Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PEC140011 VVMC MP Public Comment Includes Comments Provided After the Packet Deadline 031715
VVMC Issues of Concern : This document provided by Mery Lapin It was provided to the PEC on March 9, 2015. Mery Lapin is a property owner at 234 West meadow Drive The following should be given consideration in finalizing agreements implementing the VVMC Master Plan. 1. VVMC for all intents and purposes is a private corporation, with a self-appointed Board of Directors, highly compensated executives, having ample cash reserves ($165,000,000 per 2011 IRS report) sufficient to finance its proposed master plan improvements without relying upon additional private contributions. It is advised that any financial agreement implementing the proposed VVMC master plan include the following provisions: 1. A bond posted in the amount of required infrastructure improvements including: a. 750 enclosed parking spaces. b. Units of Affordable Housing to house 60 employees. c. South Frontage Road (proportional share participation), of Roundabout and associated improvements, including heated snow melting of public walkways fronting on the South Frontage Road to be completed in conjunction with the construction and opening of the proposed East Wing. d. Enclose loading and delivery facility accessed from the South Frontage Road. e. Landscape and architectural design unification improvements. f. ADA compliant pedestrian access corridor between South Frontage Drive and West Meadow Drive including, elevator and snow melt of exterior walkways. g. Weather and noise pollution monitoring equipment and close circuit surveillance equipment of helicopter landing pad, flights corridors and neighborhood air space. h. Middle Creek streambed and bank restoration and associated improvements with a 75 foot setback from high water mark. i. Water shed pollution mitigation infrastructure for all on site drainage. j. Replacement and transplant removed mature trees with similar sized specimens. k. Installation of a heated snow melt system along the north side of West Meadow Drive. 1. Installation of mechanical equipment that the operational noise and odor does not affect adjacent properties. 2. Include in the Master Plan: a. Bulk, mass standards which include mandatory building heights of not greater than 48 feet, minimum of 10 feet and maximum 20 street and side setbacks, including facade and roofline offsets, step -backs and step-downs. b. Urban Design Guidelines for exterior siding and roofing materials palette, window frame and glazing treatments, lighting and landscape and streetscape standards, including snow melt requirements. c. Compliance with protective covenant amendment provisions of the Vail Village 2°d filing which require 75% approval of land ownerships as well as for protective covenants for Gore Creek and other adjacent stream tract parcels governed by applicable Lionshead protective covenants. d. Have the helipad at a height that is compatible with the neighborhood and fits into the overall design of the project. e. Keep Lot 10 VV2nd filing in Public ownership for future Municipal uses such as Fine Arts Museum. a Form990 l�tRdrTaauf taNSlRaesa6wp A Per lhs 3M a • cltete d a ow" r Atltes doge r imm. omw r basal amen rvommal d rAwa m man . � rte.- 17-- r e-..-.. r ...sr.1..1 ... re" I a amee ms..t a 1e4_2ea.eas „(s) to on a soup ratarw for •mesas+ r Tee R Na eKb) am r eau en bWmown r aas r we 1f -No; stack a est (seo ntsamcb*M) WC) Group ex*Rvbeo Minter ► 3 wdwnm ► twig wotc coo ax Fees a araeussm W cmunnom r Twat r Amwaiat r 0a= P. I L Teen M r.aserm t&ss I K are or del dimmala eo ~beta it b tr.mt emrresIs lased exall Mbn olWo a1 =Ylce ! prolamin bm as son r aA&ee OF error Deet 1lifyl M te Maar d plaid op►npaeOt atr" DIP" a "own trR sea- Pop - emelt aa� refeteiYta resear Ple�e��f a (� mm (ter roes -1i I � ► r rr d iloup Un O _ E1I 1 anal am 2! • 4 r&e.e • ► (7191 47t•41w Nay the IRS dlacus tltn'Care wa lke propmer shomm above? (see nstnKbom) . . . . . . . . . (2' Tee r No Par MnMafb Sedw IM Afb Natkip. was sera Mmes m bmtnaddemn cat we 311.27 Perm M6 iso 111 sINN..ary l enNy deecnbe see etpeaawati mrs&tert ter what etprtnc�errt echwtws VVMC p nd chanty can, uoaaoburosd nndlcetd std otea 6evanwant provem, con.n0oltlr health fi%ptortaFMR Svcs, bum can. MefaeneeM tufa . ettbatdt�rl trtetllt savttes. him cam nmmwch ea/ anitts ,s 2 Check d n box lir dike el" a boo dnca ou" its operations air daposoll of mom than 25% of b met assets ! Nwber efveim wambers of the pvarn" body (Fort Vi, bm la) . . . . 3 s 4 Number of mrdepomdertRom r• mtawbers M ata pvormrp ttadr (Fed YI. boa i q . . E 4 7 S Tetol nelllbarof yMlvtdtnls soapteyad w ealotdar yea 2011 R Y, Iwo 1e) . . S 947 4 Taal aamberNwlwkaen (primate dmecessm) . . . . a 200 7r TaalwraleRadbtntausrs9afn•eRaflt►ortYltl,eMmun(C),Mraii . 70 4,019,427 b Net unrmM&0d business 0mable rrrcorra ham Farm 990-T, has 34 710 -392,949 0 Cenlnbaooma sad Grouts Red a YIll. bible IN . . . . L . . . . 9 Proven service ravenw (Pert V Ili, hM 20) . . . . . . 10 Ihve6Nfnettecum Bart Vill,eMmnw (A),boee 7.4, aha 7d) • . . 11 Oder revenue (FM VIII, column (A)V fans 5, lid, 6e. 9c. 10c, end Ile) 11 Total menus-Sdd image 6 thmop 11 (out qul tart VIII. co4ton q), buts 12 Prbr rear Tear 2.299 774 _ClseamR 2625 757 171.268,236 175.670,220 3,225,096 4,262,066 717,010 767,467 17 7,530,124 163,565,510 13 Grouts aid eawderewauts pard Rot Ix, column (A), Mtge 1-3 ) . . . 14 krAft pad to ter Air naaban (Part IX, eslmism (A L bol 4) . . . . 15 "lens, elhar eampanepom, eol/leyee I ran IX, col mm N). Mme 5-10) 1h Professional Aatdronnp tau Rent IX, eolSws (A)6 line lie) . b "M amumm me at♦w par SC a4m I% M in 02�•m 117 OMwamooneas Rat IX, cortatw (A)„ have lea -114,111-24a) . . . . 10 Tebl expenses Add Maas 13-17 (wwt *"W ►ed 1X, colmmn (A), bus 25) 19 Revenue was ex es subtract kne 1 • haw Ina 12 5,265,710 4,846,221 0 0 $1,140,739 50,061,509 0 0 65.%1.6361 81,354,166 14 k4a.2,11.890 14 14 >i a71 s Tear asams (Pert X. brim 16) . a m . . Tatty 1 1 1 h a (Pad X. Mia 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Nat &6600 w kind balances Subtract line 21 how line 20 x ha8�s• of oa..c rear and of yea. 259,480 611 297,966,963 60,500 00 57.672,506 196,972,611 240.096,477 ShOwullre slack Mmememodn of matron._ t dadam tors T a— I tiro rm_ Iarbrdlmm to sod bee so sa ~beta it b tr.mt emrresIs lased exall Mbn olWo a1 =Ylce ! prolamin bm as son r aA&ee OF error Deet 1lifyl M te Maar d plaid op►npaeOt atr" DIP" a "own trR sea- Pop - emelt aa� refeteiYta resear Ple�e��f a (� mm (ter roes -1i I � ► r rr d iloup Un O _ E1I 1 anal am 2! • 4 r&e.e • ► (7191 47t•41w Nay the IRS dlacus tltn'Care wa lke propmer shomm above? (see nstnKbom) . . . . . . . . . (2' Tee r No Par MnMafb Sedw IM Afb Natkip. was sera Mmes m bmtnaddemn cat we 311.27 Perm M6 iso 111 Roan 900 (2011) 11indon of Not Aneft Check if Schedule O contains a response to anv auestion in this Part XI . .� 1 Total revenue (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) 2 Total expenses (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 3 Revenue less expenses Subtract line 2 from line 1 a 0 0 . 4 Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (must equal Part X, line 33, column (A)) 5 Other changes in net assets or fiend balances (explain in Schedule O) 6 Net assets or fund balances at end ofyear Combine lines 3, 4, and 5 (must equal Part X, line 33, column Financial Statements and Reporting Check if Schedule O contains a response to any question in this Part XII 12 1 183,565,510 2 143,281,896 3 40,283,614 4 198,972,611 5 840,252 6 240,096,477 . . r Yee; I No 1 Accounting method used to prepare the Form 990 r Cash 17 Accrual rOther If the organization changed its method of accounting from a prior year or checked *Other,* explain in Schedule O b Were the organization's financial statements compiled or reviewed by an independent accountant? 20 b Were the organization's financial statements audited by an independent accountant? . . . . . . . . 2b Yes c If °Yes,• to 2a or 2b, does the organization have a committee that assumes responsibility for oversight of the audit, review, or compilation of its financial statements and selection of an independent accountant' If the organization changed either its oversight process or selection process during the tax year, explain in Schedule 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2c Yes d If 'Yes" to line 2a or 2b, check a box below to indicate whether the financial statements for the year were issued on a separate basis, consolidated basis, or both r Separate basis 17 Consolidated basis r Both consolidated and separated basis 3m As a result of a federal award, was the organization required to undergo an audit or audits as set forth in the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-1337 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b If`Yes,'did the organization undergo the required audit oraudits7 If the organization did not undergo the required 3b audit or audits, explain why in Schedule 0 and describe any steps taken to undergo such audits . . No No Form 990 (2011) W Form 990 (2011) Page 1S Amtaueft Mwe4 Form eaa (2011) (A) (1) Beginning of year End of year 1 Cask--non-interest-basnng 4M , 1 ARAM -31-J-149AM ' 2 amm 2 Savings and temporary cash investments . . . . . . . 217,61 3 337.701 3 Pledges and grants receivable, net . . . . . . . . . 16,009,943 4 19.249:3011 4 Accounts receivable, net . . . . . . . . . 8 Receivables from current and Ibriner olllcem, directors, trustees, key einployses, and highest compensated employees Comiplsto Pant II of Schedule L . . . . . . . . . . 4011490 S 3MODO 6 Receivables from other dwquahhed persons (as defined under *action 49SA(fKl )) and Persona described in section 4958(cX3XB) Complete Part II of 7 Schedulo L . . . . . . . . . . Notes and loans receivable, not . . . . . . . . . . . . . O • 1 0 515,0677 284349 ss a Inventories for sale or use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4498.198 a 5.538,406 4C 9 Prepaid expenses and deferred changes . . . . . . . . 1.9011.316 9 2,190 M i0a Land, buildings, and egwpnent cost or other basis Canlplala 2MM4.408 Ari K of Schedule D 105 b Less accurnulated deprecation . . . . . 10b 104709 994 96,675.9011 10c 1=714.414 11 Inwstmento—publicly traded securities . . . . . . . . . . Id! �9e d61 12 Investments --other securities Sea Part IV, Ina 11 . . . . . . !3 i U 131 1A6 13 Imvestmenta—program-related Seo Part IV, line 11 . 14 Intangible assets . . . . . a . 0 141 0 15 Other assets Sae Part IV, line 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 3.352.342 15 1IM734 2Sk460,611 16 297,968,963 16 Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34) . 17 Accounts payable and accrued expenses . 19,308.736 17 23.105.20 is Grants payable . . . . . . . . . . 0 is 0 19 Deferred revenue . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 36,140,000 20 27,752.899 20 Tax-exempt bond liabilities . . . . . . . . . . 21 22 Escrow or custodial account habdity Cxnlpkte Art W o1 Sdi Jule D Payables to current and fermor kers, directors. trustees, key emp4eyees, highest eonipanseted employees, and disqualified Persons Cw*ft0l Ari It of Se mWk L .0 • • 0 21 0 22 0 5.OMMI 23 5,0wa2s 23 Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties . . 3e unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parvus . . . . 0 2e 0 25 other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other habdlbes not Included on fines 17.24) C omplete Part X of Schedule D . . . . . O 25 58,631 26 TOM MebiBtlim Add lines 17 through 2 5 5Q6011,000 26 57.11T2,6fl9 10 Ogawlaatleas that follow WAS 117, chock have ► Fr and oswi/IsI a Mesa 27 trough 3% aid Maes 33 and 35. 27 unrestricted net assets . . . 190.464949 27 231.772.576 Cl 26 Temporally restricted not assets . . . . . 3,815.929 216 5,302,886 g 29 Permanently restricted net assets . . . . . ?*091.0]6 29 2,941.036 $ 0itffradatioa5 that do m* foNom WAS 127, On* base ► r anti c Nn"o Mas 39 tbroagb 31L 30 31 Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds . . . . .. . id Pa -in or capital surplus, or land, building or egwpmnt fund 30 31 Q 32 Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other hinds 32 33 Total net assets or Raid belaneea . 196.972,611 23 M088,477 34 Total liabilities and net esseta/Rrnd balances 2811.450 911 34 207,9811,983 Form eaa (2011) Additional Data Software ID: Software Version: EIN: 84-0563230 Name: Vail Cinic Inc Vail Valley MedKel Center Return to Form Form 990, Scnedute 3, Part II - OMcers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and I419hest Compensated Employees (^)Name B Breakdown o!W-2 and/or 1099-HISC compensation (t7 Deferred (D) Nontaxable (E) Total of columns (F)ConWneetion compensation benefits (8Xi}(D) r roan y or nP 90-12 (I) saw (IQ Bonus Il (Ili) Other Compensation incentive compensation compensation Dons Kirchner (1) 383,630 100,000 33,370 30,600 16,127 563,727 16,667 Ui) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charles Cnavlin6 (i) 262,692 55,000 43,588 22,000 24,392 407,672 9,167 Ui) Tommy Mars (►) 239,650 51,160 1,816 0 28,283 320,909 8,527 (i0 Denise Tuba (i) 201,488 42,194 1,044 0 16,468 261,194 7,032 Patricia Harclogiergh (i) 511,117 261,843 1,680 16,500 32,048 823,188 0 MD (u) 3ef/nyRunic kMD (�) 441,360 27,500 2,824 17,750 14,529 503,963 16,667 AlexanderUrgaMrtMO (i 426,507 25,750 17,674 16,500 30,020 516,451 13,958 (a) lawanceGaul MD li 355,328 33,078 18,131 15,161 27,422 449,120 16,388 Ui) Keith SanwelsNO (i 185,508 113,168 54,655 10,662 23,892 387,885 0 (a) Ray Scott (i 165,973 0 2,055 0 7,057 175,085 0 Gi) Doug Ysake 1 (i 223,447 0 14,512 O 27,165 265,124 0 (a> 0 Peggy Cay (i 165,645 35,202 1,314 0 24,812 226,973 Doug Smith (i 196165i 41,001 1,982 5,795 14,755 260,184 0 (a► Alice Wey/t (1) 175,635 37,398 1,790 0 25,155 239,978 0 (a) Mary Ann M cEntes (i 16S,3S7 34,848 1,046 11,962 14,738 227,951 0 Dan Feeney (i 163,471 36,999 1,221 6,475 8,437 236,603 0 (a) ftm too (2013) Page • A. 04�iw10,, �tMpfl� IGRY 11Ad l�iMot pfp�dtw0o� lftt�ia��rM contlftutel (A) (g) (C) Nerve and busrnsa address of wviDer M Name and Titla Average Position (d0 not check Rapartabla Retortable, tationated CO 01650 hours more than one box, compensabm compansabon amount of other 1950 S PUT0114C Sr STE 100 per unless person is both from the from related compensation VAL1M11M ei+eRaeNam PHTfwiNs vc waak an ofbcer and a orpanmitten (W- organisations train the co e16n (describe dwectorftrustse) 211099-MISC) (W. 2/1099- organmtlon and 0 BVM= I10 = hours 2.400.]97 MISC) related 1AC[10f16URDM CO tit y 1.Sa3.l9 Iter $ — 2 Total number 41 independent contractors (Including but net limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of Compensation from the o R=bCn 066 orpamrtabons related organtabene in Schedule — D) (ter) Nary AIM irmsae M 410ft and Rok 400 x 201.251 21.700 Feeney Dan Pesy 400 x 221.691 14.912 (20) lotnaa NO MEE 400 x 774. 44,S44 (21) Uffor a to x 471.684 32,279 (22) AkxWAV L%W~ NO ftywcon 400 x 469.931 46,520 (23) t+is►iaiea Gad NO to x 406.S37 42.563 1241 xaeh SINTA" NO to x 353.331 3d.S54 lb Sub-Tatat . p c Total hetes contMlrotles sheets to part VU. flow A . d Total (aild ■reo 1r ad 14 D 5.377, 400, 4 2 Total number of Individuals (Including but not lwtftd to those listed above) who received more than 0100,000 of reportable compensabon nem the orgemsbon►77 Yes I No i Did the organizaton kst any ravines ofacar, director or trustee, key employee, or highest componsata4 employee on has lay If *Yu,'oonpktrrSd adtdoJrarsuch inclmAdual . . . . . . . . . . . 5 No 4 For prey indmidual bsted on kne le, w the sum of reportable compensation and other eomperwatan *am the organization and related organaaboris greater then $150,0007 It—fas,'owWA teSdWdW*Jfcrs4xh twdYwdlier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Yes 5 Did any person listed on InN Is receive or accrue compensation ham any unrelated 9%eniZation or "vidual for services rendered to the orgenicabon7 If'Yis,'conwiste SdiadureJ foraudt person . . . . 8 No rsgj a L LdwwMnt Cmdroeosrs I Complate this table for your five highest compensated independent contractors that received more then $100,000 otcom pensabon hem the orgsetabon Report compensation for the calendar year Rending with or within the oraaniation's tax year (A) (g) (C) Nerve and busrnsa address of wviDer Caffilienwiticin HOMIARO MEAD SPORTS MOLINE, PO 60x 5693 PHYSWJL THERAPY 10,127.340 CO 01650 MaeNOEN CONSTRUCTION to 1950 S PUT0114C Sr STE 100 CCONSTRUCTICIA1 7.7e6.23a CINTDrNUa.Co 90132 VAL1M11M ei+eRaeNam PHTfwiNs vc 27 NAM STREET SUITE 0703 PHT9C1AAS - EA 5.001.4" co e16n ONEttSWED RADIDUM OF COIARAOO 0 BVM= I10 = viivstclAN-RAOWLOG r 2.400.]97 OBwR,CO Oom 1AC[10f16URDM CO tit PO an am 1.Sa3.l9 Co 93659 2 Total number 41 independent contractors (Including but net limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of Compensation from the o R=bCn 066 Form 990 (20 111 Warren Campbell From: George Ruther Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:13 AM To: Warren Campbell; Council Dist List Subject: Fwd: Ramifications of VVHA expansion See the attached letter regarding VVMC master plan. This will be entered into the public record for the meeting on the 17th. Thanks, George Ruther, AICP Director of Community Development Town of Vail (970) 376-2675 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Kathie Dudzinski <bikeskikmac.com> Date: March 3, 2015 at 4:18:32 PM MST To: " rug therkvailgov.com" < rut�her(c�r�,vailov.com> Cc: Jim Lamont <vvhakvail.net>, Jim Lamont & Joan Norris <jflamont(kvail.net>, "Dr. Roger & April Steinert" <rogerkdrsteinert.com>, " emily.tamberino(c�r�,vvmc.com" <emily.tamberinoA)vvmc.com>, VVMC News <buildkvvmc.com> Subject: Ramifications of VVHA expansion To Town of Vail, Vail Homeowners Association Skaal Hus I Condominium Association To all concerned: We have reviewed emails from VVMC, the recent VHA email and the included PEC meeting minutes re the mass, height and property line so close to W Meadow Dr. Not much was emphasized regarding the expansion to the south of the East Wing trying to make room for an indoor turn around for a 30' truck. It makes no sense to have loading and delivery on the south side of the building. As we have many times stated in writing, we remain adamantly against commercial traffic on West Meadow Dr. which is THE only pedestrian/ bicycle link between Vail Village and Lionshead. We agree also that a high building without separation via landscape would be overpowering to the average pedestrian, but the proximity of the sidewalk to ice overhangs would make its use treacherous. (It would make walking hazardous even with heated sidewalks or even without crutches!) Please add our voices to those who have already discussed these concerns. Kathie and Paul Dudzinski Skaal Hus #4 141 W. Meadow Drive Warren Campbell From: Vail Homeowners Association <vha@vail.net> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 4:04 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: VVMC West Wing Expansion Underway - VHA Recommends Changes to Master Plan to Preserve Neighborhood's Character VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION View of the Proposed VVMC West Wing Expansion on West Meadow Drive Proposed VVMC West Wing Expansion Underway 03/02/15 To: Warren Campbell This message is intended to be CONFIDENTIAL and may contain PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you. The Proposed WMC West Wing Expansion is Underway: The anticipated West Wing expansion of the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) has begun moving through the approval process with the presentation to the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) of a zoning proposal to allow this phase of the redevelopment to proceed. This is step one of the expansion of the overall VVMC campus, even though the Master Plan for the area is still under review by the Town Council. The VVMC plans to begin construction of this phase of the expansion in the summer of 2015 with completion scheduled for 2017. This specific part of the expansion, shown above, would build southward toward Meadow Drive. EXISMTNG WEST WING #EXWING CENTRAL WING EVrcrlNG UfLDMNG LINE T OUTDOOR DINMG t K COU RT W/SC RE EN WALL 3 s ft,K+f.j N EW PLANT ER,/SEATI N? WALL & LANDSCAPING POTENTLAL SCULPTURE EXIS1`ING BUILDING LINE ------�.--.— ---- i 1. ate, . # q ■-' 7�� _ .. ti_J � � ._ }. � d•_ rq `y "��r—mer NEW SOUTH EXPANVONFIL r0A. - EiiISMYNG SMM7EVu�ALK LANDSCAPING Expansion conflict shown with preserving landscape and mature trees that harmonize VVMC buildings with the adjoining street and neighborhood. As can be seen from the following renderings, the proposed design would substantially increase the mass of the overall building by adding a fourth floor on the west wing, which is a cause for concern. ..,. ALF .ter t''0 b&+_ woo ^_ °— _ek .i" ----- -------a tom. OUTDOOR DINMG t K COU RT W/SC RE EN WALL 3 s ft,K+f.j N EW PLANT ER,/SEATI N? WALL & LANDSCAPING POTENTLAL SCULPTURE EXIS1`ING BUILDING LINE ------�.--.— ---- i 1. ate, . # q ■-' 7�� _ .. ti_J � � ._ }. � d•_ rq `y "��r—mer NEW SOUTH EXPANVONFIL r0A. - EiiISMYNG SMM7EVu�ALK LANDSCAPING Expansion conflict shown with preserving landscape and mature trees that harmonize VVMC buildings with the adjoining street and neighborhood. As can be seen from the following renderings, the proposed design would substantially increase the mass of the overall building by adding a fourth floor on the west wing, which is a cause for concern. ..,. ALF .ter t''0 b&+_ woo ^_ °— _ek .i" Proposed West Wing Expansion Existing Central Wing Proposed East Wing VVMC Unifying Architectural Design Concept As Viewed from West Meadow Drive Below are photos of the present structure as compared with the proposed redevelop ment: Existing Landscape and Architecture of West Wing Above Proposed Expansion of West Wing With a new entrance proposed on the South Frontage Road, the West Wing would become the back side of the WMC complex. The proposed design would, however, make West Meadow Drive more "commercialized" by pushing out toward the edge of the street and eliminating existing landscaping which currently makes the existing West Wing more compatible with the West Meadow Drive residential neighborhood. Proposed West Wing bump -out infringes on landscaped area necessary to retain compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhood. Views of existing and proposed (below) expansion of the VVMC West Wing surface parking lot to be included in redevelopment of Evergreen Hotel. The Vail PEC has just held its first public discussion of a zoning proposal to allow this project to go forward. While the Vail Homeowners Association supports the expansion of the Medical Center, it believes that it should be done in a way that is responsible and in keeping with the overall qualities of the existing neighborhood. As presently proposed, there are several aspects of the development that could be substantially improved. The proposed West Wing expansion building would move the building to within 3.5 feet of the property line creating a wall effect four stories high. While a fourth floor would not necessarily render the design objectionable, the VHA believes that the expansion should be compatible and harmonized with the present buildings and the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. Unfortunately the present plans would eliminate significant landscaping - a number of large, mature trees - that serve to integrate the VVMC into the surrounding neighborhood. The VHA recommends that any zoning approval should be conditioned upon maintaining the present Meadow Drive setbacks and landscaping or even increase the landscaping to soften the industrial nature of the building and make it more compatible with the established characteristics of this section of West Meadow Drive. The VHA also recommends that the design of the West Wing should be harmonized with the existing structure so that there is a unifying theme in the overall structure as opposed to the hodgepodge of styles that has evolved on the medical center's campus over the past 45 years. The unifying design theme is a recommendation of the proposed VVMC Master Plan. Extend Snow Melt System for West Meadow Dr TOV Pedestrian Route: Participants at the PEC hearing recommended the need to include VVMC in the Town of Vail's (TOV) snow melt system serving the pedestrian walkway on the north side of West Meadow Drive. With increasing frequency, clients of the VVMC regularly use the West Meadow Drive public pedestrian walkways for rehabilitation therapy. The number of pedestrians on West Meadow Drive public walkways traversing between Vail Village and Lionshead commercial centers has greatly increased in recent years as well. The Vail Homeowners Association notes that the Town of Vail is exponentially increasing the urban density of the West Meadow Drive neighborhood to the degree that it is now on par with major new redevelopments in Vail Village and Lionshead. Yet, the Town has not committed to provide the same level of public improvements such as providing snow -melted pedestrian walkways as it has already installed throughout the Vail Village and Lionshead neighborhoods. Mechanical Equipment Noise: The West Wing expansion provides for the relocation of exterior ground level mechanical building ventilation equipment on West Meadow Drive. The noise from this equipment has, for years, been a major source of irritation and complaint from adjacent residents and passersby. The mechanical equipment issue is an example of the lack of foresight and coordinated design of the existing VVMC complex. The offending mechanical equipment was installed after the completion of the West Wing due to a lack of forethought on the part of ventilation engineers. The neighborhood and Homeowners Association places a high priority on ensuring, in the VVMC master plan, that similar oversights do not occur in the future development of the VVMC facilities. Crutching on Nonsnow-melted West Meadow Drive TOV Walkway W The VVMC Central Wing and West Meadow Drive Streetscape illustrates how trees and landscape have been used to harmonize the existing West Wing with the residential neighborhood. Design is Critical to Maintain Compatibility: The VVMC West Wing Expansion eliminates large trees which have served to harmonize the medical buildings with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Changes are being requested to soften the institutional appearance of the proposal in an effort to restore a higher degree of aesthetic compatibility with the adjoining West Meadow Drive tourism circulation corridor and residential neighborhood. The correct design, scale and appearance of new development along West Meadow Drive is essential in maintaining a high standard of guest and residential experience in this important link between the Town's two commercial tourism centers. Urbanizing the West Meadow Drive Neighborhood: The proposed VVMC/Evergreen Hotel land swap and subsequent redevelopment of the Evergreen Hotel would eliminate the large surface parking currently used by VVMC by conveying it to the Evergreen Hotel. In return, VVMC would receive hotel land fronting on the South Frontage Road, which allows all VVMC traffic to enter its campus from the frontage road. A change to the Evergreen Hotel zoning, based upon the land exchange with VVMC, is to be heard by the PEC on March 9th. The PEC is considering tabling the hearing until April 13th since involved parties are continuing discussions regarding the proposed land exchange. The parking lot would be replaced with a new hotel building being suggested by development interests as being larger than the Solaris complex in Vail Village. Future phases of the medical center could be of a similar size as shown below. The Vail Homeowners Association believes that priority must be given to continuing the practice, begun with the new Four Seasons Hotel, of stepping down the height of structures built along the north side of West Meadow Drive so that views to the mountains beyond are preserved. Shown is VVMC density potential resulting from land exchange with the Evergreen Hotel. Quick Links Special Events Calendar Local Media Links Visit VHA Website What's on Your Mind? Send Your Comments Contact the Editor View Our Newsletter Archives VHA Newsletter Reprint Policy VHA Collaborative Consensus Guidelines Production Credits Content Editors: Larry Stewart, Gail Galvin Ellis, PsyD Copy Editing & Distribution: Elizabeth Bailey, General Partner Books Plus books_plus—more@msn.com Copyright © 2015 Vail Homeowners Association All Rights Reserved www.vailhomeowners.com Forward this email This email was sent to wcampbell@vailgov.com by vhaCslvail.net Rapid removal with SafeU nsu bscri be"' j Privacy Policy. Constant --Ct l'il'y it Fff E today Vail Homeowners Association P. O. Box 238 Vail CO 81658-0238 16 444- `TOcvitJ �'�U L tii� iS 7 T Z,—A -� l ��c 1007 4'-)- 5zj4 i /tJ /L5 ?Zfoy-�OT— 16--6"l PA4)K-"'t5 e',z 11" %df s- lAt 7 fir' ,��� j aA- 74 -A(9 AIIA-47t75 /�S � SS�,�T��4 L 7'd 7 •� t Tip-i�C � j 3t �— tf 11) 43e o7- C6 If�-- Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:36 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Helipad From: RPMBBBB@AOL.COM [mailto:RPMBBBB@AOL.COM] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 11:48 AM To: Council Dist List Subject: Helipad Dear Council members Two helicopter crashes this week!! Better conditions than we can hope for and yet more trouble. This is why New York City allows landings only at the riverside docks. How much better could the hospital plan be without the restriction that the helipad places on the campus for restructuring options? We have enjoyed so much positive community notations especially with the World Cup. Imagine the awful impact of a helicopter accident balanced against the very difficult but thoughtful choice to vote for an offsite helipad. Bruce Bowling 505 Scorpio rpmbbbb@aol.com Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:44 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Helipad -----Original Message ----- From: mmdupre@aol.com [mailto:mmdupre@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:38 PM To: Council Dist List Subject: Helipad Dear Town Council, Just wanted you to know that I really hope you do not approve the new helipad near our beloved Vail condo--Alphorn #102. Just one voice, but I hope you can hear it. Sincerely, Michele Dupre Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:45 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Scorpio # 306 Homeowner From: JAUREGUI CONSTRUCTION [mai Ito: amjb@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:14 PM To: Council Dist List Cc: 'Eileen Jacobs'; Alejandro Jauregui; Felipe Jauregui; Ana Maria Jauregui; Isidro Jauregui Subject: Scorpio # 306 Homeowner To whom it may concern: I am a unit owner at Scorpio Condominium and I oppose the Helipad construction at the hospital addition. I will not be numerating all the reasons because I do not want to be repetitive. THANK YOU, Isidro Jauregui P.E. (19836) JAUREGUI CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT INC. 411 WEST MATHESON, KEY BISCAYNE FL. 33149 OFFICE 305 3618193 CELL 305 205 4418 FAX 305 3618117 amib@msn.com Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:46 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Helipad -----Original Message ----- From: Margaret Kell [mailto:mwk1851@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 6:07 PM To: Council Dist List Cc: Covell Brown Subject: Helipad Dear Council Members, I have attended all meetings regarding the proposed location of the helipad. While I agree that a helicopter service saves lives, we do not want to put many more lives at risk by placing the pad so close to residences. I strongly urge you to reconsider before you vote. If there is an accident, your personal liability will certainly come into play, despite what protection you think you have now. Thank you for your consideration. Margie Kell. Alphorn Sent from my iPhone Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:44 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Helipad -----Original Message ----- From: margot mclish [mailto:mwmclish@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:13 PM To: Council Dist List Subject: Helipad Dear Sirs, I am a homeowner in the Alphorn Condominium Building, # 105, and am very concerned about the proposed Helipad behind our building. Please, consider the impact this would have on all of us in the neighborhood, safety concern at all times, noise - not a relaxing time in the beautiful mountain town of Vail. I urge you to reconsider and find another site not directly within living spaces of visitors and owners alike. We have owned our unit since 1974 and have seen many changes, but nothing like the proposed helicopter landing site behind our bedroom window. We reside in Denver and enjoy getting out of the city to Vail frequently, this would totally destroy our pleasure in visiting Vail, very often with out-of-town guests, who very likely would not come back, after being disrupted by a helicopter flying very low overhead, creating noise and pollution. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Margot McLish, Alphorn # 105, 121 West Meadow Drive. Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:34 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: VVMC Helipad From: S. Joseph Prapuolenis [mailto:sjp@webstudio47.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:18 AM To: Council Dist List Subject: VVMC Helipad Members of the Town Council: As a Scorpio Condominiums homeowner I've watched with interest numerous comments by my fellow neighbors objecting to VVMC's proposed relocation of the helipad into the middle of our community, and would like to add my voice. Much has been said of the risks associated with a helipad's location in a residential setting, at high altitude and questionable flight paths. I've seen no meaningful discussion about the overall risk/reward equation, to wit: • How many lives would be saved in return for what number of lives put at risk? • Is this a matter of convenience? • Is this a matter of bragging rights for the VVMC's administration? • Where is the profile of historical flights as to the medical necessity versus convenience or entertainment? • How is it determined that a flight should be undertaken and who makes that determination? • Are there risk/reward criteria for each flight and does the village take an active role in the establishment and oversight of such criteria and and its adherence? Contrary to marketing propaganda, the overriding governing principles of the medical center are not the interests of the community. The medical center is in the business to make money. It is up to the Town Council to govern that business enterprise in a responsible manner that places the communities interests and safety in the forefront. Please do not abdicate your responsibilities. Respectfully yours, S. Joseph Prapuolenis (Scorpio 404) 1616 Sheridan Rd. Wilmette, IL 60091 SJPgWEBstudio47 www.WEBstudio47.com Phone: 847-256-0935 I Y#i171-WI INOWS'M Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:43 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: FW: Helipad From: Mary Snow [mailto:snowmcs@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 11:33 AM To: Council Dist List; George Ruther; Warren Campbell Subject: Helipad The Vail Valley Medical Center asks the Vail Town Council to approve its proposal to locate a helipad on its current campus site dangerously close to housing as well as buildings and roadways where the public congregates. The question before the Town Council is not whether the hospital does the best it can with its present site. Rather, the question is whether medical helicopter service can be accomplished in a way that ensures the safety of the public. The current proposal does not satisfy that test. In this regard, I wish to point out two issues for the Town Council's consideration. (1) The disturbing trend of medical helicopter crashes with resulting fatalities and property damage continues. Two medical helicopters have crashed in just the past few days. Yesterday, a medical helicopter crashed in Oklahoma resulting in one fatality: One killed, two injured in Oklahoma medical helicopter crash One killed, two injured in Oklahoma medical helicopter c... (Reuters) - One person was killed and two others injured when a medical helicopter with three aboard crashed about 65 miles south of Tulsa, officials said Friday.Th... View on www.reuters.com Preview by Yahoo The link below states, "This is the fourth fatal Eagle Med helicopter crash in Oklahoma since 2010, according to the NTSB's Aviation Database." 1 Dead in Oklahoma Medical Helicopter Crash 1 Dead in Oklahoma Medical Helicopter Crash One person died after a medical helicopter crashed ii -.d Oklahoma Thursday, authorities said. View on abcnews.go.com Preview by Yahoo Last week, on March 6, 2015, a medical helicopter approaching the rooftop helipad at the University of St. Louis Hospital crashed and burst into flames. The pilot, the sole occupant of the aircraft, died. Investigators looking for cause of medical helicopter crash Investigators looking for cause of medical helicopter cr... SOUTH ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) — The investigation into the Friday night crash of an ARCH Medi -Vac helicopter could take as long as one year. The helicopter was he... View on fox2now.com Preview by Yahoo This article states that the helicopter "failed to achieve enough altitude to land." It also states that the helicopter's "rotors struck the side of an outpatient clinic building before it crashed on the parking lot below." The link below shows a map of the crash site and states that the damaged building is within 200 yards of the helipad: ARCH helicopter crashes near SLU, pilot dead I KTRS I St Louis News and Talk Radio I The Big 550 AM ARCH helicopter crashes near SLU, pilot dead I KTRS I St... Local ARCH helicopter crashes near SLU, pilot dead View on www.ktrs.com Preview by Yahoo I believe the Council should be alarmed that despite the good intentions of the medical providers and the best efforts of the professionals involved in medical transport, these crashes continue to occur with some regularity. I do not pretend to know about the many medical helicopters which have crashed or the circumstances surrounding those events. Perhaps the expert retained by the Town has facts on all incidents involving medical helicopter accidents for your consideration. (2) 1 question whether the Vail Medical Center has adequately considered alternative landing sites for its helicopter. At the last Town Council hearing regarding the helipad location, it was clear that the medical center dismissed the feasibility of a ground level helipad in large part because of the the multiple steps it thought necessary to move a patient --from the helicopter, to an ambulance, to the hospital. In fact, the alternative suggested by the public envisioned a design removed from nearby buildings and incorporating a bridge or tunnel, essentially a hallway instead of an elevator shaft, from the helipad into the hospital receiving area. The idea of a tunnel is not new. For example, the following link references a tunnel from the University of Michigan's helipad to the hospital: Survival Flight helicopters taking off from new high-tech helipad facility Survival Flight helicopters taking off from new high-tec... The University Record, July 9, 2001 Survival Flight helicopters taking off from new high- tech helipad facilityBy Kara Gavin Health System Public Relations View on ur.umich.edu Preview by Yahoo I do not mean to suggest that the medical center should use the University of Michigan's plan. I only suggest that other configurations should be given further consideration particularly in view of the safety concerns with its current plan. At the Town Council hearing, reference was made to "land swaps" and private development adjacent to the hospital. The Town apparently also is considering a redo and/or relocation of its offices. Perhaps all the players in these dealings can come together and find a safe location for this hazardous activity. Mary Snow 9 Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:45 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: HELIPAD comments from Jane and Herb Wollowick Alphorn Condo Unit 202 From: hewgaon@aol.com [mailto:hewgaon@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:29 PM To: Council Dist List Subject: HELIPAD comments from Jane and Herb Wollowick Alphorn Condo Unit 202 To the Vail Town Council: On Thursday, March 12, 2015 the headlines read "11 Feared Dead in Chopper Crash." How can you possibly as elected members of the Vail Town Council vote for a helipad in the middle of a heavily populated area? Furthermore, weather conditions change dramatically and quickly in Vail Weather conditions, wind, snow, difficult terrain- conditions which are difficult and constantly changing are typical. Please Wake up before it is too late and people are injured and killed and you bear the responsibility. Your decision has to be based on safety ... Please search your hearts and do the right thing for the community...... Jan e and Herbert Wollowick, M.D. Warren Campbell From: Warren Campbell Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:36 PM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Proposed helipad -----Original Message ----- From: Laura Wright [mailto:lwright4@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:37 PM To: Council Dist List Cc: Eileen Jacobs Subject: Proposed helipad Town of Vail Council Members, As a Vail property owner, I wish to express my grave concern about the Vail Valley Medical Center's proposed location of a new heliport. The FAA does not advise heliport location in such a densely populated residential area. It is reckless and negligent for the Town of Vail to approve construction of the helipad as proposed by the VVMC Master Plan. I am shocked by the disregard that the planning committee and the town council have for the FAA recommendations for helipad locations. Helicopter crashes are regular occurrences in civilian and military settings. There have been two such crashes just this week resulting in several fatalities. As stewards of the Town of Vail, it is your responsibility to situate the heliport in the safest possible setting for the residents, visitors, patients and pilots. if the proposed site is constructed, you will be putting the TOV in a very vulnerable position from a liability standpoint. You have heard from countless residents that you would be ignoring FAA recommendations if you proceed. I implore you protect the residents from danger and the TOV from liability by keeping the heliport at its current location or some other more optimal location. Respectfully yours, Laura Wright 121 W. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 720-987-7224 Warren Campbell From: George Ruther Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:17 AM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Fwd: VVMC Master Plan - Proposed Heliport George Ruther, AICP Director of Community Development Town of Vail (970) 376-2675 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Hardin, William" <William.Hardin@lyondellbasell.com> Date: March 17, 2015 at 9:30:08 AM MDT To: "adaly@vailgov.com"' <adaly@vailgov.com'>, "Ikurz@vailgov.com" <Ikurz@vailgov.com>, "dchapin@vailgov.com" <dchapin@vailgov.com>, " ibruno@vailgov.com" <ibruno@vailgov.com>, "mrogers@vailgov.com" <mrogers@vailgov.com>, "gmoffet@vailgov.com" <gmoffet@vailgov.com>, "szember@vailgov.com" <szember@vailgov.com>, "pbrandmeyer@vailgov.com" <pbrandmeyer@vailgov.com>, "dbugby@vailgov.com" <dbugby@vailgov.com>, "GRuther@vailgov.com" <GRuther@vailgov.com> Subject: VVMC Master Plan - Proposed Heliport Ladies and Gentlemen: This e-mail is to remind you of my earlier e-mail, dated September 8, 2014, included below, and to make a couple of additional points. • Nothing has changed relative to the different location now proposed for the VVMC Helipad; in fact, the new location is slightly riskier and more dangerous. • 1 stand by my earlier opinion that the Helipad poses a significant risk to the Town of Vail and its inhabitants and visitors. • If you proceed with this course of action, and an accident occurs, you may become personally liable for having made a reckless decision. Note the litigation going on over the March 22, 2014 landslide near Oso, Washington which killed 44 people, and which was accurately predicted by a soils engineer in a report to the county commissioners 10 years earlier. The county may lose its sovereign immunity and the commissioners could then be held personally liable for ignoring the engineer's report. • Please be advised that should the Helipad be approved, and should an accident subsequently occur, my notes and e-mails, presenting the opinion of a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado, will be turned over to plaintiffs' attorneys, as will the report prepared by Keith Mackey, who is an acknowledged (by the aviation insurance industry) expert in rotary - wing aviation. It is my conclusion that the Town of Vail Town Council should not make a reckless decision by allowing a helipad to be placed in such a hazardous location, and instead have the helipad located safely away from such a conspicuously dangerous (to the public) place. I hope and pray that you will attend to the needs and well-being of the public you are sworn to protect. Thank you for your time and consideration. William B. Hardin 601 Wellesley Drive Houston, Texas 77024 From: Hardin, William Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 8:37 AM To: 'adaly@vailgov.com'; 'Ikurz@vailgov.com'; 'dchapin@vailaov.com'; 'jbruno@vailgov.com'; 'mroaers@vailgov.com'; 'gmoffet@vailgov.com'; 'szember@vailgov.com'; 'pbrandmeyer@vailgov.com'; 'dbugby0vailgov.com'; 'GRuther(d)vailgov.com' Subject: VVMC Master Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: As owners of two units in the Scorpio building in Vail, my family and I have enjoyed many years of association with Vail, since 1978, in fact. We have had the need to use VVMC on several occasions, and are thankful that it has been always available, helpful, and yes, even very handy to Scorpio. We are ardent supporters of VVMC and its dedicated staff of professionals; further, my family has supported the medical community through building hospital facilities for over 100 years. While we generally support the proposed expansion of VVMC, I would like to comment on one facet of the proposed expansion : the inclusion of the helipad at the site shown on the current Master Plan. First, I would bring to your attention that I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado, License No. 16769. Further, I received my bachelor's degree from the Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech, with High Honors. On this basis, my professional opinion is that the council should refuse to approve the location of a helipad as shown on the current Master Plan. My basis for this derives from many facts and lessons learned over the years, but rather than bore you with pages of technical writing, I will give you a few very notable facts. • The proposed site requires the inbound and outbound flights to travel over or very near many large structures, residential, hospital, parking, etc. • The in/out flights fly directly over major pedestrian and vehicular routes, during the first and last moments of flight, which are the most dangerous periods in any flight operation. • Rotary -wing aircraft are inherently unstable (learned in college, studying under a professor at Ga Tech who was a consultant for Igor Sikorsky, who pretty much invented the helicopter), and therefore the high accident rate worldwide is not unexpected (averages 2 accidents/per day, year after year). • Rotary -wing aircraft operating at high altitudes are even more at risk; 8,000 feet above sea level qualifies as high altitude — the machine has to work much harder to generate sufficient lift, and this in turn increases the instability of the aircraft. • Offered for your consideration: in the US Special Forces assault on Osama bin Laden's compound at Abbottabad, Pakistan (altitude lower than Vail), one of two MH -60 Blackhawk helicopters crashed (NOT DUE TO HOSTILE FIRE). The crash was attributed to an aerodynamic condition known as "settling under power" which can unexpectedly afflict rotary - wing aircraft when the pilot has dialed in the wrong air temperature (by about 10 degrees F) and the rotor downwash is restricted. The pilot added all the power and lift that the machine could produce, and still crashed. This happened to a machine which was undoubtedly one of the most carefully maintained in the world, piloted by undoubtedly one of the best pilots in the world. That none of the Special Forces or crew aboard were injured was a tribute to that man's flying skill. This is offered as an indication of how delicate is the flight envelope of even the most airworthy helicopter operating today. • The proposed helipad site is sufficiently restricted that an aircraft could experience the same aerodynamic effect, only further away from the ground, due to Vail's higher altitude. • Add to these considerations the restricted flight paths, the tall structures surrounding the site, the mountain wind and weather, and you have a formula for a tragedy. It is my conclusion that the Town of Vail Town Council should not make a reckless decision by allowing a helipad to be placed in such a hazardous location, and instead have the helipad located safely away from such a conspicuously dangerous (to the public) place. I hope and pray that you will attend to the needs and well-being of the public you are sworn to protect. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, William B. Hardin 601 Wellesley Drive Houston, Texas 77024 Bill Hardin Projects Consultant Lyondell Chemical Company Office: 713.309.7640 Mobile: 713.252.1114 William.Hardin@lvondellbasell.com www.lyondellbasell.com Information contained in this email is subject to the disclaimer found by clicking on the following link: http://www.lyondellbasell.com/Footer/Disclaimer/ Warren Campbell From: George Ruther Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:17 AM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Fwd: VVMC Master Plan - Proposed Heliport George Ruther, AICP Director of Community Development Town of Vail (970) 376-2675 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Hardin, William" <William.Hardin@lyondellbasell.com> Date: March 17, 2015 at 9:30:08 AM MDT To: "adaly@vailgov.com"' <adaly@vailgov.com'>, "Ikurz@vailgov.com" <Ikurz@vailgov.com>, "dchapin@vailgov.com" <dchapin@vailgov.com>, " ibruno@vailgov.com" <ibruno@vailgov.com>, "mrogers@vailgov.com" <mrogers@vailgov.com>, "gmoffet@vailgov.com" <gmoffet@vailgov.com>, "szember@vailgov.com" <szember@vailgov.com>, "pbrandmeyer@vailgov.com" <pbrandmeyer@vailgov.com>, "dbugby@vailgov.com" <dbugby@vailgov.com>, "GRuther@vailgov.com" <GRuther@vailgov.com> Subject: VVMC Master Plan - Proposed Heliport Ladies and Gentlemen: This e-mail is to remind you of my earlier e-mail, dated September 8, 2014, included below, and to make a couple of additional points. • Nothing has changed relative to the different location now proposed for the VVMC Helipad; in fact, the new location is slightly riskier and more dangerous. • 1 stand by my earlier opinion that the Helipad poses a significant risk to the Town of Vail and its inhabitants and visitors. • If you proceed with this course of action, and an accident occurs, you may become personally liable for having made a reckless decision. Note the litigation going on over the March 22, 2014 landslide near Oso, Washington which killed 44 people, and which was accurately predicted by a soils engineer in a report to the county commissioners 10 years earlier. The county may lose its sovereign immunity and the commissioners could then be held personally liable for ignoring the engineer's report. • Please be advised that should the Helipad be approved, and should an accident subsequently occur, my notes and e-mails, presenting the opinion of a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado, will be turned over to plaintiffs' attorneys, as will the report prepared by Keith Mackey, who is an acknowledged (by the aviation insurance industry) expert in rotary - wing aviation. It is my conclusion that the Town of Vail Town Council should not make a reckless decision by allowing a helipad to be placed in such a hazardous location, and instead have the helipad located safely away from such a conspicuously dangerous (to the public) place. I hope and pray that you will attend to the needs and well-being of the public you are sworn to protect. Thank you for your time and consideration. William B. Hardin 601 Wellesley Drive Houston, Texas 77024 From: Hardin, William Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 8:37 AM To: 'adaly@vailgov.com'; 'Ikurz@vailgov.com'; 'dchapin@vailaov.com'; 'jbruno@vailgov.com'; 'mroaers@vailgov.com'; 'gmoffet@vailgov.com'; 'szember@vailgov.com'; 'pbrandmeyer@vailgov.com'; 'dbugby0vailgov.com'; 'GRuther(d)vailgov.com' Subject: VVMC Master Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: As owners of two units in the Scorpio building in Vail, my family and I have enjoyed many years of association with Vail, since 1978, in fact. We have had the need to use VVMC on several occasions, and are thankful that it has been always available, helpful, and yes, even very handy to Scorpio. We are ardent supporters of VVMC and its dedicated staff of professionals; further, my family has supported the medical community through building hospital facilities for over 100 years. While we generally support the proposed expansion of VVMC, I would like to comment on one facet of the proposed expansion : the inclusion of the helipad at the site shown on the current Master Plan. First, I would bring to your attention that I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado, License No. 16769. Further, I received my bachelor's degree from the Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech, with High Honors. On this basis, my professional opinion is that the council should refuse to approve the location of a helipad as shown on the current Master Plan. My basis for this derives from many facts and lessons learned over the years, but rather than bore you with pages of technical writing, I will give you a few very notable facts. • The proposed site requires the inbound and outbound flights to travel over or very near many large structures, residential, hospital, parking, etc. • The in/out flights fly directly over major pedestrian and vehicular routes, during the first and last moments of flight, which are the most dangerous periods in any flight operation. • Rotary -wing aircraft are inherently unstable (learned in college, studying under a professor at Ga Tech who was a consultant for Igor Sikorsky, who pretty much invented the helicopter), and therefore the high accident rate worldwide is not unexpected (averages 2 accidents/per day, year after year). • Rotary -wing aircraft operating at high altitudes are even more at risk; 8,000 feet above sea level qualifies as high altitude — the machine has to work much harder to generate sufficient lift, and this in turn increases the instability of the aircraft. • Offered for your consideration: in the US Special Forces assault on Osama bin Laden's compound at Abbottabad, Pakistan (altitude lower than Vail), one of two MH -60 Blackhawk helicopters crashed (NOT DUE TO HOSTILE FIRE). The crash was attributed to an aerodynamic condition known as "settling under power" which can unexpectedly afflict rotary - wing aircraft when the pilot has dialed in the wrong air temperature (by about 10 degrees F) and the rotor downwash is restricted. The pilot added all the power and lift that the machine could produce, and still crashed. This happened to a machine which was undoubtedly one of the most carefully maintained in the world, piloted by undoubtedly one of the best pilots in the world. That none of the Special Forces or crew aboard were injured was a tribute to that man's flying skill. This is offered as an indication of how delicate is the flight envelope of even the most airworthy helicopter operating today. • The proposed helipad site is sufficiently restricted that an aircraft could experience the same aerodynamic effect, only further away from the ground, due to Vail's higher altitude. • Add to these considerations the restricted flight paths, the tall structures surrounding the site, the mountain wind and weather, and you have a formula for a tragedy. It is my conclusion that the Town of Vail Town Council should not make a reckless decision by allowing a helipad to be placed in such a hazardous location, and instead have the helipad located safely away from such a conspicuously dangerous (to the public) place. I hope and pray that you will attend to the needs and well-being of the public you are sworn to protect. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, William B. Hardin 601 Wellesley Drive Houston, Texas 77024 Bill Hardin Projects Consultant Lyondell Chemical Company Office: 713.309.7640 Mobile: 713.252.1114 William.Hardin@lvondellbasell.com www.lyondellbasell.com Information contained in this email is subject to the disclaimer found by clicking on the following link: http://www.lyondellbasell.com/Footer/Disclaimer/