Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-01 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA "fi TOW VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 2:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 1, 2011 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. Public comments on work session item may be solicited by the Town Council. 1. ITEM /TOPIC: DRB /PEC Update (15 min) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell 2. ITEM /TOPIC: Attachments and Information Updates: (20 min.) 1) Housing Strategic Plan Update 2) Employee Parking Update 3) Lionshead Information Booth on Frontage Road Update 4) Special Recognition Program 3. ITEM /TOPIC: Ford Park Frontage Road Parking Plan and Upper Bench Recreation Plan Discussion (45 min.) PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and discuss the plan with the staff and direct staff regarding next steps outlined in the staff memo. BACKGROUND: At the September 21 town council meeting specific actions and next steps were presented to the Town council regarding various parking items. One of those items was further advancing a plan regarding expanded parking in the vicinity of Ford Park along the Frontage Road. A significant part of the further advancement was the evaluation of any impacts of the improvements to the recreation fields on the upper bench of Ford Park. In addition, there are desired improvements to the recreation fields in which in was needed to be determined if the parking improvements would impact the ability complete the recreational improvements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff direction with regard to the proposed next steps. 4. ITEM /TOPIC: Vail Timber Ridge, L.L.C. and the Town staff have evaluated additional options for the mitigation of the geologic hazards directly affecting the Timber Ridge Redevelopment site. The purpose of this worksession is to: 1. Identify the action the Vail Town Council needs to take to move the rockfall mitigation to the next step towards implementation.2. Inform the 2/1/2011 Vail Town Council of the work that has been completed to date.3. Outline three viable rockfall mitigation options for consideration. 4. Describe the next steps and timeline for the review process of the proposed Timber Ridge development review applications. (30 min) PRESENTER(S): George Ruther ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is being asked to select a final option and instruct Town staff to pursue that option for design and construction BACKGROUND: See staff memorandum to the Vail Town Council dated, February 1, 2011 for more complete details and analysis of the rockfall mitigation options and required next steps. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town staff is recommending that the Vail Town Council instructs the staff and Vail Timber Ridge LLC to pursue Option #2 individual stabilization of specific large rocks /boulders. Staff's recommendation is based upon our review and understanding of: 1) the applicable Zoning Regulations, 2) the engineering involved in constructing the mitigation improvements, 3) the pros and cons associated with each of the options, 4) the estimated cost of the improvements, and 5) practical realities associated with each of the options. 5. ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from the Mayor and Council (15 min.) 6. ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding: update on pending litigation Town of Vail v. WENK et al. Case number 08CV467 and Richard Colucci v. Town of Vail Case number 09CA0006; 2) C.R.S. §24-6 - 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding: discussion concerning negotiations regarding Timber Ridge Redevelopment Agreement; 3) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(f) - to discuss personnel matters, Re: Review of Town Council direct reports. (45 min.) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire 7 . ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment: (4:50 p.m.) NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW (ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) --------------- - - - - -- THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD), TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Work Session for February 15, 2011: Cirsa Training - Matt - 60 min. 2/1/2011 Council Photos - Pam /Suzanne - 30 min. West Vail Fire Station Site Visit - Mark Miller - 30 min. Ever Vail /EPS discussion - George - 60 min. East Lionshead Plaza Direction - Greg Hall - 30 min. Ord.4, Exactions and Dedications - Rachel - 30 min. Direction on Funding Request from Eagle River Watershed Council Black Gore Creek and Gore Creek Monitoring and Data Comparison - Bill Carlson - 30 min. Evening Meeting for February 15, 2011: Flood Assessments - Tom K. - 30 min. Consent Agenda: Approval of Jan. 4 and 18 meeting minutes - Pam - 5 min. EverVail Presentation - George - 45 min. Timber Ridge Update Discussion - George - 30 min. Vail Village TH Ord No. 15 2010 - Bill G - 30 min. Res. No. 23, 2010 - Bill G. - 5 min. Work Session for March 1, 2011: Update current Council Goals /2011 Strategic Plan - Stan - 30 min. VLMDAC /CSE Structure discussion - Stan /Kelli - 30 min. Lionshead RFP - Greg Hall - 30 min. Evening Meeting for March 1, 2011: Supplemental Appropriation Ord, 1st reading - Kathleen - 15 min. Building Permit Fee Discussion - George - 30 min. Ord. No. 5, 2011, Solar Panels - George - 30 min. Work Session for March 15, 2011: AIPP /DRB /PEC and BFCAB interviews - Pam - 60 min. Red Sandstone Playground Update - Greg 15 min. Evening Meeting for March 15, 2011: Supplemental Appropriation Ord, 2nd reading - Kathleen - 15 min. AIPP /DRB /PEC and BFCAB appointments - Pam - 20 min. RETT Appeal -Matt Mire - 45 min. Other Dates TBD: Local Purchasing Preferences - Judy - 30 min. Electronic Signs Policy Discussion - George - TBD Conference Center Funding Update - Stan - TBD Resolution on Parking - TOV summer/VRI winter -TBD - Greg - 30 min Century Tel WiFi Discussion - TBD - Ron /Matt - 30 min. Recognition of Howard and Cathy Stone/Vail Jazz Foundation - TBD - Dick Cleveland - 5 min. Historic /Landmark Preservation Discussion - July 2011/TBD - George - 30 min 2/1/2011 ITL1 oil VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: DRB /PEC Update PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell ATTACHMENTS: January 19, 2011 DRB Meeting Results January 24, 2011 PEC Meeting Results 2/1/2011 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING + January 19, 2011 Council Chambers ! �fT 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:30pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Tom DuBois Pete Dunning Brian Gillette Rollie Kjesbo Libby Plante SITE VISITS 1. Langmaid /Canada Residence — 2940 Manns Ranch Road 2. Market on the Mountain & Base Camp — 289 Hanson Ranch Road 3. Prince Victoria Residence — 616 Forest Road PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:OOpm 1. Vail Valley Medical Center DRB100631 / 5 minutes Bill Final review of a sign (business identification and traffic control) 181 West Meadow Drive /Lots E & F, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Denielle Wilson ACTION: Tabled to February 2, 2011 MOTION: Plante SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5 -0 -0 2. Market on the Mountain & Base Camp DRB110002 / 5 minutes Rachel Final review of a sign (business identification) 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Ferruco Vail Ventures, represented by Mauriello Planning Group ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 5 -0 -0 3. Langmaid /Canada Duplex DRB100624 / 15 minutes Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 2940 Manns Ranch Road /Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13 Applicant: Charles Langmaid, represented by A Cut Above Forestry ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Gillette SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall allow two clusters of aspens to grow in the front yard of the east unit to mitigate the removal of the existing spruce tree. 4. Prince Victoria Residence DRB100639 / 15 minutes Bill Conceptual review of new construction (duplex) 616 Forest Road /Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 Applicant: Prince Victoria LLLP, represented by Scott Turnipseed, AIA ACTION: Conceptual review, no vote 2i1i2011 Page 1 1 -1 -i STAFF APPROVALS Cin6Bistro DRB100507 Bill Final review of a sign (entertainment signs & menu box) 141 East Meadow Drive (Solaris) /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Cobb Theatres, represented by David Kelley Rockwell Residence DRB100575 Bill Final review of an addition (family room) 1160A Casolar Del Norte /Lot 9, Block A, Lions Ridge Filing 1 Applicant: Vail Associates LLC, represented by Julie Spinnato Kumagai Residence DRB100589 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (entry) 1575 Aspen Ridge Road /Lot 4, Block 4, Lion's Ridge Filing 1 Applicant: Contract One, represented by Bryan Johnson McAdam Residence DRB100627 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck, rails, landscaping) 744 Sandy Lane /Lot 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 2 Applicant: Cyndy McAdam, represented by Bluline Architects Turley Residence DRB100635 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (windows) 1151 A Casolar Del Norte /Lot AT Block 2, Casolar Vail Applicant: Marshall Turley Dennis Basso DRB100636 Rachel Final review of a sign (window) 1 Vail Road (Four Seasons) /Lots B & C, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Dennis Basso, represented by John Lindell Castro Residence DRB100638 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (windows) 935 Fairway Drive /Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 10 Applicant: Manuel Castro, represented by Michael Sanner. Cummings Residence DRB110003 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (extension of approval) 4936 Juniper Lane /Lot 6, Block 5, Bighorn 5 th Addition Applicant: Greg Cummings Solaris DRB110004 George Final review of a sign application (informational /directional) 141 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Solaris Property Owner LLC The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 2 2/1/2011 1 -1 -2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 24, 2011 T �. 1:OOpm TOWN OF VAII. ' TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Henry Pratt John Rediker Tyler Schneidman David Viele SITE VISITS None 10 minutes 1. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re- subdivision of Lots 3 and 5, Block D, Vail Ridge, located at 2610 and 2688 Arosa Drive, and setting details in regards thereto. (PEC110001) Applicant: Arosa Partners & Bob Armour, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with a condition MOTION: Viele SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. Prior to recording the subject final plat for Lot 3 and Lot 5, Block D, Vail Ridge, the applicant shall grant an electrical utility easement to Holy Cross Energy on Lot 3 to connect the existing easement on Lot 5 to the Arosa Drive right -of -way. Bill Gibson made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Pierce asked for clarification to the 14,000 square foot requirements for lots in the subject zone district. Gibson responded that the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet but only 14,000 square feet is required for two dwelling units to be built on site. Lots smaller than 14,000 square feet are only permitted to build one dwelling unit. Commissioner Pratt asked about the intent of including the original ordinance in the packet and whether an employee housing requirement should be placed on the lot. Bill Gibson explained the origin of the ordinance and the types of EHUs permitted on site. 30 minutes 2. 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- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of Development Area D (Glen Lyon Office Building) from Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, and for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to include the subject property in the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West /Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036) Applicant: Ever Vail, LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell Pa e 1 2/1 /20 1 1 -2 -1 ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 4 -0 -2 ( Cartin and Viele recused) CONDITION(S): 1. Approval of this major amendment to a special development district is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated request to amend the zone district boundaries of the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map to zone Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision to the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District. 2. Approval of this major amendment to a special development district shall only become effective upon recording of the associated Ever Vail Subdivision Final Plat as approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council in accordance with Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code. Commissioners Viele and Cartin recused themselves on this item. Warren Campbell made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Commissioner Pierce asked for an overview of the Ever Vail review process. Warren Campbell responded with a summary of the review of the actions taken at the January 10, 2011 public hearing and the actions requested at today's hearing. Commissioner Rediker asked why the zoning change is necessary. Warren Campbell responded that the SDD could be amended to allow for the desired outcomes in Ever Vail, however the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP) and the Vail Land Use Plan were amended to include the Glen Lyon Office Building (GLOB) property within the Plans which results in more comprehensive plan and redevelopment of the site. Dominic Mauriello, representative of the applicant, added that the removal of GLOB from SDD 6 would be in concert with the recommendations of the LRMP. Commissioner Rediker asked if the rezoning would provide additional development potential. Warren Campbell responded that the rezoning would provide additional development potential. He added that the bulk and mass would be restricted on the GLOB by the LRMP. Commissioner Rediker stated his concern about density along Gore Creek. He noted on page 8 of the staff memorandum, the proposed master plan amendments call Gore Creek an amenity, while it should be referred to as a natural resource. He added that there should be mandatory requirements for protecting trees and restoring vegetation along these banks. He further questioned the staff response to Criterion F, which stated there was no specific development proposal at this time. Warren Campbell responded that the major exterior alteration applications have not been submitted for review on the property and once they were that they would be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Commissioner Rediker asked why the applications for Ever Vail were being done in a piece meal fashion. George Ruther responded that the applications are being separated in order to allow the mechanisms for review of specific elements to be put into place, including subdivision, rezoning, Pa e 2 2/1/20'11 1 -2 -2 etc. He added that each application which the Commission has acted upon included conditions tying them all together. Success of one application was dependent on the success of all applications. Commissioner Pratt asked about the height limit on the GLOB property and how it could be codified once it is taken out of the SDD. Warren Campbell responded that height limitations for the property were included in the master plan amendments which will be discussed later in the hearing. 60 minutes 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for West Lionshead (Ever Vail) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110002) Applicant: Ever Vail, LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approve with conditions /modifications MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 3 -1 -2 (Rediker opposed, Vlele and Cartin recused) CONDITION(S): 1. The applicant shall provide revised digital images to staff depicting the Simba Run underpass on all figures identified in the amendments, prior to being scheduled for the reading of a Resolution to adopt the changes to the Master Plan. 2. This approval for amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is contingent upon approval of the associated special development district major amendment application, recording of the final plat, and the adoption of the proposed Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning for the property. 3. The Commission recommended the following modifications to the proposed Master Plan amendments: 1. Section 4.4.3 the Commission does not believe the proposed view corridors should prevent other properties form redevelopment, specifically proposed view corridor eight. 2. Section 5.17.1 is to be modified to include the language from 5.20 regarding the provision of access to ERWSD . 3. Section 5.17.2 is to be modified to include the language from 5.20 regarding the provision of access to ERWSD . 4. Section 5.17.2 is to be modified to delete the second sentence of paragraph four and a new sentence added to reference section 4.7 of the Master Plan. 5. Section 5.17.7 is to be modified to state in the sixth sentence of the first paragraph that "public spaces and plazas are not shaded by buildings ". 6. Section 5.17.8 Staff shall inform the Town Council that the Commission is concerned about the timing of office replacement. 7. Section 5.17.10 is to be modified to identify the creek as a "community resource" and be more affirmative in the requirement of wetland preservation and tree preservation and relocation. Additionally, language requiring the mitigation of development impacts is to be added. 8. Section 5.21.12 is to be modified to state 5.17.13 and the third paragraph is to be deleted. Pa e 3 2/1/2011 1 -2 -3 9. Section 5.21.13 is to be modified to state 5.17.14 and to delete references to the LEED and include references to the green design principles 10. Section 5.20 Staff shall inform the Town Council of the architectural design concern raised by the public and discussed by the Commission. Commissioners Viele and Cartin recused themselves on this item. Warren Campbell made a presentation per the Staff memorandum, allowing for comment on each section as he reviewed them with the Planning and Environmental Commission. Section 4.4.3 Ever Vail View Corridors Commissioner Pratt asked for the purpose of proposed view corridors 6 and 8. He asked why view corridor 6 is so far down the site. He suggested it should be located further up the creek towards the frontage road, potentially on the pedestrian bridge proposed across Red Sandstone Creek. He added that there is nothing preventing further encroachment towards the creek and that the view corridor should provide further protection. Similarly, view corridor 8 is not connected to the project. Warren Campbell explained that there was previously a view corridor located on the bridge of the relocated frontage road looking south. The view corridor was removed as there is a 30 -foot setback off of the centerline of Red Sandstone Creek providing for a 60 -foot wide no build zone negating the need to protect the view. He stated that view corridor 8 was to provide for a connection back to the Lionshead core along the proposed pedestrian connection. Commissioner Pierce asked what the Gore Creek setback is from the centerline. Warren Campbell responded that the setback is 50 feet from centerline resulting a 100 -foot wide zone. Dominic Mauriello added that Lionshead is 60 acres and has 5 view corridors. He noted that the view corridors would protect from future development. However, he agrees that view corridor 8 may not be necessary unless the commission wants to limit the Marriot. Commissioner Pratt added that the view corridors need to be necessary for inclusion in the Master Plan. George Ruther added that the view corridors are needed to visually orient people around and through Ever Vail. Section 5.17.3 Parking Commissioner Rediker asked what parking requirements are required in Lionshead Mixed Use 1. Warren Campbell responded that the parking requirements are regulated through Chapter 12 -10 Off Street Parking, Vail Town Code, which identify the required number of parking spaces based upon each land use and there sizes. Commissioner Rediker asked about when the Commission would determine parking requirements for uses without parking requirements listed such as is identified for the gondola. Warren Campbell responded that this would occur during the conditional use permit application. Pa e 4 2/1/2011 1 -2 -4 Commissioner Rediker asked who the 400 parking spaces would be provided for in the development. Warren Campbell responded that the 400 public parking spaces would be in addition to what is required by zoning regulations and the no net loss of employee parking. For example, this would be in excess of the parking required for the hotel, dwelling units, and commercial. The 400 parking spaces are meant to address the Town's parking shortage and provide parking for the new gondola. Section 5.17.2 Vehicular Access and Parking George Ruther added that the proposed Master Plan language would remove the concept of how redevelopment would occur in West Lionshead should the frontage road remain in its current location, but rather recommends realignment. Dominic Mauriello stated that there are a number of enclosed loading and delivery bays at -grade and the language should be amended in the fourth paragraph to identify that these proposed locations exist. Bill Pierce asked if the amendments should reflect the exact locations of above ground loading and delivery. He stated that there are a number of issues with at grade loading and delivery bays, specifically with the doors being open allowing visibility into the spaces. Dominic Mauriello stated that the at -grade loading and delivery are within the development and do not directly accessible from the frontage road. Section 5.17.3 Parking Dominic Mauriello stated that he recognizes that there is further word smithing and changes to be made by the Vail Town Council when policy discussions occur, however he specifically wanted to keep the 283 parking space number in paragraph 2 to lock in that number. George Ruther stated that this number could change and the Town's files reflect the need for replacement of 283 parking spaces under the no net loss policy of the Master Plan. Commissioner Rediker asked about the short term spaces for skier drop off and grocery store uses. Dominic Mauriello responded that the skier drop -off could be signed to allow commercial access to the grocery store which is in close proximity. It was currently not known what language would be placed on the signs to allow this and for what time duration. He noted that there will be parking for the grocery store underneath the building. Commissioner Pratt asked to clarify that the 400 spaces would be in excess of required parking and replacement parking. George Ruther confirmed that it would be 400 spaces plus the replacement parking plus required parking, totaling approximately 1,100 parking spaces. Commissioner Rediker asked about the location of bus stops and their relationship to the gondola. Pa e 5 2/1/2011 1 -2 -5 Warren Campbell responded that the walk would be about 800 feet, which is closer than the walk from the transportation center to lifts in Vail Village. Section 5.17.5 Gondola and Vail Mountain Portal Commissioner Rediker asked how close the gondola building is to Gore Creek. Warren Campbell responded that the face of the building will be at least 50 feet from the centerline of Gore Creek. Commissioner Rediker asked what easements would be required for the gondola. Warren Campbell responded that an agreement will need to be reached with the Town of Vail for an easement across several town owned parcels to allow the gondola lift line to proceed up the mountain. Dominic Mauriello added that a conditional use permit would be required and further discussion of the specifics would occur at that time. Section 5.17.6 Pedestrian and Bike Access Commissioner Pratt asked about the pedestrian connections from southwest corner of the Ritz to the gondola. He stated that the route is out of the way and confusing. He suggested a more direct route along the access road to the subterranean maintenance facility be incorporated. Dominic Mauriello responded that there are grade changes and access to below grade areas for vehicles that would prevent access by pedestrians. He added that it is not impossible to allow for pedestrian access but it is not desirable. He stated that pedestrians will be fed into the commercial area of the project. Commissioner Pierce added that the alley between the Arrabelle and Lion Square Lodge, and between Arrabelle and Lionshead Center both are the shortest way to the Lionshead gondola, and so people use these alleys frequently. Commissioner Pratt added that people want to take the quickest route to the lift, and that in other locations, people don't have to walk away from the lift. Commissioner Rediker asked where the exact location of the pedestrian bridge across Gore Creek was proposed to be located. Dominic Mauriello pointed out its location. Commissioner Pratt added that a bridge to the project from the Gore Creek bike path would help to connect both sides. Section 5.17.7 Public Spaces and Plazas Commissioner Pratt suggested that fifth sentence of the first paragraph be revised to clarify that the buildings were causing the shading and not the sun. Section 5.17.8 Preservation of Existing Office and Retail Space Pa e 6 2/1i2011 1 -2 -6 Commissioner Pratt asked about the timing of the office replacement. He added that being a tenant of one of the buildings, a hypothetical tenant would have to leave and sign a lease elsewhere, thus leaving the Town of Vail. He suggested that there be some agreement on timing. Dominic Mauriello added that this would be something that would be negotiated with the Town. Commissioner Pierce added that there should be some language about the replacement of office, perhaps half being replaced quickly. Section 5.17.10 Relationship to Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek Commissioner Rediker stated that the creeks should be referred to as natural resources not amenities. There should be more shall statements not should statements, specifically about the preservation of trees and vegetation. He is pleased with proposed improvements along Red Sandstone Creek, making it a better waterway. He stated that stone /boulder areas along Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek are inappropriate. He stated that only certain places should take people right up to the creek with other areas being protected from people encroaching. Words like contemplates and best efforts are too broad. He said the project should enhance the protection of the creek. Jim Lamont, president of Vail Homeowners Association, spoke about pushing urban uses too close to the creek edge. He said there needs to be more protection of the creeks and limits as to how close development, paths, etc. can go. He referenced the water quality data that has been gathered recently which highlight the need to protect the riparian corridor. Section 5.17.11 Employee Housing Commissioner Rediker asked whether there is an employee housing component to the Ever Vail project and asked about timing of employee housing. Warren Campbell responded that the applicant is proposing to meet the employee housing needs but it may or may not be all on -site at the moment each building is completed. However, at the completion of the project, the full regulations will be met both on and off site. Section 5.17.12 Development Standards Commissioner Pierce asked if the interpolated grading plan is included in other SDD amendment requests. He stated the value of having the baseline for redevelopment in the future. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification on 3 to 4 story maximum along Gore Creek. George Ruther stated that master plan language was attempting to convey a perception of the desired outcomes not black and white regulations. The language 3 to 4 stories was an attempt to clarify the desired bulk and mass expression. Section 5.17.13 Architectural Improvements Commissioner Pratt asked if the proposed language in the second paragraph is setting up the project for a deviation from the design guidelines. He added that Lionshead from the 1970s used to be a contemporary expression of alpine architecture, and that the same mistakes should not be in Ever Vail. Pa e 7 2/1/2011 1 -2 -7 Commissioner Pierce said hopefully we wont repeat the 1970s Lionshead style. He added that each board should review the architecture for compliance with Master Plan. Commissioner Pratt added that this section should say it should comply with Lionshead Design Guidelines. Dominic Mauriello stated that the third paragraph could be struck. Section 5.17.14 Green Building Commissioner Pierce stated that the LEED mention could be stricken as the program may not be around in the future or a different program may be desired. Commissioner Pratt agreed that LEED should be removed and a more general reference to green building principles included. Section 5.20 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Diane Johnson, representative of ERWSD, stated that the proposed language for her organization's property was acceptable. She did request that Sections 5.17.1 and 5.17.2 be modified to include the language found in 5.20 with regard to providing legal and physical access to ERWSD. She added that Section 5.17.2 should expand on "cars and trucks" to mention the need of construction vehicles, semi - trucks, etc. to access the ERWSD site. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, made a comment on 5.20. He stated that the Vail Homeowners Association is concerned about the location of the ERWSD, and its interaction with Ever Vail and the Town as a whole. The functional and aesthetic relationship is concerning. The town has left the interaction between ERWSD and Ever Vail to the owners. He asked a number of questions regarding the ERWSD site, including zoning, etc. Lamont asked if the ERWSD was redeveloped, if the Design Guidelines of the LRMP would apply. He stated that the Town has control of how the ERWSD gets redeveloped and it should be clear that architectural improvements are needed. He stated that the Commission should set guidelines about the ERWSD site, and how it should aesthetically be connected to the Ever Vail project. Commissioner Pierce stated that no one is overlooking the lack of detail on ERWSD site in the LRMP. He asked Staff what direction to go in. George Ruther stated that any amendments could be brought forward by the public, staff, property owners, Commissioners, Town Council, etc. He said Staff would be reluctant to suggest that the ERWSD site be mixed use with retail etc. Jim Lamont added that high class international clientele oriented development next to the "barnyard" is inappropriate. He stated that the plant could have a park on the top to be more compatible with public spaces of Ever Vail. He added that the Town could be laughed at for not addressing this. Diane Johnson stated that the district and the applicant worked together to discuss future changes on the site. She added that to relocate a sewer treatment facility was not an easy task. There were many complicated and expensive issue related to pipe up sizing and discharge back in the current location to address water rights issues. She added that taxpayer money should not go for beautification beyond what is necessary. Pa e 8 2/1/2011 1 -2 -8 Jim Lamont added that the ERWSD should be committed to accomplishing compatible beautification to adjacent projects. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification of compatible beautification. Jim Lamont responded that the ERWSD site needs to be a good neighbor in the community and fit the aesthetic guidelines. Commissioner Pierce said the commissioners should be careful in responding to neighbor concerns about an existing property that is not being redeveloped. Dominic Mauriello stated that the ERWSD site is required to comply with the LRMP design guidelines. Commissioner Pierce said that he agrees but perhaps there should be a note that this site doesn't have to comply with the LRMP design guidelines. George Ruther stated that there is no way to force changes to any building not proposing to redevelop. Jim Lamont said he would be upset if the ERWSD would not be interested in updating the property to meet the guidelines better. He said the community needs to push for improvements. Commissioner Pratt suggested that the master plan amendments be tied into the Gore Creek Water study to ensure protection. Diane Johnson, ERWSD, stated that Red Sandstone Creek is a major tributary and the studies show that the negative components found in Red Sandstone Creek occur up above the Ever Vail site where old logging roads and such cause impacts. She believes that Ever Vail would likely have a positive impact on Red Sandstone Creek. Commissioner Pratt said he is uncomfortable putting requirements on ERWSD, but the Town Council should know that there are concerns about the language in 5.20 Commissioner Pierce went back to public view corridors, specifically view corridor 6 and respecting that the setbacks provide permanent view corridor. He stated that view corridor 8 affects others, not Ever Vail, and this is not the purpose of the view corridor. George Ruther responded that the view corridor 8 is for a visual connection from Ever Vail back to the Lionshead Core not to capture a view about the Marriott. The Commissioners agreed to a five minute break to allow Staff an opportunity to capture all the modification they heard to the proposed language so it could be read back to them. Staff read the multiple changes into the record and the Commission referenced them in their motion. 20 minutes 4. A request for a review of a flood plain modification permit, pursuant to Section 12- 21 -11, Flood Hazard Zones, Vail Town Code, to allow for the modification of the flood plain associated with Red Sandstone Creek, generally located at 862, 923, 934, 953, 1000 and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of -way/ Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision and Pa e 9 2/1/2011 1 -2 -9 Unplatted parcels (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC11 -0003) Applicant: Ever Vail, LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 4 -0 -2 ( Cartin and Viele recused) CONDITION(S): 1. Prior to construction, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals. Specifically, the applicant must obtain Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval for the associated Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMAR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 2. Prior to construction, the applicant shall coordinate all grading associated with this proposal with the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife to ensure the protection of fish and other aquatic species. 3. Within 30 days of completion of the improvements /modifications within the 100 -year floodplain, the applicant shall obtain Town of Vail approval of an as -built survey demonstrating that the 100 -year floodplain was modified in accordance with this approval. 4. This approval of a flood plain modification permit shall expire on January 24, 2013. 5. This approval of a floodplain modification permit shall only be effective in conjunction with the required Colorado Department of Transportation approval of the relocation of the frontage road and the associated bridge. Commissioners Viele and Cartin recused themselves on this item. Warren Campbell made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Tom Kassmel, the Town's floodplain coordinator, stated that he was in agreement with the findings of the applicant's floodplain modification report. The applicant had nothing to add. Commissioner Pratt asked why the culvert needs to be at a right angle to the frontage road. He was concerned about erosion caused by the change in flow direction in the creek. Tom Kassmel responded that the design will meet CDOT requirements and that boulder armoring will occur in the outfall and on the banks to prevent erosion. He concluded by explaining why the design is appropriate for this creek. 5 minutes 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 11 -3 -3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 11 -7 -15, Public Parking and Loading Signs for Private Property, to allow signs for public parking on private property, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100056) Applicant: Solaris Property Owner, represented by Michael Suman Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to February 14, 2011 MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes Pagqe 10 2/1/2b11 1 -2 -10 6. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of - way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to February 28, 2011 MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 7. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to February 28, 2011 MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 8. A request for review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 14 -1 -5, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 14 -10 -5, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of solar panels within two feet of a roof ridge and eave and extending higher than the ridgeline, located at 4918 Meadow Drive, Unit A/Lot 16, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision Fifth Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100046) Applicant: Laurent Meillon Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Table to February 14, 2011 MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 9. A request for an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, Housing Zone District, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the required landscape plan and geologic hazard mitigation plan for the redevelopment of the easternmost 5.24 acres of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments; and a request for the review of a variance, from Section 14 -5 -1, Minimum Standards, Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards for All Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a crossover drive aisle width of less than thirty -feet (30') within the required parking structure, located at 1280 North Frontage Road /Lots 1 -5, Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing 1,and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100018 /PEC100019) Applicant: Vail Timber Ridge L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to February 28, 2011 MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 4 -0 -0 5 minutes 10. A request for a final review of a variance from 12- 71 -14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for additional site coverage below grade, within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 934 (BP Site), 953 (Vail Professional Building), 1031 Pape 11 2/1/2 b] ] 1 -2 -11 (Cascade Crossing) S. Frontage Road / Unplatted; 862 (VR Maintenance Shop) and 923 (Holy Cross Lot) S. Frontage Road / Tracts A and B, S. Frontage Road Subdivision; 1000 (Glen Lyon Office Building) S. Frontage Road / Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090035) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Withdrawn 11. Approval of December 13, 2010 and January 10, 2011 minutes MOTION: Viele SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6 -0 -0 12. Information Update 13. Adjournment MOTION: Schneidman SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 4-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published January 21, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Pape 12 2/1/2 b11 1 -2 -12 ITL1 Oil VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Attachments and Information Updates: (20 min.) 1) Housing Strategic Plan Update 2) Employee Parking Update 3) Lionshead Information Booth on Frontage Road Update 4) Special Recognition Program ATTACHMENTS: E1-1U Strategic Plan Update Employee Parking Update Lionshead Info Center Memo 020111 Special Recognition Program 2/1/2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan Update I. PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Vail Town Council with an update on the Town of Vail's progress toward achieving its stated employee housing goal and implementing the Employee Housing Strategic Plan. This is for information only and is not a Town Council agenda item. II. INTRODUCTION In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide enough deed restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development." In order to achieve the community's established housing goal, on September 2, 2008, the Vail Town Council adopted the Employee Housing Strategic Plan (Plan). The Plan identifies the Town's goal as: "To ensure deed restricted employee housing for at least 30% of Vail's Workforce within the Town of Vail ". III. CURRENT CONDITIONS • There are currently 699 deed restricted employee housing units (EHUs) in Vail o This includes 198 units at Timber Ridge and 142 units at Middle Creek • Since September 2, 2008, 46 new EHUs have been established • The private sector has built 2 new EHUs • The Town of Vail has added 5 new EHUs ■ 2 units at the Arosa Drive Duplex ■ 3 units at Gore Range Condos • New development /Redevelopment has added 39 new EHUs ■ 28 at the Four Seasons Resort ■ 2 at the Landmark 1 2/1/2011 2 -1 -1 ■ 9 dispersed throughout town • First Chair will replace 100 beds lost at the Sunbird and will add 24 new beds when it is completed this year • The Town is 677 beds short of achieving its stated EHU goal • Chamonix Commons, at build out, will add 89 employee beds • Redevelopment of the eastern half of Timber Ridge will add approximately 300 new employee beds Vail's Deed Restricted Housing Gap Existing Jobs 9,100* 6,100 Employees (employee = more than 1 job) 30% of Vail's Employees 1,830 Employees EHUs 699 Units ** -1,153 Beds (avg. 1.65 emps /unit) Deed Restricted EHU Gap 677 Beds Projected New Employee Beds '/z Timber Ridge Redevelopment 300 new beds First Chair 24 new beds Chamonix Property 89 new beds *Jobs data from March, 2010 ** EHU data from January, 2011 IV. ACTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN The Town's EHU goal has been broken down into two key objectives. 1. Keep Up • Address employee housing needs generated by new development or redevelopment 2. Catch Up • Respond to the existing affordable housing shortfall The Plan identifies three primary methods to achieve the Town's EHU goal. 1. Impose regulatory requirements; 2. Develop and acquire new and existing units initiated by the Town; and 3. Form regional partnerships. 1. Under regulatory requirements the Plan identifies three action items. A. Adopt a commercial linkage program o Completed April, 2007 2 2/1/2011 2 -1 -2 B. Adopt an inclusionary zoning program o Completed April, 2007 C. Zone appropriate properties Housing (H) District o Timber Ridge, Chamonix Commons and Solar Vail have been rezoned to Housing (H) 39 new EHUs have been added and $708,669 has been collected to mitigate for new development since September, 2008. The redevelopment of Timber Ridge and Solar Vail and new development at Chamonix Commons will provide additional new EHUs. 2. Town initiatives include: A. Buying down units to generate additional EHUs in Vail o The budget for buy downs has been cut B. Adopted an Employee Housing Units Exchange Program o There is opportunity to increase effectiveness of the program C. Incentive zoning and density bonuses • Currently exist in Vail Town Code • EHUs are permitted uses in residential and mixed use zone districts D. Review rezoning and vacant land opportunities E. Town participation in deed restricted housing • Arosa duplex completed in 2010 • Chamonix Commons • Redevelopment of Timber Ridge F. Explore options for a dedicated funding source for employee housing initiatives o Not appropriate at this time G. Create an existing residential conditions baseline o Completed in 2009 H. Monitor the rate of free market employee occupied homes I. Conduct a demographics survey of current Vail residents J. Establish a list of essential service providers in the Town of Vail K. Host personal finance and /or home buyer education L. Annual review of the Plan 3. Regional efforts involve partnering with other towns and Eagle County to develop additional EHUs outside of Vail, particularly when they are a transit oriented development. Regional efforts also include working with the Eagle County School District, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, US forest Service, Vail Valley Medical Center and other organizations or businesses that have aligned goals for employee housing. V. 2011 EHU STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Chamonix Commons — Staff is currently working with various consultants to provide Town Council with updated information and marketing materials for the Chamonix Property. This information will allow the Town to actively pursue partnerships, increase market certainty, and enhance 3 2/1/2011 2 -1 -3 the success of this new employee housing and further the Town's success toward achieving its EHU goal. Employee Housing Units Exchange Program — Staff has been approached by a handful of local EHU owners who would like to propose modifications to this program, which improves its success and continues to achieve the Town's goal of creating additional EHUs. Annual EHU Compliance — Letters and affidavits have been sent to all EHU owners in Vail. Responses are due by February 15 annually. Staff will provide a compliance update following the response deadline. Annual Fee -in -Lieu Update — By ordinance, the Town of Vail must update its fee -in -lieu for Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning annually. The update ensures the fee amounts reflect current market and wage conditions. This is done by Resolution at the second meeting in April, every year. Timber Ridge Redevelopment — Staff is working with the developer to "assure long -term affordability of rental units for employees working in Vail or Eagle County more than 30 hours per week" as specified in the objectives of the Request for Proposals and Qualifications issued December 18, 2008. The developer has expressed their intent to start construction in the Spring, 2011. Monitor the rate of free market employee occupied homes — Staff will conduct a survey of residential units in Vail to update the existing baseline conditions survey that was completed in 2009. Host personal finance and /or home buyer education — Staff will schedule two classes in Vail that allow potential purchasers to utilize the Eagle County Down Payment Assistance Program. Annual review of the Plan — In order to ensure the Plan is always current and is responsive to changing conditions, the Housing Authority will review the Plan and changes will periodically be recommended to the Vail Town Council. VI. ATTACHMENT Town of Vail EHU Map 4 2/1/2011 2 -1 -4 Town of Vail e Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Locations 7MOFYn¢ (As of November 1, 2010) Tl i a Y W. _ t r EHU Loca4on. -as of Nov. 1, 2010 Gene I R 9 I Cod.gg ,y 99 rvo a n = va fcouae ® -- t pa >xnona�mna —h as weneno .1, ssa - pma moo pncmaes111 T >r Taus �P —,hh ntl � z000 pa > m,Anaa�, ma o�,nVa�� Ta��h— � pp p Y Pape a� wpn E���App,w� n�n� nnoaT�� n�aApp �e a �,a n�� 728 Total EHU. (nclutles F r.t Chain Additional Notes: ^iryce. - ' For — requirements, please see deed restriction recorded for specific property T=aveu - Please contact the Town of Vail Community Development Department for general questions or further information regarding EHU requirements same cis nevanmem Price - rapped EHUS established afterApril 4, 2000, are not assigned an EHU Type' Tn p a,�sea br,re Tw,�avau ci s.� u:e .< h-Ijp. I, - Recnrtled Date tloes not always coinddewiththe applicable legislative date range meTw,�orveuaoe,mwe� min � �woR�ie * (e g. a dead restriction approved in 1999 but recorded in 2001 is subject to conditions for EHU, approved between 1994 and April 3; 2000) MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Information Update: Employee Parking Research I. SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Vail Town Council with information on employee parking and transit at lodging properties in Vail. Staff conducted an informal survey, and received responses from ten properties, including four in Vail Village and six in Lionshead and Cascade Village. II. SURVEY SUMMARY • Number of employees range from 30 -500 employees • On -site parking: 8 employers allow all employees to park on- site, 2 employers only allow management (approximately 15 employees) to park on -site • All employers have same employee parking policies throughout the year (no seasonal policies) • No employers charge employees to park on -site when permitted • Of the two employers that do not allow parking for most employees, 1 stated most employees purchase parking passes while the other employer claimed most employees park in free parking throughout the town • Bus passes: 2 employers pay for employee bus passes, 4 employers provide discounted bus passes, 4 employers do not provide any bus pass benefit • Van pool: 1 employer provides a van pool from Leadville for employees, with five employees regularly taking the van • Incentives to carpool: All employers reported some level of carpooling, but none provide incentives to carpool • Public Transit: All employers have some employees taking the bus, ranging from 15 % -60% of total employees • Of the 5 employers with EHUs on -site, 4 provide on -site parking dedicated to employees living in the EHUs III. EXISTING POLICY AND REGULATIONS On -site parking is regulated by Chapter 12 -10, Off - Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code. The parking requirements are based on the number of spaces generated by a land use. Users of parking spaces include employees, residents, customers and guests. The Vail Town Code does not require that parking spaces be reserved for certain types of users. Instead, the management of parking spaces is left to the owners /operators of the project. The Town of Vail issues a number of parking passes for employees, including: 2/1/201) 2 -2 -1 • Middle Creek/ North Frontage Road Parking Pass: $100 • North Frontage Road West of West Vail Roundabout: $100 • Pink Pass/ Ford Park: $150 • Green Pass/ Ford Park and Lionshead weekdays: $500 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Vail Town Council instruct the Community Development Department to develop options for addressing the subject policy, to be presented at a future hearing. 2/1/201) 2 -2 -2 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Stan Zemler DATE: February 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Lionshead Information Center Update At the January 18 Town Council meeting, a request was made for a discussion /update regarding the future of the Lionshead Information center and its South Frontage Road location. This memo provides an overview of the key decision points that will be presented to the Town Council for future action. BACKGROUND The approved program for the new Lionshead Welcome Center includes a space similar in size to the current Lionshead Information Center building on the Frontage Road with an improved layout. The Council directed this space to be inviting and a visible part of the Welcome Center. There was concern regarding this location, however, due to the inability to access the Welcome Center by oversize vehicles and decreased visibility from the interstate and the frontage road. CURRENT STATUS Decisions related to the future status of the Lionshead Information Center will be tied to the following: • The Welcome Center building is proceeding through the bidding process for a possible spring 2011 start. The construction of this building will take at a minimum the remainder of 2011 to complete. • Operation of the Lionshead Information Center is budgeted for 2011. Future operational costs, staffing and budgets will be discussed during the 2012 budget process. • The Town Council is working through two initiatives regarding Vail Conference Center funds these include: • A significant improvement /enlargement of the Vail Village Information Center • The second is a process focused on guest services and information dissemination. An outcome of the process could include improved ways we communicate with our guests, both technologically as well as face to face interactions in multiple locations. It is anticipated the conference center fund discussion will continue to take place in March of this year in anticipation of a possible election to allow use of these funds. • The town is in discussions with Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the Vail frontage roads. Improvements at an expanded Vail Village Information Center may include modifications of the frontage road to allow oversized vehicles to park closer to the center 2/1/2011 2 -3 -1 without impeding bus traffic. Such improvements could be constructed even if the Village Information Center were not expanded and would greatly enhance the visibility of the information center from both the interstate and frontage road. • The current contract for operation of the Information Centers runs from October 1 to September 30, 2011. Discussions with the council will take place well in advance to determine the services to be included in future operations of the information centers. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Schedule a discussion regarding the future status of the Lionshead Information Center in late spring when more information is known regarding options and impacts. 2/1/2011 2 -3 -2 ']'own of Vail Special Recognition Program 2011 Criteria for Special Recogniti Bonuses are reserved for to performers in each department that regularly work bcvond the scope or expectations ofthe position. 1 he recognized performance must be tied to a specific I'M or departmental goal, objective, or value. Bonuses will be utilized to recognize employees for superior execution ol'project or assignment that is quantifiable as: - Veri l led cast eCliciency or smv ings to the TOT - Demonstrated productivity improvements or operational efficiencies Consistent exceptional work performance as demonstrated in performance review Documented guest /cListomer service enhancement initiatives Examples $5OO - $1.000 bonus for recognizing contributions resulting in town -wide impacts with ongoing savings for current and future ears. - Implements changes kv significant year after year cost savings impacting- multiple town depts, and /or the comnlunik. - ['ompletcs major'l M project ahead of schcdUle and Linder budget with sig savings. - C'oordinate scheduling el'ticiencies that reduces headcount /labor expenses nr the equivalent. $2 bonus for recognition ol' major contributions in a department or pro,jcel. - Provides considerable savings in fees by renegotiating fee agreement with vendors. - Implements a ncvv program or procedure that creales quantifiable efficiencies for a TM program. - Implementation /recommendation of a process!'proceduraI change that dramaticaIIv impacts the guest cxpmence in a positive way. 550 - $100 bonus for recognition o #contributions in a department or individual pro ,jccl - TO team or division awarded a NMi11 Um Service A%%a for all evaluations at or above 90 "•to. - An employce - who ref }eatedly exceeds c _\ pectat1ons in pro \ /ding exceptional guest ser% Timing; & Process Quarterly: Department l leads should sLibmit a prioritized list with proposals for each nomination to 1 fuman Resources no later than end of'each calendar quarter ( I'` qtr: M are h 3 1. 201 1 ). it cross - departmental conznuttcc will review and make rccommcndatio ns to the Town Managcr. ,Appyw uls and allocations wil] be decided by the Tovvn !tanager. 4elected recipients will b� evaluated based on individual or team pCHIMmance and c:ontribUtion to the TO V. funding vv ill be provided through a tovvii - wide pool of funds. not based on departmental savings or headcoli 2/1/2011 2 -4 -1 ITL1 Oil VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Ford Park Frontage Road Parking Plan and Upper Bench Recreation Plan Discussion PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and discuss the plan with the staff and direct staff regarding next steps outlined in the staff memo. BACKGROUND: At the September 21 town council meeting specific actions and next steps were presented to the Town council regarding various parking items. One of those items was further advancing a plan regarding expanded parking in the vicinity of Ford Park along the Frontage Road. A significant part of the further advancement was the evaluation of any impacts of the improvements to the recreation fields on the upper bench of Ford Park. In addition, there are desired improvements to the recreation fields in which in was needed to be determined if the parking improvements would impact the ability complete the recreational improvements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff direction with regard to the proposed next steps. ATTACHMENTS: 092111 memo Staff Memo presentation 2/1/2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Greg Hall Stan Zemler DATE: September 21, 2010 SUBJECT: Strategic Parking Plan Recommended Action Steps BACKGROUND Over the past year the town staff has undertaken an analysis to determine where the next phase of parking development might occur. The options that were studied included structured parking at Ford Park, additional structured parking at the existing LionsHead Parking Structure as well as surface parking at Ford Park and along the North and South Frontage Roads. An analysis of all town -wide parking data was conducted as well. The June 1st memo is attached for reference of previous work to date. In the fall of 2009, the TOV entered into an agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for continuing the use of the Frontage Roads for overflow parking. As part of this agreement, the TOV committed to provide a plan by the end of September 2010 concerning parking on the Frontage Roads going forward. ITEMS ADDRESSED SINCE JUNE 1st TOWN COUNCIL MEETING CDOT Need to address a parking plan by September 30, 2010 per the lease agreement of last year • The Town Council discussion on September 7th indicated the desire to use the frontage road in different capacities. This includes the: • North Frontage Road for permanent parking • South Frontage Road for 15 winter and 3 summer days of overflow parking • Possible improvements at Ford Park that incorporates use of the frontage road • These uses cannot be accomplished without a long term agreement with CDOT and FHWA. It would be the town's intent to send a letter to CDOT outlying terms of a partial frontage road ownership exchange if the town's terms can be met. CDOT has indicated this should satisfy their terms of a plan since it addresses how the town will deal with frontage road parking in the future. 2/1/2011 3 -I -I Ford Park/Golf Course The Town of Vail and Vail Recreation District subcommittee met and determined that moving the tennis courts to the Golf Clubhouse site was not in the VRD's best interest as it relates to site constraints which affect the overall golfing experience. Ford Park Phase Approach Staff has developed one more scenario of Ford Park which is an intermediate step addressing some additional parking at the park while keeping many of the existing park functions in place. It requires rework of the fields to allow circulation around the fields during events. This provides two fields end -to -end, one of the outcomes previously identified during the Ford Park master plan work. Other goals of the master plan, such as improved accessible access to the amphitheater and Alpine Garden, and a better sense of arrival, are not addressed and /or cannot be addressed until tennis is relocated to free up additional space. Frontage Road and Overflow Discussion On September 7, 2010 the Vail Town Council articulated the basis of the town's strategy to address its long term parking needs. This included reaffirmation of the stated goals in the Master Transportation Plan of 15 days of winter overflow parking and 3 days of summer overflow parking. Use of the South Frontage Road for overflow parking was acceptable, however, limits, locations, and possible improvements and cause (planned /non - planned) still need to be determined and discussed with the partners. Use of the North Frontage Road to meet a portion of the parking demand solution is acceptable. In future years, this parking could be supplemented or replaced by down valley (Dowd Junction and beyond) park -n- rides. Structured parking (organized and consolidated) is the preferred method to solve parking beyond the 15 days of overflow. An agreement with parking partners (Vail Resorts, business community, the town, and summer users) on a proportionate funding scheme is to be reached no later than August 30, 2011. If a failure to reach an agreement by the deadline happens, the town will enforce the 15 day and 3 day parking standard beginning with the 2010 -2011 winter seasons. Related Issues Use of the South Frontage Road for overflow parking is within the CDOT and FHWA right of way. Parking on the North Frontage Road is as well. Eventual use parameters and ownership, compensation agreements will need to be secured from CDOT. There is an additional cost to the Town of Vail to secure and maintain these roadways in perpetuity. These costs will also need to be recognized by our funding partners. 2/1/2011 3 -1 -2 Funding to pay for parking solutions will be discussed with the project partners, but includes parking revenue, and enhanced parking revenue, RETT at Ford Park, capital dollars, bond proceeds, $ 4,300,000 and $725,000 the town has secured from Vail Resorts, Tax Increment financing in Lionshead, Private developed parking (Ever Vail, LH Parking Structure) exchange of parking requirements (moving a portion of public parking requirement from Ever Vail to another location) private funding participation, other fund raising mechanisms. CURRENT DEMAND Previous presentations had identified 734 spaces outside of managed lots on the 15 busiest day last season. These cars are in unmanaged parking lots such as parks, trailheads, at the municipal building, on the frontage road in West Vail, and as well as overflow parking along the South Frontage Road. Outlying lots and the North Frontage Road around the 15 busiest day are between 70 -80 % occupied. In addition, Donovan Park was only available 70 % of the time that the town was in a South Frontage Road overflow situation. This leaves a deficit range of 360 -475 spaces to make up, depending on the availability of Donovan Park. The 15 busiest day resulted in 389 cars on the south Frontage Road last year, which correlates to the above range as well. Previous study documents detail the need for 400 spaces currently and eventually up to 1,000 spaces to meet future long -term demand. BASIS FOR A FINAL STRATEGIC PARKING PLAN As prepared, the strategic parking plan will be a flexible document. It will provide locations where 1,000 spaces can be accommodated over the long term. The document will provide the first two steps or phases needed to meet a portion of the initial demand. It will provide a framework to establish partnerships and priorities in meeting future demand. It lays out where the future demand can be met. Implementation of future phases will be dependent on the demand, how well the demand is managed, and impacts resulting on not having adequate parking supply on days beyond 15 days winter and 3 days summer. Future phases should look at taking advantage of opportunities as they arise to maximize the potential gain in parking as well as share in the costs of providing parking. Management and Inducements A small 3 -6 % swing in demand in the overall system based solely on demand management can result in a 100 -200 car swing in demand on peak days. Historical marketing efforts can affect a greater change in demand as well and this is why marketing was specifically addressed in the 1996 agreement with Vail Resorts. The assumptions for future demand projections are based on an aggressive travel demand management strategy being followed. 2/1/2011 3 -1 -3 SUGGESTED ACTIONS • Request CDOT begin negotiations to have the town take over the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive east (Town Shop) to the West Vail South Roundabout. Obtain ownership of South Frontage Road if the town's terms of ownership can be met by CDOT. • Develop improvements to the following areas to address parking deficits: North Frontage Road Formalize these areas and manage appropriately. There is little increase in additional parking, but using these areas for the longer term reduces the need to create replacement spaces in other areas of town. The cost for improvements, such as guard rail protection from the interstate and wider paved shoulders, is approximately $ 1.4 million. Charter Bus Stop Convert this lot into a car only lot with access from the Lionshead Structure. This is an increase of 60 spaces for $ 900,000. Ford Park First Phase The town staff refined a Ford Park Plan into two phases. Phase one includes improvements to the fields that establish the end -to -end scenario, restrooms, and frontage road parking improvements. Additional improvements in the park which address issues identified in the master plan process such as sense of entry, improved access to the amphitheater, Alpine Gardens, and overall organization of park functions are identified to be accomplished during phase two implementation. This is an increase of 139 spaces for $ 9.3 million. • Discuss with parking partners the parking agreements needed to bring resolution to this process. This may include further prioritization of these improvements, taking into account: • Financial plans outlining upfront costs, funding and cost sharing, operating costs, and future revenue scenarios • Public input • Refined project scope • Design entitlement process • Implementation phasing of the project • Continue to monitor the data The North Frontage Road, Charter Bus Lot, and Ford Park Phase One projects net out about 200 additional spaces. However, as discussed earlier, the demand is in transition as construction is completed and the employment demands shift to completed projects. In addition, Solaris will be operating this next year with an additional 80 public spaces. Changes made to the winter parking operations will increase usage of underutilized spaces within the two existing garages. More normal weather and a recovering economy will also affect the demand. 2/1/2011 3 -1 -4 • Based on continued demand and results of the first phase of improvements, measure results and determine need to implement the next phase. • Possible next phases: • Lionshead Parking Structure (existing building) - 200 spaces for $22 M • Ford Park Phase II Master Plan improvements. Moves tennis to 12 hole or other location, adds 140 spaces to the park, and if a new Nordic Center is built, frees up 65 spaces at the existing clubhouse - 200 total available spaces for $9.0 M • Lionshead east end addition - 370 -450 new spaces - $33 -36 M • Ever Vail - 400 spaces paid by the developer • Some combination of the above scenarios • Other NEXT STEPS • Direct Town Manager to send a letter to CDOT outlining the intent of our parking plan and the terms of partial frontage road ownership transaction. • Inform parking partners of the intent of the plan and the 15/3 day overflow and parking agreement timeframe. • Complete the Ford Park master planning process, using a phased approach, with the Frontage Road plans being in the first phase. • Design the improvements for the Charter Bus Lot. • Continue the review of the Ever Vail development in the entitlement process • Amend the Ford Park Master plan if needed. • Document the work and recommendations into a final Parking Master Plan and describe the strategic actions steps of the plan. • Public input will be sought and evaluated during the Ford Park and Parking Master Plan adoption process. 2/1/2011 3 -1 -_5 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Greg Hall Stan Zemler DATE: February 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Parking Plan updates specifically Ford Park Parking and Recreational Field Upgrade Plan BACKGROUND At the September 21 Town Council meeting a plan was laid out for future parking improvements beyond the yearly operational changes. Suggested action steps were put forward for the next two to three years and some next steps were presented. See the attached memo from September 21, 2010. This memo includes an update on the progress of the parking plan presented in September. Ford Park Parking Plan Improvements One of the action steps was to develop the Ford Park frontage road parking plan in more detail. The Ford Park parking plan created permanent parking spaces along both sides of the frontage road adjacent to Ford Park. By constructing a retaining wall next to the athletic fields, a platform is created at the frontage road level to accommodate parking. A refinement of the plan was needed to understand the integration between the frontage road parking improvements /retaining wall and the desired improvements of the upper athletic fields of the park. The following assumptions were used in advancing the plans: Recreation: ➢ The ability for two regulation soccer fields to be aligned end to end ➢ A new restroom facility to replace the current one ➢ No loss of softball fields, maintain the current distances of the outfields of 285' from home plate ➢ Provide adequate circulation around the fields for spectators and other park users ➢ Limit impacts to the tennis facilities ➢ Minimize operational expenses regarding flexible field use Parking: ➢ Provide parking in the range of 140 net new spaces ➢ Provide adequate pedestrian circulation within the parking areas ➢ Limit impacts to 1 -70 by placing improvements outside the CDOT encroachment line ➢ Utilize traffic calming within the parking area ➢ Accommodate bicycle traffic through the park 1 2/1/2011 3 -2 -1 ➢ Parking first and foremost must work for the park and the park users Park: ➢ Integrate the retaining wall with the park as an amenity ➢ Buffer the parking from the park ➢ Possible enhance amenities for the park ➢ Provide adequate pedestrian circulation connections allowing flow from the parking area to the recreational fields and park walkways ➢ Potential special event venue A final discussion was whether the fields would be artificial turf or not; the plan layout works with either turf. There are pros and cons with regard to both playing surfaces; however, at this time the study was to determine the physical layout of the fields and not the playing surface. Highlights of the plan include ➢ 3 full size regulation softball fields (285' outfields) ➢ 2 full size 120 yards x75 yards NCAA soccer fields end to end ➢ 2 restroom facilities ➢ Field storage facilities ➢ Bus turnaround ➢ 134 net new parking spaces Revised Cost Estimate The previous cost estimate was around $ 9.6 million dollars as presented in September. The estimate has now been adjusted to $ 12.44 million. This is broken down as follows: $ 7.61 million for Parking /Frontage Road and Retaining Wall $ 4.83 million for Park and Fields The most significant changes to the estimate were the additional costs described below: Parking and Frontage Road $ 480,000 for major utility relocation near the wall, this includes waterline relocation and the high pressure gas line relocation. There may be opportunities to potentially cost share with the utility companies on any upgrades for their systems in these costs but at this time we have the full cost included $ 1,100,000 of the retaining wall with additional detail review and discussions to make the wall an amenity we have revised the amount of wall to accommodate the many stair connections and movement in and out as well as increased the unit cost of the wall to ensure we will be able to provide the quality of wall finish (stone) verses a typical earth reinforced concrete block wall. $ 410,000 the previous estimate did not include construction traffic control costs 2 2/1/2011 3 -2 -2 $ 140,000 for additional landscaping to enhance the promenade area Park Costs $ 708,000 for an additional restroom facility as well as a field storage facility Vail Valley Foundation Lower Bench Park Improvements The Vail Valley Foundation (VVF) made a presentation on January 4, 2011, to the Vail Town Council on ideas for improvements to the Gerald R. Ford amphitheater and surrounding lower bench area. The town council agreed to have staff work with the VVF regarding their ideas and to include the other stakeholders. The town staff had a cursory overview of the VVF plan prior to the council presentation. We look forward to working in greater detail as the VVF begins to advance their plans. The Town's and VRD's plan for the upper bench and the Vail Valley Foundation's ideas for the lower bench do not interfere with each other and are very independent. The VVF plan may actually generate a parking requirement that could be met with the improvements the town is proposing. There definitely may be some synergy if the two plans are looked at holistically where the sum of the parts may make for an even greater improvement to the overall park experience. It is anticipated these discussions between the town and the foundation will take place in the near future. Town's Interim Parking Plan Recommendations in Relation to the Overall Parking Plan. The town is looking at adding only 200 incremental spaces of a projected 400 space need within the next two to three years. Last year there were 734 cars outside of managed spaces on the 15th busiest day. This season parking is less impactful; however, we will determine the full extent of the success at the end of the season. There are some areas where the long -term viability of the parking supply is vulnerable. These include the parking along the North Frontage Road this equals 120 spaces available 7 days a week and an additional 100 spaces on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. The second area is the 45 spaces at the Vail Nordic Center, as use of the Nordic Center continues to increase. Any conflict will be eliminated through reassigning additional spaces for Nordic Center use. PARKING PLAN NEXT STEPS UPDATE TIMETABLE • Direct Town Manager to send a letter to CDOT outlining the intent of the Town of Vail parking plan and the terms of partial frontage road ownership transaction. The letter was sent on September 30 outlining the town's position regarding partial ownership of the frontage road and further negotiations with CDOT. On December 21, 2010 a lease was approved by the Town Council allowing parking on the frontage road for the 2010 -2011 season. The lease spells out the terms and conditions regarding for the use of the frontage road for parking. The use of the frontage road is a critical component of any future parking plan. Three items most affected are: 3 2/1/2011 3 -2 -3 1. Ability to park in an overflow situation of 15 days winter and 3 days summer 2. Any formalization of parking on the North Frontage Road 3. Implementation of any formalized frontage road parking at Ford Park CDOT, the town and Federal Highway Administration have had a series of meetings working through various issues related to the terms of the town's letter of September 30, 2010. A recommended solution is required by August 31, 2011 per the lease. • Inform parking partners of the intent of the plan and the 15/3 day overflow and parking agreement timeframe. Vail Resorts was informed of the requirements of the council regarding a resolution on parking, a funding plan and an August 31, 2011 deadline for agreement. A series of meetings have been held. Significant Improvements in communicating parking status and options are being implemented this year with better utilization of private available spaces which has resulted in fewer days of overflow parking. In addition, any use by the Town of Vail of the $4.3 million pledged by Vail Resorts for incremental new parking facilities requires an approval of schematic plans for such a project by Vail Resorts. • Complete the Ford Park master planning process, using a phased approach, with the Frontage Road plans being in the first phase. The ongoing design work for the project will be presented to the town council on February 1, 2011. If agreement from CDOT is obtained, the project can move forward through the town's entitlement and public review phase. If it is desired to use all or a portion of the $4.3 million of Vail Resort's capital parking investment funds, the plan would require schematic plan approval from Vail Resorts as well. • Design the improvements for the Charter Bus Lot. Bonds were issued in November by the Vail Reinvestment Authority to potentially fund parking improvements to the Charter Bus Lot. A RFP was issued for design work in January of 2011 with consultant selection and award to take place in February of 2011. Construction would take place in the fall of 2011. • Continue the review of the Ever Vail development in the entitlement process. The Ever Vail project received recommendations of approval for the major subdivision, rezoning and Lionshead Master Plan amendments from the Town of Vail Planning Commission. The first hearing of the Town Council in regards to these approvals is scheduled for February 15, 2011 and will continue on through the spring. • Amend the Ford Park Master plan if needed. 4 2/1/2011 3 -2 -4 The Ford Park Master Plan will need to be amended in regard to the recreational and parking improvements proposed at Ford Park. In the meantime, the Vail Valley Foundation has proposed improvements to the lower bench to the amphitheater and lower bench. The foundation's improvements would also require an amendment of the Master Plan. Either plan can move forward through the approval process independently, however, there may be synergies of the plans proceeding together. • Document the work and recommendations into a final Parking Master Plan and describe the strategic actions steps of the plan. This will be a final step once understandings regarding the frontage roads with CDOT and our parking partners on funding and prioritization are known. • Public input will be sought and evaluated during the Ford Park and Parking Master Plan adoption process. All public input will begin once the process is initiated. STAFF RECOMMEDATION • Continue work on the next steps as outlined above. • Begin to have discussions with our partners, specifically CDOT on the Ford Park Parking Plan as presented and /or modified based on input from the Town Council. • Initiate discussions with Vail Resorts to determine if Ford Park Parking Plan qualifies for use of the $4.3 million designated in the Capital Investment Parking Plan Agreement. • Work with the Vail Valley Foundation regarding improvements to the lower bench of Ford Park and the opportunities the upper bench plan and lower bench plan present. • Upon positive completion of the above action items, initiate an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan jointly with the Vail Recreation District and the Town of Vail for the upper bench improvements with a strong possibility of the addition of the Vail Valley Foundation and Alpine Gardens for the lower bench improvements as well. • Refine the costs and design specifically the retaining wall component • If entitlements are approved, work with all parties involved on a phased implementation plan taking into account impacts during construction. 5 2/1/2011 3 -2 -5 Ford Park Parking and Recreation Field Upgrade Plan Update February 1, 2011 Town Council Work Session Recreation Design Considerations • Two soccer fields aligned end to end • New restroom facilities • No loss of softball fields, 285' outfield • Circulation for spectators and park users • Limit impacts to the tennis facilities • Minimize flexible field operational expenses 2/1/2011 3 -3 -2 Parking Design Considerations • Approximately 140 net new spaces • Pedestrian circulation within the parking areas • Limit impacts to 1 -70 • Utilize traffic calming • Accommodate bicycle traffic • Parking must work for the park and the park users 2/1/2011 3 -3 -3 Park Design Considerations • Integrate retaining wall as an amenity to the park • Buffer the parking from the park • Enhance restroom, concession, and storage amenities for the park • Pedestrian connections between parking, recreational fields and park walkways • Flexible layout enhances special event venue 3 -4 Plan Highlights • 3 full size regulation softball fields (285 outfields) • 2 full size (NCAA) soccer fields • 2 restroom facilities • Field storage facilities • Bus turnaround • 134 net new parking spaces • Traffic calming roundabouts z,,,zo„ �� NWNL M WNL NEA d GCIf•TOP fEMCE � WILL �x(i E �_� I _ IAaHIAO[pp�p namw,� I BEIIBiWFO � Ill II I -- PIRIffl10 © II Ill I Ili ©I c_ I1 1 I V , l �— _� I11 iwacmurt,s 1 jI /f l � nru p ford park option 7 0, „ AECOM 2/l/2 0 11 3 -3 -6 �F i - I i A r y r JJ 1 .ter � N 4" �� � �'� �� �� � � ��, • � � � �..� � .ti.: - I �- r yd+* � J _ - w A ! y 2 /l /2011 3 -3 -7 MIT f\ _ 1� • f'b .�� i C � �... fr' y S p_ y� ^S' � '�� �y �•h �,�, `' � �. ..y r pis" ,w4 /� '. li TYr - •:� � :? Y .6 R� '.l r• - UP _ -- Man PROMENADE _ _. � SPE Al I _- 't PLANTNUIII, PROMENADE CLAL WALK l ' 3 -3 -10 Revised Cost Estimates Park Improvements $ 4.83 million — Changed by $708,000 Parking /Frontage Road and wall $ 7.61 million — Changed by $ 2,125,000 Tota I Cost $ 12.44 million 2/1/2011 3 -3 -11 �xwuL l ��i I PORTABLE I L� � � BAblBM6 PROMFI�i�ODEAREA� WALL � l� � IM �` _. _- ' Z . — BLNE•S PROMENADE _ wnLl W/ uMlie OF ` � "�— •�., AIFICVLL RESiROOM I VxI _```` PROMENADE �. TV IxT INwALLI I 1 man, L, TENNSC YW Mr I I L 4 GERALD R.. 'FORD �1J P42-t 4 AMF ITHEl.TEV ford park option 7 movie A_-CQM 2/1'2011 3 -3 -12 Next Steps • Discuss with CDOT Ford Park Parking Plan • Discuss with Vail Resorts use of the $4.3 million for Ford Park Parking Plan • Work with the Vail Valley Foundation • Initiate an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan if there is agreement on the above items • Refine costs and design • Work with all parties on a phased implementation plan. 2/1/2011 3 -3 -13 ITL1 Oil VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Vail Timber Ridge, L.L.C. and the Town staff have evaluated additional options for the mitigation of the geologic hazards directly affecting the Timber Ridge Redevelopment site. The purpose of this worksession is to: 1. Identify the action the Vail Town Council needs to take to move the rockfall mitigation to the next step towards implementation.2. Inform the Vail Town Council of the work that has been completed to date.3. Outline three viable rockfall mitigation options for consideration.4. Describe the next steps and timeline for the review process of the proposed Timber Ridge development review applications. PRESENTER(S): George Ruther ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is being asked to select a final option and instruct Town staff to pursue that option for design and construction BACKGROUND: See staff memorandum to the Vail Town Council dated, February 1, 2011 for more complete details and analysis of the rockfall mitigation options and required next steps. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town staff is recommending that the Vail Town Council instructs the staff and Vail Timber Ridge LLC to pursue Option #2 individual stabilization of specific large rocks /boulders. Staff's recommendation is based upon our review and understanding of: 1) the applicable Zoning Regulations, 2) the engineering involved in constructing the mitigation improvements, 3) the pros and cons associated with each of the options, 4) the estimated cost of the improvements, and 5) practical realities associated with each of the options. ATTACHMENTS: Timber Ridge Memorandum 2/1/2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Timber Ridge Redevelopment Geologic Hazard Mitigation Update Vail Timber Ridge, L.L.C. and the Town staff have evaluated additional options for the mitigation of the geologic hazards directly affecting the Timber Ridge Redevelopment site. The purpose of this memorandum is to: 1. Identify the action the Vail Town Council needs to take to move the rockfall mitigation to the next step towards implementation. 2. Inform the Vail Town Council of the work that has been completed to date. 3. Outline three viable rockfall mitigation options for consideration. 4. Describe the next steps and timeline for the review process of the proposed Timber Ridge development review applications. Action Requested of Town Council The Town staff is requesting direction from the Vail Town Council on which rockfall mitigation option should be further evaluated for implementation. Pursuant to the pre - development agreement with Vail Timber Ridge LLC, the Town of Vail and Vail Timber Ridge LLC are obligated to cost share (50/50) the evaluation and subsequent design of the rockfall mitigation improvements. The Town of Vail, however, is obligated to pay 100% of the cost of constructing the mitigation improvements. The Town Council is being asked to select a final option and instruct Town staff to pursue that option for design and construction. Based upon the Town Council's direction, staff will work cooperatively with Vail Timber Ridge L.L.C. to assemble final design drawings and construction cost estimates. A bid process for the rockfall mitigation work will be pursued concurrently. Background Pursuant to the Official Hazard Map of the Town of Vail adopted by the Vail Town Council, the Timber Ridge redevelopment site is located within a high severity rockfall hazard zone. A site specific geologic hazard study prepared by HP Geotech reaffirms this designation and has concluded: 1. that the site can be developed provided mitigation can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety and to protect the inhabitants of the Town from the hazard. 2. that a future rockfall event is likely infrequent but has the potential to present a significant risk to the proposed redevelopment. 1 2/1/2011 4 -1 -1 The Town of Vail may not exempt itself from the adopted hazard regulations without first adopting amendments to the Zoning Regulations. According to Section 12- 21 -13, Restrictions in Geologically Sensitive Areas, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, in part, `Yf the findings of the engineer or geologist performing the geologic investigation is that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety or to property to a reasonable level, and such mitigation does not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, riqhts of way, easements, utilities or facilities approval of the development plan and /or the issuance of the building or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for the corrective engineering and engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations as set forth in this title. " Geologic Hazard Mitigation Options On August 3, 2010, the Vail Town Council instructed Town staff to further explore options for rockfall mitigation improvements on the hillside above Timber Ridge. As a result, Yenter Companies, a geologic hazard engineering consultant, located in Glenwood Springs, CO, was hired to conduct a site specific study of the rockfall hazard and provide recommendations for mitigation. According to the " Rockfall Mitigation above the Timber Ridge Apartments in Vail, Colorado report, dated October 29, 2010, prepared by Yenter Companies, "Based on our initial site observations from the street level it did not appear that the entire outcrop was absolutely in need of steel meshing which was, at the time, the option the Town of Vail was most interested in." Furthermore, based upon an up close visual investigation of the hillside, Yenter Companies has concluded, "It is very obvious that the entire slope ( +/- 132,000 square feet) does not need steel mesh as much of this outcrop is a very solid, tight bedrock formation with little to no fractures present in most areas. Many of the individual rock features we witnessed from the air were not as unstable as they appeared after a ground level inspection was performed. There are some rocks that we do have a concern for that should be considered for stabilization. There are several common approaches that can be utilized for stabilization of individual rocks /boulders. These options range from drilling and bolting smaller boulders in place to applying a mesh drape and anchors at specific points around the perimeter of the larger features. In any event, the isolated treatment of specific features would be far less costly than globally meshing /bolting the entire outcrop. However, this approach of treatment of isolated features does not provide the global protection from weathering /fracturing of rock over time nor does it consider rocks smaller than 24" in diameter that can be dislodged during 2 2/1/2011 4 -1 -2 freeze /thaw cycles, severe weather events, or disturbed by wild animals and /or rodent undermining. " Based on Yenter Companies' rockfall mitigation and past construction experience, they have identified three viable options for rockfall mitigation on the hillside above Timber Ridge Village Apartments. The options are: 1. Mesh the entire rock outcrop (approximately 200,000 square feet of mesh) at an estimated construction cost of $1.4 - $2.0 million. 2. Individual stabilization of specific large rocks /boulders ( >24" in diameter) or small areas at an estimated construction cost of $70,000 - $100,000, plus annual maintenance. 3. Install a rockfall fence, 1,000 feet in length along the Lion's Ridge Loop right of way at an estimated cost of $380,000 - $450,000. Option 1: Steel Mesh the Entire Rock Outcrop The anchored, steel mesh outcrop stabilization (hair net) will be achieved by pinning a flexible steel mesh on the outcrops with grouted rock bolts. A temporary access trail /road or helicopter would provide access to the barrier location for construction. The outcrop stabilization would be approximately 200,000 square feet or 4.6 acres in size. Estimated Cost — $1.4 - $2.0 million Pros • Protects the road and Timber Ridge residents • Mitigates the hazard at the source • Very low to no maintenance once constructed • Visually screened with native landscaping • One time expense • Complies with the hazard mitigation requirements of chapter 12 -21 Cons • Mitigation to be constructed on Town of Vail Open Space • Requires consent and written agreement from property owners to construct • Severely limited construction access via helicopter or foot paths • Site disturbance caused by temporary access road /trail • Most expensive option Option 2: Individual Stabilization of Specific Large Rocks /Boulders The individual stabilization will be achieved by scaling the hillside and anchoring specific large rocks and boulders to the hillside. In some instances, small areas of hillside may be covered with steel mesh to provide the necessary protection. Loose rocks and boulders less than 24 inches in diameter would be removed from the hillside. Annual oversight and maintenance is required. Estimated Cost - $70,000 - $100,000. Pros • Protects the road and the Timber Ridge residents • Ease of access and maintenance • Results in less site disturbance • Most cost effective option 3 2/1/2011 4 -1 -3 • Focuses the attention on the most susceptible rockfall areas • Less visually obtrusive • Visually screened with native vegetation • Complies with the hazard mitigation requirements of chapter 12 -21 Cons • Requires permission from property owners to construct • Lower upfront capital cost /Higher annual maintenance cost • Requires mitigation to be constructed on Town of Vail Open Space • Focuses on current conditions only Option 3: Wire Rope Net Barrier along Lions Ridge Loop The wire rope net barrier would be constructed along the top of the road cut of Lions Ridge Loop. Construction would require crane access from Lions Ridge Loop. The barrier is approximately 1,000 feet in length and 11 feet in height. Estimated Cost — $380,000 - $450,000 Pros • Protects the road and the Timber Ridge residents • Ease of access and maintenance • Results in a lower net height • Cost effective option • One time expense • Maintains two way traffic on Lions Ridge Loop • 1,500 kilojoules of rock stopping strength • Complies with the hazard mitigation requirements of chapter 12 -21 Cons • Requires permission from property owners to construct • More difficult to screen from view with landscaping • Greater negative visual impacts • Requires mitigation to be constructed on Town of Vail Open Space Next Steps The Developer, Vail Timber Ridge L.L.C. has not completed the development review process. Pursuant to the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail, a final review can not be heard until a final geologic hazard mitigation plan is submitted and approved in accordance with Chapter 21 of the Zoning Regulations. The Developer is scheduled to appear before the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on Monday, February 28th to present a revised landscape plan, geologic hazard mitigation plan, and site plan. Among other obligations, the revised site plan must include, or take into consideration, the geologic hazard mitigation measures proposed for the project. Staff Recommendation According to the consulting engineers with Yenter Companies, "Rockfall events are sporadic and unpredictable. Because of the multiplicity of factors affecting such an event, it is not and cannot be an exact science that guarantees the safety of individuals and property. 4 2/1/2011 4 -1 -4 However, sound engineering principles to a predictable range of parameters, and by the use of properly designed protection measures in identified risk areas, the risk of injury and property loss can be substantially reduced. " The Town staff is recommending that the Vail Town Council instructs the staff and Vail Timber Ridge LLC to pursue Option #2 individual stabilization of specific large rocks /boulders. Staff's recommendation is based upon our review and understanding of: 1) the applicable Zoning Regulations, 2) the engineering involved in constructing the mitigation improvements, 3) the pros and cons associated with each of the options, 4) the estimated cost of the improvements, and 5) practical realities associated with each of the options. 5 2/1/2011 4 -1 -5 t j 1 e F a I jI p a d ,` r Y a r� a n + ----- b a. l ; � 1 m m A , l o �• b z � x + ✓e i a> 1 ; i 1 1 k _ 1 £ .• � ,� •jYP R �i , , 11 1 1111 _ l 1 r, ITL1 Oil VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from the Mayor and Council 2/1/2011 ITL1 Oil VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding: update on pending litigation Town of Vail v. WENK et al. Case number 08CV467 and Richard Colucci v. Town of Vail Case number 09CA0006; 2) C.R.S. §24 -6 -402 (4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding: discussion concerning negotiations regarding Timber Ridge Redevelopment Agreement; 3) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(0 - to discuss personnel matters, Re: Review of Town Council direct reports. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire 2/1/2011