
Jensen, can you walk us through the retail space depth at the paseo level. It seems small.
Joseph says the depth is approximately 35’, with some recesses in the building. Goes down to 27, but
could be increased.
Jensen, what is the depth of the owners lounge and why does it need to be so deep?
Alonso. It is about 30ft deep due to construction and access requirements. Ticket office is a little smaller
closer to 20’.
Rediker, you reference conversations with VR on the lift. What has been discussed? Has queueing for
skiers come up?
Alonso, more of an introduction to the project. No discussion of the queuing. They were open to the idea
of relocation the ticket office, but no concerns brought up.
Rediker, can you pull up the slide of the circulation and access? The front of the building would be for
owner and skiers?
Alonso, correct, but more for public as owners have parking area.
4
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 57
Rediker, would loading/unloading take place there as well? Does this need to be designated for skiers
only? Would there be a conflict there?
Alonso, the hotel dock can accommodate the loading and delivery for retail areas and building.
Rediker has concerns about FedEx or delivery trucks trying to use that space as well. Are we taking
away the public benefit if we allow both?
Tom Kassmel, this would likely need to function as the West Lionshead drop off with two separate areas.
One for cars and one for deliveries.
Rediker, concerns on how that would be used and timing. Needs to be short timeline for skiers as they
don’t need 15 minutes.
Kassmel, it would need to be managed and reviewed.
Alonso, we need to see what the need is for this. 2-5 minutes for skiers and if there is need for parking it
would be done in the structure.
Rediker, the skier drop off is the benefit, not general loading and delivery.
Tucker, loading dock is too far away. Doesn’t think it will be used well and people will try to use that drop
off instead of the proper area.
Alonso, starting to think internally of how these spaces would operate. It would likely be the hotel that
would operate these areas.
Smith, doesn’t appear as there is two way traffic to the NE of the drop-off island. Is that one way or two
way traffic outside of the drop-off?
Alonso, two way so they would not need to enter the drop off to exit from Westhaven. The idea is that
this would make it as efficient as possible.
Smith, As there are external vendors that use that loading area, does it use the same service elevator as
EHUs or is there another?
Alonso, there is another elevator for the hotel. No loading and delivery would be done through the EHU
area.
Robyn, curious about the VR conversation. It seems like replacing the lift after this is built would be much
more expensive. Would they do it if this goes through?
Alonso, we can’t speak for them. They know this is proposed and the challenges that it would make for
replacing that lift. It’s up to them to figure out if that is a possibility.
Smith, it is up to us as well as the lift access is a public benefit. If it changes to a faster lift, that is a
bigger benefit. It would be extremely difficult to get it there after the fact.
Alonso, we are working towards a mutual solution.
Lipnick, why is the lift office a public benefit?
Alonso, it is being included in the building itself as well as bathrooms and lockers.
Lipnick, I understand the bathrooms. VR hasn’t signed off on the building being inside?
Alonso, we have had one meeting with them so far. It is an attractive solution for everyone to have it
5
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 58
inside the building.
Lipnick, where is the offsite skating rink and play area?
Alonso, it is on hotel property now at the base of the area. It is a temporary area today that is then used
for other items in the summers. We would be making it permanent and open to the public on a
continuous basis.
Rediker, the ice rink is not on the Cornerstone site, correct?
Alonso, yes.
Rediker, there is no requirement for that to maintain unless restricted publicly, correct?
Alonso, yes, that is a possibility, but the general ownership has no intention to do so and want it to be
successful.
Rediker, if cornerstone is developed as residential spaces, the owners will change as the units are sold.
Are the retail spaces going to change hands or be sold to the residential owners as well and then they
can change? Has trouble as these being amenities if these are not restricted to be maintained. No
control over what happens to that space.
Hagedorn agrees. These need to be guaranteed to be maintained in perpetuity so that they are a true
public benefit. The Solaris has a very similar setup that could be a great public benefit.
Rediker, if that hotel is sold to another owner how is that maintained as an offsite proposed public
benefit. Would like to hear from staff at the next meeting
Smith, do we have a definition of public benefit?
Spence, no we do not.
Smith, this seems programmatic and how do we guarantee that into the future.
Roy goes over the setup for the Solaris and how that would likely be similar. There is a maintenance plan
in place and that should also be considered.
Hagedorn, how tied are the applicants to the owner’s lounge, especially the 30' frontage?
Alonso, not tied, but more retail would require more commercial linkage.
Hagedorn goes over the TC and their feelings have been communicated to PEC on the ground level
uses and ski lockers in the area.
Smith asks how the short term rental program works for their units. her understanding is that the Hyatt
runs a short term rental program for any properties that are to be rented in the Cascade district. Trying to
understand how it may be rented to guests.
Alonso can have more information next time from his team that works on that.
Smith wants to know how that would be handled as this site would likely be very likely or attractive for
owners to use for that purpose. How much business does short term rentals bring to town and what the
difference would be if these are not short term rented we will end up with a largely vacant building at the
base of the ski area. Would also love to hear what the master plan for the site would be for the area as a
whole.
Rediker asks about current building height approval is 71 and applicant wants 97 feet, is that correct?
6
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 59
Spence confirms.
Rediker, so as a commissioner we are looking at the 26 feet as a deviation and we are using the criteria
when reviewing this application. Is the proposed height looking at criteria 1 for compatibility?
Spence confirms.
Rediker, for applicant, we’ve been through two meetings and both times commissioners have made
comments on the height and its not compatible to the area. Why have there been no changes to the
building height?
Alonso, says it is part of the ask and they want deviation on that and are trying to balance with the
benefits of the project.
Rediker, so the applicant is saying that the height is compatible and the public benefit should bring it to
an approvable place.
Alonso, we believe that the public benefits would out weigh any potential deviations based on the height.
Rediker asks for a review of the public benefits.
Joseph, paseo level, bringing retail and activated space, the improved drop off and stairs down,
improving the general landscape through the general development and circulation through the site.
Rediker, has a question on the parking, but who owns the garage again and how do we guarantee that
those spaces will always be allocated for that site and not torn down and dedicated to another use. Is
staff worried about that?
Spence, staff believes that the wording in the SDD would be enough to maintain the use of those spaces
over time.
Rediker, we’re counting on that place being a parking lot forever, right? They may lose control over time.
Spence, a development agreement would need to be done over time to ensure it is maintained.
Gennett, says that a development agreement would be done where it guarantees it would be done over
time.
Rediker notes the difference in ownership compared to the Solaris that is one ownership compared to
this lot which could very easily have three different ownerships and how do they guarantee that be done
overtime?
Gennett, those would have to be done through a development agreement and would like to speak with
the Town Attorney on how that would be guaranteed over time.
Rediker would like to have more information on that at the next meeting.
Hagedorn would like better context imagery to show more of how it fits into the site.
Spence notes that the massing model would likely be a good way to visualize that
The applicants bring up the massing model for viewing.
Rediker, question for staff, for the housing requirement are they allowed under town code to use dorms?
Spence confirms that is allowed at the discretion of Town Council.
7
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 60
Hagedorn, could other buildings be able to use that height?
Spence says that it would be tied to this specific site plan and building.
Smith, asks if we can require parking to charge the same rate as the town or not?
Spence, no, it would be specific to the building.
Kassmel says that there is no current requirement like that, and that they will charge what the market will
bear.
Smith says there was conversation out there that the layer of parking was required to charge the same
rate as the public garages. Would like staff to look into that.
Lipnick still has trouble with the proposed height and how it is not compatible with the other buildings.
Rediker, has questions on the dorms. Is it one common kitchen? How do that work in the dorms?
Alonso, would have two of everything as far as appliances as well as areas to eat. Common areas have
tables and bars to eat at as well.
Lipnick, one bathroom for 25 people?
Alonso, no there are multiple stalls for each bathroom.
Public comment
Thad King, President to the Liftside condominium association has sent a letter if they had received it.
Hagedorn has not seen it yet. Thad asks that the commissioners read it before the next meeting. They
are asking for a lot of increases in height, density, and GRFA that is incompatible with SDD 4. There are
no specific setbacks as there are for Liftside. The applicant is proposing setbacks of zero feet and it is
unjustified and unnecessary for reasonable development of the site. A survey shows the footprints for the
existing buildings in the development area. There are a couple instances where setbacks are at or near
property lines but the difference is that the lot lines were at or near a public open space or right of way. In
most instances otherwise there were generous setbacks between building footprints and property lines
so they don’t negatively impact buildings on the adjacent parcels. Does not see where it is necessary or
compatible to eliminate setbacks on the property. Have a concern with the proposed height at 97 feet.
Out of compatibility with Liftside at 55 feet and 65 feet along the south side. The proposed height
combined with the design of the roof forms are unlike any in development area A. It exacerbates the
perceived height the way the roof forms are done. The hipped roof design at Liftside lowers the
perceived height and mass of structures by bringing the top floor into the roof or roof down into the top
floor. The proposed design and character are foreign to the buildings in development A. The design
being proposed might be compatible if it was in Lionshead or village but doesn’t seem consistent with the
development of building area A. Cascade village is understated in design currently as it has hipped roofs,
white stucco, and stone. The proposed cornerstone does not align with the context of the areas.
The shading is another concern where the sun/shade angles with and without the building. It is hard to
see what the summer solstice is. Set dates and times do not have a complete timeline that would show
the affect at all times of the day. Could be affecting their pool area and would like to see shading study at
the 71’ height to show the impact of the additional height. Additionally, the NE corner of the building
would face the Liftside building and would allow the residents to look down on the pool deck. Would like
the developer to review the floor plan to flip the floor plan to reduce balconies on that side. Cornerstone
8
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 61
plan shows minimal landscaping.
In conclusion would like to see justification for reduced setbacks similar to the variance requirements as
to why they cannot build to normal setbacks, ask applicant compare proposed site coverage compared
to existing sites and calc existing site coverage in area A for comparison. Would like to have height
reduced, move away from butterfly roof design, and that the applicant update the sun/shade analysis to
show all times and compare to a 71’ height of building. Redesign floor plan to move the balconies to the
other side.
Kim Setter, attorney for Cascade metro district. The applicant did attend a board meeting, the
participation was gladly accepted. They are looking into the easements and requirements at this time.
More information will be given to the PEC prior to the August 12th. They would like to see an agreement
between them, VR, and the applicant so that there is a public benefit into the future. This is needed for
the agreement for the use of the ski lift and other requirements the district is required for. Drainage has
not been addressed yet. Public benefit is intertwined with the lift, and it’s continued operation. District
and VR finance the lift, maintenance, replacement and other financing. The escalator and other
improvements are a big part of the public benefit. The district and VAI(VR) operate the lift per an
agreement which imposes burdens on the district to help with the finance based on ridership. The district
is responsible for snow removal and maintenance for all the access to the lift. The district must provide a
certain number of items per the agreement including stairs, lift ticket office, bathrooms, etc… The
applicants will render these agreements inoperable and the new design will require a new agreement to
agree on maintenance, operability, parking etc… This is concerning as escalators may break and
provide an unserviceable entrance to the area. Under the proposal the district may be required to
maintain the escalator. The applicant is moving and replacing lockers, affecting the district’s abilities to
maintain the lockers. Would need an MOU or some agreement about lift replacement or repair.
The district requests the amendment be denied or at least a recommendation of approval that an
agreement be provided from the district, VR, and the applicant to ensure continued lift operation and
maintenance.
Scott Wagner, 1225 Westhaven. Reaffirms the concerns from Kim. Wood stairs were rebuilt last year,
and safety needs to be first. 50’ escalator is a big concern about it being able to be maintained and
useable at all times. Can’t remember if paseo is heated or not. Would like answer to that. Access at the
lift house, would want to know if ski racks would be provided at the top for drop off. Proposal at the
paseo would allow for good access.
Not sure why circle needs to be redone. Eliminating or reducing the turn lanes, but there is a lot of traffic
that goes on that. Speed limits are high and needs a turn lane in that area. Decreasing the turn lane from
east to west would pose a problem for the buses and there may not be enough room without the turn
lane. The ice rink that has been discussed is pretty small and maybe inadequate. The new area would
be about 70% of the size of the current one. Would this be a good use where the fire pits that are today
are used a lot more. Want to know how the logistics would work for construction ingress/egress. How
would construction affect ski lift during wintertime. Height is not congruent with what is in the
neighborhood today. The approval expired in 2017 and we should not be referencing that as a starting
point.
Janie Lipnick on the metro board. Agrees with Scott and Kim. Really object to the height as it ruins views
coming in and out. It goes outside of the character of the neighborhood. The public benefit does not
outweigh the offset. Concerns with construction for access to and from the neighborhood. The skier
drop-off back up could cause traffic delays. Prior approvals should not count. Why does that still have
part of the conversation. No agreements form the district on the project.
Closed public comment.
9
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 62
Comments from commissioners
John Rediker, parking, public benefits off-site (if those should be considered). From Staff, he is
concerned with the easements and operation/access agreements. Metro district concerns seem very
applicable and “compatibility with surrounding uses “criteria may not be able to be met without that
agreement. Bulk, height, mass, and setbacks are not compatible. We’ve raised, bulk, height and mass
issues and there have been no changes. Concerned on the dormitory housing and PEC has discretion. It
may house temporary employees and may not have fulltime housing use. Has said enough earlier that
does not need to repeat.
McBride online agrees with commissioner Rediker and he conveyed his concerns accurately and shares
that concern. How are those previous approvals and why those should be taken fully into account?
Tucker, agrees on the easements and issues. Need to figure out who will operate commercial spaces as
it could impact the loading/delivery.
Smith, thanks applicant for moving around the owner’s lounge to reduce access and including another
EHU. Housing component does not meet minimum standards, not supportive of dorms. Public benefit
does not justify the deviation for mass and scale. Public benefit proposed so far would be accomplished
by a smaller building, and 97' needs to be much more. Reserve judgment on parking and compatibility on
lift operation, and master plan for the area until applicant provides more information. States that applicant
is sitting on aces, so don't fold.
Lipnick, thanks applicant for presentation. Remains concerned about off-site public benefits and parking
if the ownership were to ever change. Concerned about easements, height, massing, lack of setbacks,
compatibility with neighborhood, dorm style EHUs (doesn’t work for families and year-round employees),
parking in general and how many will be maintained after making them conform. Agrees with Smith
concerning a site visit to clarify many items.
Jensen, thanks applicant for their work, but still a lot to be done. This redevelopment is incredibly
complex, and comments today have reinforced that. Seems early to be in front of the PEC until these
issues have been resolved. Appreciate the owners lounge, but it should be reduced further to be more
utilitarian space for owners rather than a lounge. Staff has work to do on the parking and how that will be
impacted. Access to the lift and impacts to the stairs. Can’t get to the 97’ height. Public benefits would be
reasonable if the project was asking for little deviation. Does not work for what is being proposed today.
Needs to preserve the integrity of the community.
Hagedorn thanks applicant for the detailed presentation. Future lift replacement does not fit into
conversation. Public benefit is the big part of the conversation and how the proposed benefits will be
maintained into the future. What is the method that would require that to be continued in perpetuity.
Parking continues to evolve at each meeting. Will need to know definite, final solution and how that will
be maintained into the future. Setbacks don’t bother, but the height is too much. 71’ is in line with other
area, but 97' is not justifiable. Looking forward to seeing what is provided next.
Rediker, we don’t typically look at design of the building but there are 9 criteria in the memo and one
of those is design features.
4.2
A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in
Robyn Smith made a motion to Continue to the August 12, 2024 meeting; John Rediker seconded the
motion Passed (7 - 0).
10
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 63
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Alura Residences, represented by Pierce Austin Architects
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for
an accessory structure to be located within the side setback, located at 1488 Matterhorn
Circle, Vail Park Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC24-
0021)
Timestamp: 02:32:50
Spence gives a presentation on the proposed application. The location of the structure is largely due to
the tightness of the site and location of the existing and proposed buildings. States that staff erred on
previous approval for the location of the trash area.
Rediker, asks why this cannot be relocated?
Spence, the site is extremely tight, and the fire access turn around which precludes all other locations.
The applicant has a good site plan on where alternatives were proposed.
Hagedorn, Was there a PEC file for this? What was the review?
Spence, there was another variance for this site, and went to the DRB as a use by right in the HDMF
zone district.
Presentation from the applicant. Jordan Kalasnik from Pierce Austin Architects has a short presentation
on where the alternatives were proposed that did not allow for the relocation. He pulls up the turn radius
for the fire access. He shows that all possible locations would require some sort of variance or be too
close to other buildings.
Rediker is this up against the property of Eagle point and we haven’t heard back from them either?
Spence, yes they received notice and staff has not heard back from them.
Hagedorn asks about other potential locations and Kalasnik goes over reasoning for not choosing those
locations. Looks like there is existing vegetation that screens this location, correct?
Kalasnik shows imagery. There are shrubs and landscaping rocks. No trees in that spot. Does show that
the building is up on the hill comparatively. Well above neighboring parcel.
Jensen, asks if this hadn’t missed this in the project what would have been done differently to
accommodate that?
Kalasnik, we can’t even speculate as to what would have happened. It would have been a total site re-
design.
Jensen, the trouble is that this affects the neighbor the most and not the development in general.
Jordan, the side of the adjacent property is a blank wall of the building with minimal windows. They
would otherwise be looking at the hillside.
PEC24-0021 Staff Memorandum.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Project Narrative, dated May 29, 2024.pdf
Attachment C. Plan Set, dated May 2, 2024.pdf
Attachment D. Aerial photo.pdf
11
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 64
Rediker asks about the design.
Kalasnik talks about the construction of it and the proposed design.
Rediker asks about the snowmelt vault that would be underneath the structure.
Kalasnik talks about what the design would be and that it is used to house snowmelt boilers and
equipment.
Rediker, clarifies that this is used for equipment as well
Kalasnik, yes, talks about the current outlook and issues being worked through to determine if it is
necessary/doable.
Rediker asks about elevations and materials for enclosure.
Kalasnik talks about the stone being proposed and how that fits on the site.
Hagedorn, asks about interior layout and what empty space on detail one.
Kalasnik states it is for mechanical equipment area.
Hagedorn, asks if that place can be relocated elsewhere.
Kalasnik, says that this would not be possible as other places would be in the setback or block fire
access and there are already deep utilities that are in place today counting on this location as previously
approved.
Public Comment – None
Commissioner Comments
Jensen, feels they need to be supportive and was an oversight that was relied upon. Doesn’t seem to be
a reasonable alternative.
Lipnick, Supportive for the reduced side setback will not grant special privilege and doesn’t result in a
negative impact on light, air, transportation, or utilities.
Smith, supports as the utilities are already in place. Staff makes mistake and that happens sometimes.
Tucker, supports based on the conditions of the application. Made sure it was the least intrusive spot on
the site.
McBride supports for reasons articulated.
Rediker, looking at the three criteria they are met. Mistakes were made and not result of the applicant’s
doing. Problem is putting it next to other person’s property line and it is unsightly. Not pleased, but no
comments from neighbors. Unfortunate circumstance that the PEC is placed in this situation.
Hagedorn, not a grant of special privilege.
Robert N Lipnick made a motion to Approve with the findings on page 9 of the staff memorandum; Robyn
Smith seconded the motion Passed (7 - 0).
12
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 65
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: 44 Willow Place #2 LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects
4.3 A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for a
deck expansion within the front setback, located at 44 Willow Road 2, Vail Village Filing 1,
Block 6, Lot 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC24-0018)
Timestamp: 03:02:47
Leaman-Miller gives a presentation on the request for a setback variance. He shows the site plan of how
the existing building received setback variances in the past. Existing and proposed decks are shown.
Applicant proposed to go 11 feet into the setback with the variance today. The deck expansions would
shadow windows of units below. Could impact pedestrian experience by closeness to the sidewalk. A lot
of variances for setbacks in the area were for infill of balconies or balconies filling niches in buildings.
Already received variances for the current building.
Rediker, asks about the reference to the EHU.
Leaman-Miller, there is two EHUS on the site.
Rediker asks about the potential impact.
Leaman Miller, the second floor bank of windows directly below are for the EHU.
Smith asks about the HOA approval and if the EHU owner has approved of this proposal.
Leaman Miller, HOA approval was included with the application as it is a submittal requirement.
Smith asks about green lines on site plan.
Leaman-Miller explains the variance for the setbacks as approved in 1993. Staff recommended denial at
that time.
Hagedorn asks if the hatched area is the proposed encroachment.
Leaman-Miller confirms.
Jensen asks if the deck next to it went out to the limit.
Leaman-Miller confirms.
Roy clarifies that each project needs to get approval for a variance per code.
Leaman-Miller adds that the existing deck was approved in 1993 by the PEC.
Smith asks if this is similar to the Riva Ridge recent approval.
Leaman-Miller looked into previous variances granted and most were common elements, entrances or
filling in balconies.
Roy clarifies the Riva Ridge variance that included common space and safety of entry stairs.
Smith asks about the setback lines on the site plan and asks if they are from different variances.
PEC24-0018 Staff Memo.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative & Documents.pdf
Attachment C. Project Planset.pdf
13
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 66
Roy clarifies an error by previous staff in regards to a previous deck encroachment.
Jensen states that it is the PEC responsibility to provide consistency with the history and with the code.
How does staff feel about that?
Leaman-Miller talks about legally non-conforming properties contrasting with this building which was
designed with the current zoning in place.
Applicant Presentation
Kyle Webb gives a presentation on the application. He goes over some history of how the area has
evolved over time. Uniqueness of the lot that it is a triangle, but the major frontage is the Vail Road, and
they decided willow circle was the 10’ rule for setbacks. The property line is 10’ in front the street and
provides a larger buffer to the road. Setbacks are less in all these locations. Bishop Park is also
proposing a similar larger deck along the street. Goes over the ILC and how it will maintain 10 from the
road on Willow Bridge side. Proposal is not going any further to the road than the existing deck, only
going two feet further from the building.
Doesn’t believe this adds mass to the building as a deck. It is one of those projects that will look like it
always belonged. Is less than the deck that was previously approved. Willow Circle has been treated
differently and is not a grant of special privilege, they have historical 10’ setbacks. Different
neighborhood and context because they fit in with the context. Notes the Vail Village master plan
encourages redevelopment or improvement. Larger deck encourages activity on the street. Sees this as
being in context with the neighborhood. Are not increasing the encroachment compared to other deck.
Does not affect light or air as staff does.
Hagedorn, is that the EHU on the lower level?
Webb EHU is on lower level, windows are a bedroom. The same owner owns that EHU.
Smith, asks why they want to get rid of EHU, is it because of the rental requirement?
Webb, yes, it is an “if rented” deed restriction.
Public Comment – None
Commissioner Comments
Tucker, really unique situation given the character of the old neighborhood. Sees staff’s concerns on
encroaching on the property line and willow road. Can see it both ways, by striking a balance as there
were already a variance granted in the past. Is that the hardship?
Webb, correct, we have nowhere to go since the variance was already granted. There are already
existing situations similar.
Tucker states that it makes it hard to ever want to grant a variance if it will spawn another one.
Smith, disagrees with staff as this is within the lines of what has previously been approved as an
appropriate setback. Finds that it meets the criteria.
Lipnick, agrees with the variance. A deck is not massing and goes to the front setback for the other
decks and doesn’t think it’ll add more massing. Thinks review criteria are met.
Jensen, the historical variance leads one to be supportive of this variance.
Rediker, agrees with staff’s analysis and that it does not meet the criteria 1 and 2 for the variance.
14
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 67
McBride, agrees with commissioner Smith’s comment and that it meets criteria.
Hagedorn, sees how this is a tough one. Mitigating factor is that this is a nonconforming area of town
with how they are rarely meeting setbacks. Criteria 2 how this is minimal relief for hardship. Finds himself
leaning towards improving as the context of the neighborhood and context of the site itself.
Smith motions to approve with the findings on page 12 and the condition on page 13.
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Wiggins LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
4.4
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 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the
Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District. (PEC24-0022)
Timestamp: 03:37:04
Leaman-Miller gives presentation.
No questions from commissioners.
Applicant presentation.
Allison Kent gives presentation, identifying the location of the property and historical background of
the zoning. She discusses the opportunities for development and acknowledges that this will be the first
property to be zoned CH-1. She covers the review criteria for the Vail Comprehensive Plan, focuses on
employee housing opportunity. She reviews the development objectives and the purpose of CH-1 is
discussed.
Jensen asks if changing to CH-1, what density would the applicant be looking at?
Webb states that he is not there yet as far as design and calculations but it would probably be more than
double that what is allowed in Residential Cluster.
No public comment in room.
Online is Steve Lindstrom from Vail Housing Authority. He states that this is a great example of what
we were after when adding CH-1. Disperses housing throughout neighborhoods and utilizes different
sites.
Commissioner Comments:
Rediker, criteria is met and agrees with staff and applicant. He is voting to approve.
Jensen, all criteria are met and excited to see this housing district.
Lipnick, supports and is consistent with all criteria and is what the community needs.
Smith has very little to say as it meets all criteria. Fully supports this.
Robyn Smith made a motion to Approve with the findings on page 12 and the condition on page 13 of the
staff memorandum; Robert N Lipnick seconded the motion Passed (6 - 1).
Voting For: William A Jensen, Robert N Lipnick, Robyn Smith, Brad Hagedorn, Scott P McBride, David N
Tucker
Voting Against: John Rediker
PEC24-0022 Staff Memo.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative.pdf
Attachment C. Topographic Survey.pdf
Attachment D. Ordinance No. 6 Series of 2024 - Community Housing.pdf
15
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 68
Tucker is excited to see the first product.
McBride, supports this rezoning and excited to see what happens.
Hagedorn is excited to see this application come through. Meets that policy we worked hard on. Meets
all criteria.
5.Staff Approvals
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Leibovail LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects
5.1
A Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action
regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 28,
Christiania at Vail, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town
Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan to decrease the gross
residential floor area (GRFA), located at 356 Hanson Ranch Rd, Unit 420/410 Lot D, Block
2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC24-0020)
6.Approval of Minutes
6.1 PEC Results 6-24-24
7.Information Update
Roy updates the Commission that the next PEC meeting for July 22nd has been noticed for the
Council Chambers as the meeting should be held there.
8.Adjournment
John Rediker made a motion to Recommend for approval with the findings on page 11 of the staff
memorandum; Robyn Smith seconded the motion Passed (7 - 0).
PEC24-0020 SDD 28 Minor Amendment PEC Report (Final).pdf
PEC Results 6-24-24.pdf
Robert N Lipnick made a motion to Approve ; William A Jensen seconded the motion Passed (6 - 0).
Robyn Smith made a motion to Adjourn ; David N Tucker seconded the motion Passed (7 - 0).
16
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 69
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.1
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Steph Johnson, Public Works
ITEM TYPE:Information Update
AGENDA SECTION:Information Update (3:40pm)
SUBJECT:May 06, 2024 AIPP Meeting Minutes
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
May 6, 2024 Minutes
70
Art in Public Places Board Meeting Minutes
Monday, May 6, 2024
AIPP Board members present: Tracy Gordon, Susanne Graf, Kathy Langenwalter, Courtney St. John,
Lindsea Stowe
Others present: Molly Eppard - AIPP Coordinator
1. Call to Order
2. Citizen Participation
3. Main Agenda
3.1 Approval of April 1, 2024 AIPP meeting minutes.
April1, 2024 Minutes.pdf
3.2 Donation proposal:
• Original bronze sculpture of Bruce on Bench by artist Sutton Betti from resident Jim Errant.
• 67” L x 42” D x 48” H
• Courtney, Tracy, and Kathy comment the work is similar to the Einstein Bench and other
sculptures in the collection so would not fulfill criteria selection. There are many figurative
bronze works in the collection.
• Board recommends looking at locations around the base of the mountain on Vail Resorts’
property given the finite locations where AIPP can place public art. Molly will reach out to VR
to explore possibilities for placement.
• Lindsea thanks Jim for his generous offer and agrees connecting with VR for a potential
spot for placement.
3.3 GoPro Mountain Games annual mural activation by artist Timmy Ham (June 5 – 10)
• Morgan Kelleher Vail Valley Foundation, Sr. Marketing Manager discusses the status of the project as
the artist is unavailable today due to painting a mural at an orphanage in Africa.
• The ad space adjacent to the mural will contain content about the artist.
• Morgan will contact AIPP for a special meeting when she receives the updated proposal from the artist.
71
3.4 Artist in Residence (AIR) Strategic Plan Review, Molly Casey and Mary Gangel Nine Dot Arts.
• Vision, Intention, Studio, Estimated Costs and Anticipated Schedule are reviewed.
• Nine Dot requests a better floorplan to include in the document.
• Rules and Regulations around the residency will be on the actual application.
• Fundraising initiatives should be included as a separate page (lodging, materials, stipends, residency,
event) on this document and ways to contribute. We will look to have a “venmo” contribution option on
the artinvail.com site with the Finance Dept.
• Nine Dot will make the recommended updates.
3.5 Summer program updates:
• AIR with Danielle SeeWalker:
o Danielle canceled presenting her mural proposal today due to a travel conflict. Molly asked
her to email the proposal so we can arrange a special AIPP meeting due to the tight
deadline. We are not under contract until the proposal is approved by the Board.
o Due to construction in the Council Chambers the photography exhibit cannot take place
in this location over the summer. We can look at alternate locations and dates. Molly has
not heard back from Danielle yet about this development.
o June 19 – Vail Symposium moderated discussion & book signing with Danielle; June 17
– rawhide painting activity with Danielle.
• Bravo!/Sebastian with Emilio Garcia Plascencia (AIPP artist from Mexico City with art located in
Golf Course Clubhouse)
o AIPP reimbursing the artist’s travel and accommodations @ June 20 – 24.
o Activations to take place during the Bravo! Orchestra Mineria residency.
• Commissioned sculpture installation by Squire Broel
o Board needs to review a temporary location for the installation mid-July considering the
studio construction.
o Vicki and Kent Logan have donated $30,000 towards the commission of this approved
work.
4. Coordinator Updates
• VRD Imagination Station Entrance Mural - Call to Artists/RFP has been posted with a May 17 deadline.
• Meetings will be via zoom or at Public Works due to construction at Municipal Building until further
notice.
5. Adjournment
72
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.2
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Steph Johnson, Public Works
ITEM TYPE:Information Update
AGENDA SECTION:Information Update (3:40pm)
SUBJECT:May 14, 2024 AIPP Meeting Minutes
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
May 14, 2024 Minutes
73
Art in Public Places Board Special Meeting Minutes
Monday, May 14, 2024
AIPP Board members present: Tracy Gordon, Susanne Graf, Kathy Langenwalter, Courtney St. John,
Lindsea Stowe
Others present: Molly Eppard - AIPP Coordinator, Morgan Kelleher Vail Valley Foundation, Sr. Marketing
Manager
Review of proposed mural by Timmy Ham for the GoPro Mountain Games on behalf of the
Vail Valley Foundation.
• Board reviews updated proposal and color palette and encourages artist to create a work
more reflective of his typical style and subject matter. Board agrees for artist to move
forward.
ADDENDUM:
Artist provides updated mural concept submitted to Board May 21.
74
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.3
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Steph Johnson, Public Works
ITEM TYPE:Information Update
AGENDA SECTION:Information Update (3:40pm)
SUBJECT:June 10, 2024 AIPP Meeting Minutes
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
June 10, 2024 Minutes
75
Art in Public Places Board Meeting Minutes
Monday, June 10, 2024
AIPP Board members present: Tracy Gordon, Susanne Graf, Kathy Langenwalter, Courtney St. John,
Lindsea Stowe
Others present: Molly Eppard - AIPP Coordinator
1. Call to Order
2. No citizen Participation
3. Main Agenda
3.1 Approval of May 6 and May 14, 2024 Board Meeting Minutes.
May 6, 2024 Minutes.pdf
May 14, 2024 Minutes.pdf
3.2 Discussion for proposed sculpture from Squash Blossom for placement on TOV
property.
• The decision was made not to move forward with the installation of the three bronze bears by
Walt Horton as it is similar to many other realistic bronze sculptures in both subject matter and
material throughout town.
• Given the finite locations for public art on TOV property the board does not want the space to
become encumbered as the town is actively expanding the collection.
3.3 Review of finalist proposals for Vail Recreation District’s Imagination Station entrance.
Imagination Station _ Call for Artists.pdf
• The Board was pleased with the applications submitted by several Eagle County artists.
• Board unanimously motions to accept Tracy Long’s proposal for the VRD’s entrance to Imagination
Station.
4. Coordinator Updates
• TOV bronze sculptures to be cleaned this week by Jo Dedecker.
• Board needs to review potential installation locations for sculpture commission by Squire Broel.
• TOV public artist Emilio Garcia Placensia coming to Vail for Bravo’s Orchestra Mineria from Mexico
with activations at The Sebastian June 22 and 23rd.
• Molly and Lindsea to meet with Nine Dot Arts regarding next steps and parameters for AIR.
• Board is interested in further reviewing potential art donation from the collection of Vicki and Kent
Logan.
5. Adjournment
76
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.1
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Stephanie Bibbens, Town Manager
ITEM TYPE:Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee Reports
AGENDA SECTION:Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee
Reports (3:40pm)
SUBJECT:Matters from Mayor, Council and Committees (15 min.)
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
77
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.2
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Stephanie Bibbens, Town Manager
ITEM TYPE:Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee Reports
AGENDA SECTION:Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee
Reports (3:40pm)
SUBJECT:Town Manager Report (5 min.)
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
TM Update 2024-07-16
78
Town Managers Update
July 16, 2024
1. 4
th of July
The town manager and police chief will provide an update on the 4
th of July curfew and respond to
any questions Council may have.
2. Other
There may be other topics the Town Manager needs to share with the Town Council.
79
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.3
Item Cover Page
DATE:July 16, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Stephanie Bibbens, Town Manager
ITEM TYPE:Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee Reports
AGENDA SECTION:Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee
Reports (3:40pm)
SUBJECT:Council Matters and Status Update
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
2024-07-16 Matters
80
COUNCIL MATTERS
Status Report
Report for July 16,2024
Town Council asked staff for an update on the Plastic Reduction Act and potential
future initiatives for the town to consider.
Town Council directed staff to bring back both voluntary and mandatory options for
their consideration to encourage better participation with Fire Free Five wildfire
program.
Big Thank You to Vail Resorts and Beth Howard for the Vail Mountain Cleanup!
Social Media Listening
https://share.sproutsocial.com/view/05466d2a-1190-45df-866d-2a1190d5df15
It comes as no great surprise that the 4th of July was a boon for posts across social media. The
parade and general atmosphere were covered very positively -well done to everyone involved.
ICYMI this post featuring a circular rainbow over West Vail had super high engagement -and for
good reason, it's gorgeous: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C83JG6VMnBv/
In the News______________________________________________________
June 27
Eagle Valley Trail Minturn Spur
https://epaper.vaildaily.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=530907bf-
388c-4c84-b3a4-c0815280c133
June 28
Slifer Celebration
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-rod-slifer-celebration/
Fourth of July Preview
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/your-guide-to-independence-day-celebrations-in-the-vail-valley/
June 29
81
Town Flower Program
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-summer-flowers/
CAST/NWCCOG Survey
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/mountain-town-survey-eagle-county-crowded-expensive/
June 30
High Cost STRs
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/report-this-colorado-town-has-the-highest-short-term-
rental-price-in-the-us/ar-
BB1p43e1?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1
&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1
July 1
Fourth of July Enforcement
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-fourth-of-july-police-enforcement/
July 3
Neighborhood Picnics
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-community-picnics/
https://www.realvail.com/town-of-vail-to-sponsor-annual-neighborhood-picnics-july-9-aug-
13/a19537/
Fourth of July Bookings
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-fourth-of-july-bookings-lodging/
Fourth of July Transit
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/fourth-of-july-vail-valley-bus-options/
July 4
Fourth of July
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-fourth-of-july-parade/
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/photos-vail-swells-with-crowds-as-floats-brass-bands-lawn-
chair-demonstrators-and-veterans-ring-in-americas-birthday/
July 5
Reserves Policy
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-budget-reserves-capital-projects/
July 7
Community Survey
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-community-survey-housing/
July 8
Fourth of July Safety
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-avon-july-fourth-crowds-crime/
82
DMO
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-destination-marketing/
July 9
Community Picnic
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-community-picnic-east-vail/
Upcoming Dates
August 13 Community Picnic: Donovan
September 10 Vail Social
83