HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-21 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
TOWN OF AQ9
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
6:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 21, 2012
NOTE
2
3
rd
5
Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot
be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider
an item.
ITEM /TOPIC: Citizen Participation (15 min.)
ITEM /TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
Approval of January 3 and 17, 2012 minutes (5 min.)
ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
1) Update on Variable Message Signs (15 min. )
PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler
ITEM /TOPIC: Public Safety Radio Tower (15 min)
PRESENTER(S): Dwight Henninger Joe Ribeiro
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Acting as the property owner,
Council is requested to approve the use of Town land for the proposed
location of a new public safety radio tower located in the northeast corner of
the Police Department building and authorize the application to move
through the design review process.
BACKGROUND: In September 2011 the Vail and Eagle County public
safety agencies migrated from the County 800 MHz analog radio system to
the State of Colorado digital 800 MHz radio system. The changeover
resulted in a significant decrease in radio operational capabilities within the
densely built -up areas of the Village and Lionshead. System technicians had
expected a minimal decrease in service but in- building coverage issues are
much more severe than anticipated and have prompted concern for public
safety personnel responding to incidents in core area buildings. The experts
have told us the most effective solution to rectify this situation would be to
add a radio repeater site in the Main Vail area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorization of this
proposal to proceed through the design review process.
ITEM /TOPIC: The release of four deed restrictions from existing employee
housing units, in accordance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit
Exchange Program, Vail Town Code. (20 Minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Nina Timm
2/21/2012
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Authorize the Town Manager to
execute the release of four deed restrictions at Crossview at Vail /1460
Buffehr Creek Road, Lot 10, Dauphinais Mosely Subdivision, Lot 6, Block 1,
Gore Creek Subdivision /5114 Grouse Lane and Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village
First Filing /126 Forest Road in exchange for the deed restriction of four new
units at Vail das Schone Condo A- 24/2111 N. Frontage Road A -24, Vail
Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 1/2700 Larkspur Court No. 1, Vail Wilderness
Townhouses, Unit 1/2700 Larkspur Court No. 3 and Meadow Creek
Condominiums L- 3/2510 Kinnickinick L -3 in the Town of Vail.
BACKGROUND: On February 7, the Town Council requested the proposed
EHU Exchanges be tabled to the February 21 Town Council meeting to
provide the Town Council time to discuss the proposed EHU Exchanges.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Vail Town Council
approves the proposed EHU Exchanges.
6. ITEM /TOPIC: A request for Units 303/306 and Units 402/403 to proceed
through the development review process with a proposal to construct and
maintain private improvements (bay windows and deck) on the Town of Vail
owned Hanson Ranch Road and Chute Road right -of -ways, generally
located adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building at 302 Hanson Ranch
Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell, Planner and Sid Shultz, GPSL
Architects, Applicant's Representative
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: On behalf of the property owner, the
Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
applicant's request for property owner authorization to proceed through the
Town's development review process.
BACKGROUND: The Mill Creek Court Building was constructed in 1965.
The building footprint is less than one foot off the property in multiple
locations. There are existing bay windows and decks located within
the adjacent right -of -ways. These existing encroachments are located above
circulation areas for the first floor commercial and landscaping and do
not negatively affect the use of the right -of -ways for traffic circulation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town of Vail development review
process requires all applications to have the authorization of the property
owner. Since the subject private improvements are located on Town of Vail
owned property, the applicant must obtain the Vail Town Council's property
owner authorization before proceeding with applications to construct and
maintain two bay windows and an expanded deck.
II
ITEM /TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, an
ordinance approving a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to
Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a rezoning from Ski Base
Recreation District to Ski Base Recreation 2 District, located at 598 Vail
Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in
regard thereto (PEC110067). (45 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Rachel Dimond, Tom Braun
2/21/2012
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall
approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 1, Series of
2012, upon first reading.
BACKGROUND: On January 30, 2012, the Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on a proposed rezoning of the Ski and
Snowboard Club Vail from Ski Base Recreation District to Ski Base
Recreation 2 District and has forwarded a recommendation of approval for
the amendment to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 4 -2 -1 (Rediker, Pierce
opposed, Cartin recused).
On February 7, 2012, the Vail Town Council continued the first reading of
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, to the February 21, 2012 hearing.
8. ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, an ordinance amending
Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-
3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Vail
Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto;
and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, amending Chapter VII, Vail Village
Sub - Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area ( #6), Vail Village Master Plan,
pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail Village
Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village
Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC110040, PEC110041) (30 min)
PRESENTER(S): Bill Gibson, Community Development Department
Q
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session to
introduce the proposed new Vail Village Townhouse District (VVTD). Final
action on the proposed ordinance and resolution will be requested at a future
public hearing.
BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2011, Planning and Environmental
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with modifications, to
the Vail Town Council for the proposed Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, and
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, by a vote of 4 -1 -1 (Rediker opposed and
Pratt recused).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department
recommends the Vail Town Council listens to a Staff presentation, asks
questions, and tables the first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012,
and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, to its March 6, 2012, public hearing for
further deliberation.
ITEM /TOPIC: Ever Vail - The Community Development Department
requests that the following Ever Vail applications be tabled to March 6,
2012.
Major Subdivision
A request for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant
to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation
of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known as Ever Vail (West
Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, 1000 and 1031 South Frontage
Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/un platted (a
2/21/2012
complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail
Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC080062)
Rezoning (Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2011)
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a establish Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning on
Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision located generally at 862, 923,
934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road, and the South Frontage
Road 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. (PEC080061)
Special Development District Amendment (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 20111
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 South Frontage Road West /Lot 54, Glen Lyon
Subdivison, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036)
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment ( Ordinance No.
9, Series of 2011)
A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed
regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to amend Section 12- 10 -19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to
amend the core area parking maps to include "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead)
within the "Commercial Core" designation, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC080065) (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development
Department requests that the major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7,
8, and 9, Series of 2011 be continued to the March 6, 2012 public
hearing.
BACKGROUND: Major Subdivision: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with
conditions, on the preliminary plan for the major subdivision to establish
Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision, by a vote of 5 -0 -2 (Viele and
Cartin recused).
Rezoning: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a
zone district boundary amendment to establish Lionshead Mixed Use 2
District zoning on Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision, by a vote of
5 -0 -2 (Viele and Cartin recused).
Special Development District Amendment: On January 24, 2011, the
Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of
2/21/2012
approval, with conditions, for a major amendment to Special Development
District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village, to remove the Glen Lyon Office
Building from the SDD in order for it to be incorporated into the Ever Vail
Subdivision, by a vote of 4 -0 -2 (Viele and Cartin recused).
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment: On January 11,
2010, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a prescribed regulations
amendment to Section 12- 10 -19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, by
a vote of 4 -0 -2 (Viele and Cartin recused).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development
Department requests that the major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7,
8, and 9, Series of 2011 be continued to the March 6, 2012 public
hearing.
10. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (9:10 p.m.)
2/21/2012
K �
TOWN OF VAI!%
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: Citizen Participation
2/21/2012
K �
TOWN OF VAI!%
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
Approval of January 3 and 17, 2012 minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
January 3, 2012 minutes
January 17, 2012 minutes
2/21/2012
Sales @Hummers ofvail.com
From: Sales @Hummersofvai1.com
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:47 PM
To: 'Dwight Henninger'
Cc: sales @hummersofvail.com
Subject: RE: TRC Update
I suggest you order the DVD or the minutes of the last meeting and review the Town Manager speech.
The problem is not me or the Limo companies, the problem is that you will not take the time to fix the problem.
The Chief of Police needs to take the time to meet with the people, research the PUC rules, and have OPEN MEETINGS.
You will not even meet with us face to face due to "it appears you are threatening litigation."
Please meet with us so we can work out the issues and not resort to litigation! !
Sincerely Yours
Jonathan L. Levine
From: Dwight Henninger [mailto:DHenninger @vailgov.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:42 PM
To: <sales @hummersofvail.com>
Subject: Re: TRC Update
Jonathan
Bill Clausen tells me you think that the Town Managers comments at the Council meeting changed some of the
rules. I have spoken with him and there are no changes to the existing rules. He and I agree that we will put in
a taxi/Limo sign with directional arrows at the top of the main stairs.
As for your other requests it appears many of them would violate PUC rules, as a clarification you are allowed
to wait for a client with a valid charter order on Gore Creek Drive west of Bridge Street for 5 minutes or less,
after 8 PM. Staging within 100 feet of Pepi's without a charter order is a violation.
The Town Manager and I feel the rules that have been disseminated are fair to in the taxis and limos, plus the
PUC has agreed they do not violate their rules. They provide for good customer service when the drivers follow
the rules. We feel it is up to the transportation companies to follow them and make them work. Hopefully you
can be part of the solution and not be a problem to the officers and other transportation companies. The Police
Department has spend way to much time trying to ensure compliance then is appropriate for a service industry
that should be self regulating.
I can not meet with you Tuesday and prefer to use email to document our conversations as it appears you are
threatening litigation.
Dwight Henninger
Chief of Police
Vail, Colorado
970 479 -2218
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:37 PM, " SalesAHummersofvail.com " < sales(a,hummersofvail.com > wrote:
i e
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00
P.M. by Mayor Andrew P. Daly.
Members present: Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
Kerry Donovan
Kevin Foley
Ludwig Kurz
Greg Moffet
Margaret Rogers
Susie Tjossem
Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Joe Staufer, a Vail business
owner, said he has a lot of relatives and friends in Austria. His brother -in -law told him
he watches a lot of ski races on television and said there isn't any mention of Vail in the
European media regarding the 2015 Championships. Staufer said if Vail is supporting
the 2015 Championships financially, the town should apply for a refund. Staufer said it
was his understanding that the 2015 Championships were awarded to Vail /Beaver
Creek. He said in the past, Beaver Creek was attached to the Vail brand and now
Beaver Creek must not need that connection anymore. He said with the amount of
money Vail is contributing perhaps they should be using the ski championship dollars to
give it to Red Sandstone Elementary School instead.
Jonathan Levine, a limousine company owner, said he just finished working in Vail for
fourteen straight days. He said the feedback he is getting from high end clients is there
were problems getting cell phone service over the holidays on the ski mountain and in
Vail. He said all the cell service providers AT &T, Verizon, Sprint and Nextel said there
was no cell service on the mountain and there were problems getting service in town as
well. His clients had to walk out of the core village to get cell service. He said after
September 11 this is a very serious issue. The ability to communicate via text and
cell phone is critical. He said another issue he saw was a lot of the service people in
Vail businesses were unhappy and glum. Even though there was a lack of snow, people
need to stay positive. He would like to see the service programs enhanced to help
people promote Vail in a positive way. He also said he still has an issue with the Vail
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 1
2 -1 -I
police department regarding limousine staging and access to the transportation centers.
He wants signage for taxi and limousine services. He is upset other taxi and limousine
services are on the current sign and with the service he is receiving from the Vail police
department. There are communication issues.
Daly said the town will look into the cell phone service problems. He pointed out there
is a service program already in place within the town. Zemler said he is confident the
taxi and limousine issues have been addressed appropriately with the Vail Police Chief.
Mike Cacioppo asked the Council to send a letter to the cell phone service providers to
provide more cell towers. Zemler said there are additional cell towers being brought in
and they are working with three or more providers to get additional service into Vail.
Cacioppo said the transportation issues need to be addressed and wants the process to
be fair.
The second item on the agenda was a presentation to thank outgoing Council
members Dick Cleveland and Kim Newbury for their years of service to the town and
community.
Daly said Newbury was continually upbeat and thoughtful throughout her years of
service to the community. She was a serious representative with deep roots and
passion for the Vail community. She really distinguished herself during her eight years
on Council. He also thanked her children for supporting her through the years as well.
Newbury said she changed a lot over the years and the town changed as well. She is
proud to be a part of the Vail community. She thanked everybody for their support.
Daly said Cleveland was also a strong supporter of the community and spent many long
hours committed to the community through countless hours on the Council as well as
serving on many boards associated with serving on the Council. Cleveland was diligent
and a great consensus builder. Daly also thanked Kathy Langenwalter, Cleveland's
wife, for all the support she has given him through the years. Cleveland thanked his
wife and said it was nice to be on the other side of the table. He enjoyed serving and is
proud of the incredible amount of work that has been done in the past eight years.
The third item on the agenda was the consent agenda:
1) Resolution No. 1, 2012, Public Notices;
2) Resolution No. 3, 2012, Mutual Aid Agreement;
3) Resolution No. 4, 2012; Mutual Aid Agreement,
4) Resolution No. 5, 2012, Animal Control Services.
Moffet made a motion to approve the consent agenda and the motion was seconded by
Kurz. Foley said he would like more sites to be available throughout the town for
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 2
2 -1 -2
additional display of notices. Daly explained the content of each of the resolutions for
the public benefit. A vote was taken and the motion passed, unanimously, 7 -0.
The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
There were no items.
The fifth item on the agenda was Resolution No.2, Series of 2012, supporting the Red
Sandstone Elementary School (RESE) in being kept open by the Eagle County School
District (ECSD).
Each council member read parts of the resolution into the record for the public to show
strong support of the resolution and wanting RSES to stay open as it is a vital part of
the community.
Foley made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2, Series of 2012, and sending it to the
Eagle County School District and the motion was seconded by Tjossem.
Public comment was taken. Peter Rosenberg, a resident of Edwards and a non - parent
volunteer for the ECSD, said he really likes the Vail community. He said the process of
cutting $5.5 million from the budget is challenging. He said during the school district's
meeting, many folks spoke during the public comment section. Folks requested their
favorite program or school not be closed. There were many schools and programs
mentioned. He stated he has had to manage an office through three recessions. He
said in order to author a successful budget, sacrifices would have to be made for the
greater good. He said this Council as well as other community stake holders needed to
come together and take some of the pain. He said it was discouraging to read in the
paper that another charter school was suggested to be opened. He asked if it wouldn't
be better to join the budget committee and help solve the budget cuts currently in front
of the school board. Daly clarified that the Council did offer to help. Rosenberg said
the budget committee would like to see someone from Council at the next meeting. He
said their help is needed and would be appreciated.
Mike Cacioppo said after the salaries were put on line and the community now knows
how much money employees are making, he thinks the salaries are shocking. He said
Eagle County is second in Colorado in top salaries and this is for 8 -1/2 to 9 month
contracts and not working another 3 months of the year. He said they are making huge
salaries and benefits. He said to fix the budget they need to decrease salaries by
$5,000 to $6000 per person and it would solve the issue. He said they should involve
the school staff members to make the budget work.
Nancy Ricci, a retired principal from the ECSD, stated she was the principal for last 16
years at RSES and has been a 32 -year Vail resident. She supports the resolution. She
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 3
2 -1 -3
said there are many avenues that need to be looked at to help solve the budget issues.
It can be done. She wants to support RSES staying as it is Vail's school. She said it is
interesting that the engine that drives the train is being considered to close. Kim
Newbury, Vail resident, thanked the Council for supporting the town's school. She said
one thing missing is that Vail has been a partner in the school. She doesn't know of
anywhere else where the towns supported the schools. She is 100% behind the
resolution. Donovan wanted to propose another whereas in the resolution: "whereas
the Town has clearly demonstrated its long -term commitment to the school by our
ongoing participation in projects that have been a benefit to the school including
securing grants, construction playground improvements, addition of an athletic field and
the gymnastic center."
Foley amended his motion to add the " "whereas" clause as stated by Donovan and the
amended motion was seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7 -0.
The sixth item on the agenda was a presentation on the proposed municipal site
redevelopment project including the key points of the project, the Town of Vail design
program, the draft memorandum of understanding (MOU), the financing options, the
project schedule, and a series of next steps for advancing the project forward.
George Ruther, Community Development Director, said the Council is not being asked
to make any formal decisions at this time. Staff and the consultants presented key
design program elements, project schedule, financing options, discuss a draft MOU and
next steps in the process to keep the approved, prescribed schedule moving forward.
Ruther said he has attended a number of homeowner's association meetings around
town. He was pleasantly surprised as he spoke to about forty people and most had
heard about the project in some fashion. He said there is a net increase of about 2,000
square feet of office space in the new municipal building. One difference in the new
development is the center of the site would be approximately ten feet lower so that
folks would drive in at grade level.
Daly asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Ruther gave out his
office phone number for the public to contact him with questions they may have on the
project.
Ruther said the MOU is not a binding MOU at this time but the topics covered include: a
description of project, land value, agreement to subdivide the project, development
program for medical and town spaces within the shared parking structure,
understanding of site planning and design cost sharing.
Michael O'Connor, a representative of Triumph Development, went into further detail of
the MOU. He presented the scope of the consulting agreement which includes four
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012 Page 4
2/21/2012
2 -1 -4
users of the buildings and three development partners, the schedule and ultimate goal
of all partners. The details summarized concluded with a plan that would work for all
parties, including the master plan, the schedule and the processes for designing,
procuring and constructing new buildings. There are four users, one site and a shared
parking garage. The concept is for the Steadman group to buy the land that the
medical office building will occupy, along with an agreement on the parking garage that
will have a certain number of parking spaces for the medical office building and the
municipal site and will be designed according to the town's wishes. Along with the
purchase and sale agreement, the Steadman group agree to fund the design costs of
the medical center and parking spaces. The land price would be credited to the town
building costs.
O'Connor asked if the Council had any questions. Rogers said one issue that came up
was the relationship between the developer, the town and the hospital. She said the
proposal shows Triumph would buy the land and subsequently the hospital and the
Steadman group would buy from Triumph. Rogers said the town was not expecting to
have the developer in the middle of this process. She wanted to know what assurances
the town has that the medical clinic will be the ultimate user of the property. O'Connor
said the hospital was agreeable to have a sponsor involved for several reasons.
Ultimately, the assurances are that the Steadman group anticipates signing a purchase
agreement including deposits and the project is designed specifically for them. Rogers
wants assurances in the MOU that the property is being sold to the medical center and
clinic and not a developer.
Daly said the Council is excited to help this project move forward and to help make the
medical centers successful. The Council wants assurances this is what will happen.
Another concern is they didn't have time to pass the MOU on to the town attorney for
review and comment. Council also wants to make sure the town has the construction
costs covered for the town part of the project. The town needs to part of the parking
bid process, as well. Council also wants an assurance or some type of reversion clause
that the medical building will continue to be used as a medical center in the future.
Performance and completion bonds and other requirements also need to be in the
MOU.
Further discussion ensued and other items discussed were employee housing, the
review process and the use of the development will always be for the purpose intended,
thus moving the subdivision process forward. Also, the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) will have a significant role in the approval of the project. The
town has been working diligently with CDOT. There is concern of what CDOT will
approve for the town versus a private developer.
Gwen Scapello, a Vail resident, asked about the condominiumization of the medical
office building and if that included the real property. She wanted to know who retains
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 5
2 -1 -5
ownership of the land, including the subdivision of the property and the medical center.
O'Connor said the developer would transfer the land to the condominium owners.
Scapello wanted to know who will share in the maintenance of the shared portions,
such as the parking structures. She also wants to know where the heliport will be
located in the future. She said it's important to resolve where the helipad will be now.
She also wanted to make sure the medical office building is an office building and not a
medical facility. Daly said they asked the town attorney to add a reversion clause to
the documents so it continues to be medical offices.
Craig Cohn, representing Howard Bergeron, owner of the Evergreen Hotel, said some of
their concerns are the traffic patterns, curb cuts, access to the hospital site, and other
issues for this area. It could effect future development on the Evergreen site.
Daly said the discussions for this project are in four parts: land sale, financing options,
master plan issues (including the helipad placement, possible relocation of emergency
access from Meadow Drive to the Frontage Road, traffic patterns and other items) and
design of the town building.
Ruther said the financing options were discussed at the December 20 evening Council
meeting. He reiterated that there were five options but only three were viable. He said
the Piper Jaffray consultant stated given the schedule and urgency, that Certificates of
Participation (COP's) (or a derivative of COP's) would be the most effective way to go.
Judy Camp, Finance Director, reviewed the options: General Obligation Bonds, Sales
and Use Tax Bonds and COP's. The first two require a longer period of time to
accomplish and timing would be too late to meet the current schedule. The COP's act
like a lease and are subject to annual appropriation, don't require an election and would
allow Council to issue bonds as early as April of 2012 if needed. The cost of COP's are
lower than the sales tax revenue bonds. Another option would be to pay cash for the
project from the town reserves. The Council is looking at pros and cons between a
COP's or cash standpoint. Beginning in 2013, the town will no longer have a $2.3
million debt service payment.
Mike Cacioppo said he is concerned this project is being fast tracked. He thinks the
COP's is an attempt to not follow TABOR rules.
Daly said the town has researched this at length and this is a viable way to pay for
essential buildings.
Cacioppo stated he didn't think taxpayers were interested in giving prime land for a
private business that many people can't afford and to not get a free municipal building
out of the deal. He said he doesn't like it and it isn't a good deal for the town.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 6
2 -1 -6
Donovan said she wants information from the hospital on their long term planning
process to help her and the community see the benefits to the community, besides the
economic benefits. She also asked once the hospital moves some of the other medical
center spaces out of the hospital, how this affects the hospital in the future.
Daly said he wants more information regarding the helipad placement as it is one of the
larger concerns of the community about the hospital campus. He stated this is a
significant piece that may not preclude other changes that may need to be addressed in
the future, including traffic.
Rogers talked about the big picture of the project. She said for four years they have
been talking about economic drivers, resort and economic development. The health
and wellness industry is ideal for Vail. This project is at the heart of wanting to
promote health and wellness. She said Vail has the potential to be the " "Silicon Valley"
of orthopaedic medicine. This project works well to allow Steadman to move to this site
and then the hospital can utilize and expand into the Steadman spaces at the hospital.
She is offended that Cacioppo suggests the town is on the take. She said this project
will be a win -win for the town and the community. She doesn't see any impropriety by
the town, staff, clinic or hospital in doing this project.
Moffet said the municipal building is extremely obsolete and is costly to run. The town
will benefit. This is an insanely good deal for the town. We are all invested in not just
the resort of Vail but the community of Vail. The community includes hospitals and
medical centers. He stated there is no place in the world that has a medical facility of
this caliber in the town of the size of our community. Great planning means taking a
long view. He said moving the hospital and medical center away from Meadow Drive is
a great idea. He said not committing to addressing the helipad and traffic relocation at
this point would not be a great idea.
Cacioppo said he wants the taxpayers to vote on it. Rogers said the Council has been
talking about this project for months.
Peter Noble, town resident and business owner, is in full support of this project. He
asks that whatever variances are required for employee housing he wants the same
granted to other developers and projects going forward. Rogers said that is fair.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association (VHA), asked if they were
going to see an outline of the master plan. Daly said these issues will be addressed at
future meeting dates. He asked to add to the list considerations: loading and delivery,
trash management and the larger issue about off -site impacts. He said the hospital, as
much as he treasures it, is not the best of neighbors. The hospital has an extraordinary
responsibility to perform the basics. This is the last block of property that has major
11 original sins" to correct. He said yes, we value it, yes, we want to keep the hospital
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 7
2 -1 -7
here; but we don't want to keep it here at any and all costs. If there is profit to be
made in this endeavor, there has to be a requirement to solving some of the original
sins. It's not fair to have noise coming from ventilation systems and helipad use. You
can't expect neighbors simply sit back when these problems have not been solved. He
stated the resolutions were not in terms of the master plan but with specific terms. The
hospital has got to make a commitment even if it requires dollars. He wants to see the
letter from CDOT regarding the helicopter issue. If we are going to embrace health and
wellness issues, some neighbor's quality of life cannot be for a few. He said they need
to dot the I's and cross the T's so issues can be fixed.
Doris Kirchner, Chief Executive Officer of the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC),
thanked the Council for all the collaboration and support. She said the key point of the
project is that 35,000 square feet will be freed up for the hospital. Master planning for
the hospital has begun. She said included in the hospital RFP is the helipad and the
emergency area off Meadow Drive. Everyone needs to understand the partnership
between Steadman - Phillipon and the VVMC is strong. The hospital looks at them as
partners of the hospital and the town. She said the hospital writes off about $12 million
a year in Medicaid alone in health care and they don't turn away customers. The
Steadman Clinic has three of their surgeons that see 65% of their patients come from
other areas. They bring year- around revenue to this community.
Ruther said next steps on page three of the memorandum of January 17, 2012, include
responding to questions on the MOU, a town budget in more detail, moving forward
with the design phase and starting a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for design of
the project. Additional master planning issues will be coming forward and be
responded to. Staff will return to the next Council meeting on January 17 at which
time the Council will be asked to take action on executing a MOU by and between the
partners, selecting a financing option and instructing staff to issue a RFP for design
services.
Daly said the revised MOU will need to come back to the town attorney and town staff
as soon as possible so the town is comfortable with it and doesn't create delays. He
said a separate work session may be needed.
Tjossem asked if the town project was delayed, would this delay the medical center
side. Ruther said this is essentially one site and the town will have to work with the
partners to see how this would affect them.
A five minute break was taken at 8:15 p.m.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 8
2 -1 -8
The seventh item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of
2011, an ordinance repealing and re- establishing Special Development District (SDD)
No. 22, Grand Traverse, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail
Town Code, to allow the employee housing requirements of the special development
district to be met off -site through the provisions of Section 12- 13 -5, Employee Housing
Unit (EHU) Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
Bill Gibson, Planner, said the Council had approved another exchange a couple of
meetings prior to this request. He stated the Council had approved first reading of this
ordinance at their December 20, 2011, meeting by a vote of 4 -3 (Daly, Donovan and
Foley opposed). He said the initial development had no employee housing units
required, but the developer had requested EHU's be considered and six EHU's were
added to the development.
Foley stated when he was on Council in 1998, and when this development went
through the process, having "lights on" in the neighborhood was a great concern for
that Council. Foley said he couldn't support and approve this ordinance as this would
take away from this neighborhood having "lights on." Rogers asked Gibson if lights
were on in the neighborhood. She said virtually every time anyone has developed an
EHU, it has been a give and take for both parties. She said there was no distinction
between the Grand Traverse developer and other private homeowner properties that
have EHU's when they developed their properties. She said as the town changed, the
rules allowing existing employee housing units to have exchanges changed. She
doesn't see why this project would be treated differently.
Gibson said there are no longer any GRFA limits on square footage in the Grand
Traverse SDD. He said a significant public benefit is the exchange unit would be deed
restricted and that public benefit hasn't changed. He said two of the six units in the
Grand Traverse SDD have a deed restriction; however, four units do not have to be
occupied. Moffet asked what the average square footage was of the current EHU units.
Gibson said the units were between 400 to 600 square feet each.
Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group and a representative of the applicant, said
the public benefit to the subdivision was a reduction of density. He said not all SDD's
ask for the same concessions. He said the original developer, Pat Dauphinais, wanted
the ability to cluster the units so the developer gave up some density. At the time of
the development, an EHU was not required for the project. He said the developer came
to the town and asked to be allowed to have EHU's. Mauriello said the required square
footage of an exchange unit off -site is two to three times larger than what the size is
for the on -site EHU. Mauriello said ten of the twenty -one units at the Grand Traverse
are occupied by locals.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 9
2 -1 -9
Daly asked if there was any desire of the homeowners to convert from duplexes to
single family units. Mauriello said this request had more to do with design parameters
and clustering of the units. The reduced density and tradeoff of design was a positive
effect. The unit they are proposing to exchange is approximately 800 square feet.
Pam Bailey, one of the owners, said they purchased their residence in 2004. She said
they have fourteen family members in the residence now. She stated they want to use
the additional space for their growing family. They want to participate in the exchange
program as the program will allow for a larger unit to be purchased and utilized for an
EHU unit elsewhere. She said their EHU is not easy to rent as it is not in a desirable
location and is not easily accessible. It would be a win -win for them and the employees
by having the unit elsewhere.
Bill Bailey, owner, said in 1998 " "lights on" in the neighborhood was a valid concern. He
said at a recent homeowner's association meeting, ten to eleven units in the
neighborhood have lights on most of the time. He also said they would like to be one
of the "lights on" in the neighborhood soon. He said they would like approval of this
application.
Kurz said he was on the Planning and Environmental Commission when this project was
built. He said the developer, Pat Dauphinais, was one of the most concerned
developers at the time.
Rogers made a motion to approve second reading of Ordinance 27, Series of 2012, and
the motion was seconded by Tjossem.
Additional discussion ensued. Moffet stated he appreciated Foley and Donovan's points
of concern. He said the town EHU program is only 33% effective, which means it
doesn't work the way it is supposed to. Moffet said he is voting in favor of approval.
Tjossem is in favor of the ordinance as the intent of the ordinance is sound and
doubling the size of units when exchanged totally affects employees and the ability to
be in the neighborhoods where they want to be and have access to town amenities.
She said the exchange allows for the units to have employees in them and not have
empty EHU units in town. She doesn't want the Council to backtrack on this issue. She
said these were done for all the right reasons and the process is working. Donovan
stated she would be voting against approval as she wants to support the intent of the
original SDD approvals.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5 -2; Foley and Donovan opposed.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012 Page 10
2/21/2012
2 -1 -10
The eighth item on the agenda was adjournment. As there was no further business,
Foley made a motion to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Moffet. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 11
2 -1 -11
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by
Mayor Andrew P. Daly.
Members present: Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
Kerry Donovan
Kevin Foley
Greg Moffet
Margaret Rogers
Susie Tjossem
Members Absent: Ludwig Kurz
Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Jonathan Levine, owner of Hummers of
Vail, said he runs the one of the largest limousine companies in Vail. He said his company gave
over 10,000 rides to Vail guests in 2010. He is very upset with how the Vail Transportation
Center (VTC) taxi and limousine services are being handled. He said the issues include signage
and the location of the signs, access to dropping off ADA clients in Vail Village and altercations
and near misses of accidents. He wants the Council to change how the police department
interacts with the taxis and limousine services at the VTC, as well as where the taxis and
limousines are staged on the upper deck of the VTC.
The second item on the agenda was the Citizen's Award to Mike Moser, Emily Moser and Jay
Lucas.
Mark Miller, Fire Chief, presented Citizen's Awards to Mike Moser, Emily Moser and Jay Lucas
for helping with a June 9, 2011, fire in their neighborhood. He said they each assisted in
helping to put out the fire. He read the incident commander's comments into the record. Mike
Moser and Emily Moser helped to keep the fire from spreading. Jay Lucas helped make sure
the neighbors were out of the building. Each person risked his /her personal safety to help their
neighbors. The fire department is grateful for their efforts.
The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda.
The approval of the December 6 and December 20, 2011 meeting minutes were on the Consent
Agenda.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 1
2 -2 -1
Foley said there was one word missing in the December 20 meeting minutes. Donaldson will
correct.
Foley made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of December 6 and December 20, 2011,
and the motion was seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7 -0.
The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager, said the Council had discussed going green and
paperless over the past month. This is to formally announce it to the community. The agendas
and attached documentation will be on the town's website for the community use.
Foley thanked staff for their help bringing the Council into the 20 Century.
Donovan made a motion to approve the town going paperless where possible, and the motion
was seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0.
The fifth Item on the agenda was a request to continue the Ever Vail applications for the major
subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011 be continued to the February 7,
2012, public hearing.
George Ruther said a request to continue this item was at the request of the applicant.
Foley made a motion to continue these items and the motion was seconded by Tjossem. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0.
The sixth item on the agenda was the appointment of a Newspaper of Record for 2012 for the
town's public notices.
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager, stated each year it is required by state statute to
appoint a newspaper of record for the purpose of publishing town notices. The Vail Daily is
currently the only daily newspaper that complies with state statute regulations.
Rogers made a motion to appoint the Vail Daily as the town's newspaper of record and the
motion was seconded by Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0.
The seventh item on the agenda was Resolution No. 6 Series of 2012, a resolution authorizing
the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to allow for the redevelopment of the
municipal site, located at 75 South Frontage Road in Vail.
George Ruther, Community Development Director, asked the Council to approve Resolution No.
6 approving the MOU as read. Ruther said on May 18, 2011, the Council directed staff to look
into the possibility of redevelopment of the municipal site. Ruther reviewed the project phases
the staff and others have been working on the past 90 days and what that included. He went
through the key points of the project, design program, MOU, financing strategy, schedule and
next steps which were all in the memorandum.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 2
2/21/2012
2 -2 -2
Ruther said the approval of Resolution No. 6 authorizes the town to enter into a non - binding
MOU. He said Judy Camp, Finance Director, will answer any questions on the financing issues.
Donovan asked about the helipad moving to another structure and when it would move back to
its more permanent location. Ruther said in the Master Planning of the Vail Valley Medical
Center (VVMC), it would be appropriate to assign a time frame on the helipad. He said the
master planning process is probably an 18 month process. He said it would be appropriate to
make sure due diligence is done. He said it would be a challenge to put a timeframe on details
until the master plan is completed. He said the Council could outline the town's expectations
through the various phases as they come along with expected dates and timeframes.
Rogers said she wanted to know what is going to determine the cost and expense for the
helipad and who pays for it. Michael O'Connor, with Triumph Development, said the town
would be paying for the pad site and not the hospital.
Daly asked why the parking space allocations would be determined by an independent third
party consultant. Ruther said it's necessary because the property is zoned general use. If there
is contemplation on reducing the size of parking, the process requires a review and report
provided by a third party consultant for the zoning and development review process. Daly
asked if the landscaping would be part of a common project.
O'Connor said the surface parking area and underground parking are based on a percentage
share of parking spaces. The landscaping of the western portion would be paid for by the
medical offices and the eastern side would be paid by the town.
Daly said the cost of landscaping shouldn't be part of the MOU as it is not a part of the common
costs. Ruther said the off -site improvement landscape (i.e., Frontage Road improvements)
would be a shared expense by the parties.
Rogers asked why the town was paying for the developer fee that was negotiated between the
hospital and the developer. O'Connor said this is a mistake in the MOU language.
Additional discussion ensued on the changes that needed to be made to clean up the MOU
language, including adding a closing date and a helipad timeframe.
Daly asked Ruther to explain why the helipad can't go on top of the medical office building.
Ruther said the helipad is currently on CDOT property and cannot easily work at the site after
the medical office building is built. In speaking with the medical helicopter pilots, the best place
for the helipad would be on top of the VVMC in the future redevelopment of the hospital
immediately adjacent to the emergency room. Daly asked there be a time limit on when the
helipad gets moved to a permanent site sooner than later. Council doesn't want to see the
helipad out at Ford Park in ten or twelve years. Steve Virostek, with Triumph Development, said
the hospital wants to be a world class hospital so they also want to get this done sooner. He
said it will depend on the master plan process and when it is sequenced in that process. He
didn't give a timeframe of when the helipad would be relocated. Mire said the helipad wouldn't
be a hospital expense.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 3
2/21/2012
2 -2 -3
Tjossem asked why the MOU is between the town and the developer and there isn't an
agreement between the town and the hospital. Is there a trigger that will include the hospital's
guarantee to insure the helipad placement and other commitments.
Art Kelton, a VVMC board member, read a letter into the record from the hospital regarding
their support and commitment to get the medical office building project built. In the letter, the
hospital stated they are excited to be partnering with Stead man-Phi li ppon in the project,to
continue to provide excellent health care, have world class orthopaedic care and research, and
to grow patient services. At their board meeting January 9, discussions included master plan
use including moving emergency traffic off Meadow Drive, utilization of the freed up 35,000
square feet of hospital space that will be vacated by the Steadman group and locating a
permanent helipad site.
Daly asked about the timeframe for the master plan completion. Kelton said the RFP's for this
process were going out the first week in February and a decision would be made by February
10. Kelton said the master planning process would take from twelve to eighteen months to
complete. Rogers asked how long the master plan coverage would last. Kelton stated it would
be a ten year plan. Daly asked if the hospital board authorized the purchase of the property.
Kelton said yes, it was done at the January 9 board meeting and the 10 -year plan insures
making a long term commitment to the property and that it will remain a medical office building
use. Any change in use of the building would require returning to Council for approval. The
hospital and clinic are tied into this zoning. Kelton said the hospital understands.
Cacioppo said he is concerned that taxpayers are footing the bill for a medical building. He said
transparency is key and he wants paper packets on the items in front of Council at the back of
the room. He said he was out of the room when the Council discussed paperless packets
earlier. He feels the town is giving away town property and not at top dollar. He urged Council
to table the decision.
Daly said this project and process has been going on for nine months. Tjossem said the
agendas are posted the Thursday before the meetings on the town's website and at the town
offices. She encouraged the public to open up the documents before the meeting.
Daly said an appraisal has been done on the property and will be available after today. He said
it wasn't released due to negotiations in process. The Council has researched this and there
have been two separate phases done with the town and the other parties. He said Council is
convinced that principal source of business comes off Vail mountain and the second most
important business is the medical business. He said the town is trying to assist our partners to
grow the medical business as well as the destination medical business. The hospital is land
locked and the town doesn't want the hospital or their partners to leave Vail. This is the best
investment Vail can make. The town building is over 40 years old and is in need of
replacement. This is an effective way for the town to replace the town hall that will provide
more public space and better office conditions and reliable building for operations of the town's
business.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 4
2/21/2012
2 -2 -4
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowner's Association, said he assumed the town
attorney would remind everyone that this is a quasi judicial body and that the Council has
specific responsibilities to follow the review processes. There is no guarantee that the project
would be approved. The project was a concept until the town had done their due diligence. He
said the specifics of the project need to be thoroughly vetted before moving forward. He said
the master planning process by the hospital will need to include loading and delivery, trash
containment facilities, traffic, employee housing, etc.
Peter Millett, a Steadman physician, has been part of this process and thanked the Council for
their willingness to look at this proposal. He said the Steadman group is 100 percent fully
committed to this project.
Cacioppo said he wanted it disclosed that Ruther's wife works for the Steadman group and it
appears to be a conflict of interest. Ruther said his wife has been an employee of the
Steadman - Philippon group for twelve to thirteen years.
Mire said the conflict of interest term is being used cavalierly and there is not a conflict of
interest that legally exists. Zemler said he has been to every meeting between the parties and
Ruther has represented the town fairly and well and has not expressed any self interest at all.
Daly said the project has gone through many phases of discussions and has been in discussion
for many, many months.
Zemler said turning the property over to a private business needs clarification. He said the
building gets segments condominiumized and the hospital is responsible for 40% of the
building. This should give the community a level of comfort that the hospital has a significant
anchor of ownership and the Steadman group will be staying.
Moffet asked if the concerns addressed by Council have been addressed and if the MOU could
be approved without further amendments. Daly said there were several items that needed to
be clarified including the helipad is subject to PEC approval; the purchase price necessary to
cover construction costs for the parking garage would be put in escrow and the rest of the
funds released to the town; the fee for construction services to be paid by the town will be
negotiated by the town and Triumph Development and adding a closing date. He reiterated
that this is a nonbinding MOU.
Charlie Craven, Chief Financial Officer with the VVMC, said the intent from the hospital is that
they would want a ten -year lease with the Steadman - Philippon. The only tenant is the
Steadman - Philippon Research Institute. He said Howard Head is owned by the hospital.
Ruther discussed the finance options that were in the memorandum. He said there were three
financing options: 100% Certificate of Participation's (COP'S); 100% cash; or 50% COP'S and
50% cash. He said the comments from Council at the January 3 meeting suggested they
wanted the minimum amount of time necessary to keep the costs down. Ruther said the
COPS /Cash option could be manipulated to different percentages of each.
Camp said she would take questions from Council as Ruther explained the options pretty well.
She said if the town used cash funding, there would be sufficient funds to protect the town
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 5
2/21/2012
2 -2 -5
from shortfalls in revenue. The town's philosophy is to have 25% of revenue in the general
fund balance. Daly said investment opportunities are tight and COPS may be the most
appropriate way to go.
Tjossem asked what the costs for relocation of town offices will be. Ruther said $850,000 has
been allocated to move, rent and move back into the new building. This cost is included in the
figures discussed. Rogers asked if the $15 million included a two or three story building.
Ruther said it only included 18,000 net - usable square footage within 20,000 gross square feet.
The space configurations can be arranged in a number in different ways. The cost for another
level with 8,000 square feet plus underground parking required for that space would be an
additional $4.6 million or approximately $575 a square foot. Ruther stated the space allocations
for meeting space is larger. He said questions asked by Council at the last meeting were
answered in the memorandum. Daly asked this topic be on a future work session agenda so
the Council can get comfortable about the spaces. Donovan said the solution for the recycling
was good.
Cacioppo said he believed the meetings held to discuss the sales price were closed meetings.
His understanding of the state statute is when purchasing property, going into executive
session is appropriate, but when you are selling land, it's not appropriate.
Mire cited the state statute that allows for meeting in executive session and every meeting that
was held was in accordance with the state statutes.
Ruther said they are looking for general direction to find the best financial outcome for the
town.
Rogers made a motion to approve Resolution No. 6, with the amendments as recited by Daly
previously (including the helipad is subject to PEC approval; the purchase price necessary to
cover construction costs for the parking garage would be put in escrow and the rest of the
funds released to the town; the fee for construction services to be paid by the town will be
negotiated by the town and Triumph Development, and add a closing date) and Foley seconded
the motion.
Foley said the Council will be getting public input from the community. Tjossem asked the
community to please sign the letters so the comments submitted could be made part of the
record. Daly said the master plan will be a very involved process and will address issues
brought up by Lamont.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7 -0.
The eighth item on the agenda was adjournment. As there was no further business, Foley
made a motion to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. The meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 6
2/21/2012
2 -2 -6
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012
2/21/2012
Page 7
2 -2 -7
K �
TOWN OF VAI!%
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
1) Update on Variable Message Signs
PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler
2/21/2012
K �
TOWN OF VAI!%
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: Public Safety Radio Tower
PRESENTER(S): Dwight Henninger Joe Ribeiro
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Acting as the property owner, Council is requested to
approve the use of Town land for the proposed location of a new public safety radio tower
located in the northeast corner of the Police Department building and authorize the application
to move through the design review process.
BACKGROUND: In September 2011 the Vail and Eagle County public safety agencies
migrated from the County 800 MHz analog radio system to the State of Colorado digital 800
MHz radio system. The changeover resulted in a significant decrease in radio operational
capabilities within the densely built -up areas of the Village and Lionshead. System technicians
had expected a minimal decrease in service but in- building coverage issues are much more
severe than anticipated and have prompted concern for public safety personnel responding to
incidents in core area buildings. The experts have told us the most effective solution to rectify
this situation would be to add a radio repeater site in the Main Vail area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorization of this proposal to proceed
through the design review process.
ATTACHMENTS:
Public Safety Radio Tower memo
2/21/2012
rowN of va
To: Town Council
Stan Zemler, Town Manager
From: Dwight Henninger, Chief of Police
Mark Miller, Fire Chief
Greg Hall, Public Works Director
George Ruther, Community Development Director
Fred Morrison, Director Eagle County Ambulance District
Date: February 21, 2012
Subject: Public Safety Radio Tower
Current Situation
Memorandum
In September 2011 the Vail and Eagle County public safety agencies migrated from the
County 800 MHz analog radio system to the State of Colorado digital 800 MHz radio system.
The changeover resulted in a significant decrease in radio operational capabilities within the
densely built -up areas of the Village and Lionshead. System technicians had expected a
minimal decrease in service but in- building coverage issues are much more severe than
anticipated and have prompted concern for public safety personnel responding to incidents in
core area buildings. The experts have told us the most effective solution to rectify this situation
would be to add a radio repeater site in the Main Vail area.
2. Recommended Action
Acting as the property owner, Council is requested to approve the use of Town land for the
proposed location of a new public safety radio tower located in the northeast corner of the
Police Department building and authorize the application to move through the design review
process.
3. History and Proposed Plan
In 1998 the County installed a countywide radio system, which at build out had 13 sites in and
around the county. In 2011 with the antiquated analog radio system reaching end of life, a
decision was made to transition to the State radio system. Joining the State system served as
the lowest cost alternative to meeting Eagle County's radio needs. Currently, the State system
incorporates 12 sites that cover Eagle County, with one in East Vail and one in Dowd Junction.
Yet at this time, the new system has significantly less coverage for Vail since many of the
State system sites are out of Eagle County and provide limited coverage for Eagle County.
We had been cognizant the new system coverage would be somewhat limited compared with
previous coverage. Even so, buying into the State system provided us the opportunity to
upgrade to a more technologically advanced system that would be within safe limits and
provide for more economical and efficient expansion for the future. Unfortunately, the system
2/21/2012
4 -1 -I
does not presently meet acceptable coverage and safety standards. In a recent Vail Fire
Department survey of the buildings in Vail Village and Lionshead it was found that over 48%
did not have adequate in- building coverage for safe public safety operations. This creates
safety issues for citizens and first responders unless steps are taken to correct the situation.
Currently we are using work -a- rounds that require frequent radio channel changes by
personnel depending on location of the building and which agency responds to a call. This
temporary solution is tenable at best and cannot substitute for a long -term solution. The
answer is to add another radio repeater site with enough height to be able to penetrate the
buildings in the core areas. The best location is at the northeast corner of the Police Building
near the Public Safety Communications Center. This site is recommended due to the
proximity to the Center, decreased visibility to the public compared to the current tower site
and its distance from the proposed medical office building on the west side of the Municipal
site.
The current tower is located on the north side of the Council Chambers but will have to be
moved with any redevelopment of the Municipal building. And it does not have the height
needed to transmit over the Four Seasons building to adequately reach the Village Core. The
good news is that a new tower would be funded by the County Radio System Maintenance
Capital Fund and supplemented by the Dispatcher Services Fund for a portion of the
expenses.
The construction of a new repeater station is a critical safety issue. Consequentially we are
proceeding ahead with gaining approvals for this new radio tower site from the Town and, at
the same time, we are working with the State to gain access to a temporary radio site on
wheels to supplement the work -a- rounds until the permanent tower is in place. Further, we
have a study being done to determine the exact height needed for appropriate coverage of the
Village core although anticipated height is 50 -60 feet. The Four Seasons height is 81 feet at
street level and our transmissions will need to broadcast over this building to reach the Village
Core. An alternative location is in the US West or Middle Creek Apartments area, but this is
undesirable due to significant on -going monthly costs for T -1 phone lines and interference from
existing cellular transmission sites.
On a long -term basis it is planned that antennas and microwave dishes may possibly be
moved from the roof of the Communications Center into an enclosed area on the roof of the
new proposed medical office building with conduit to the Police building. This will neaten the
roof line of the Police building and reduce the amount of required equipment placed on the
new tower. Even with the addition of facilities on top of the medical building, this tower site
would still be required.
4. Conclusion
The Vail Fire, Police and Public Works Departments and the Eagle County Ambulance District
strongly encourage Council to approve the use of Town land for the proposed mission - critical
public safety tower site and to authorize the application to proceed through the design review
process.
Town of Vail Page 2
2/21/2012
4 -1 -2
IKecommended tower site trom Northwest View
4 -1 -6
K �
TOWN OF'VA10
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: The release of four deed restrictions from existing employee housing units, in
accordance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program, Vail Town
Code.
PRESENTER(S): Nina Timm
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Authorize the Town Manager to execute the release of
four deed restrictions at Crossview at Vail /1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot 10, Dauphinais
Mosely Subdivision, Lot 6, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision /5114 Grouse Lane and Lot 5,
Block 7, Vail Village First Filing /126 Forest Road in exchange for the deed restriction of four
new units at Vail das Schone Condo A- 24/2111 N. Frontage Road A -24, Vail Wilderness
Townhouses, Unit 1/2700 Larkspur Court No. 1, Vail Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 1/2700
Larkspur Court No. 3 and Meadow Creek Condominiums L- 3/2510 Kinnickinick L -3 in the
Town of Vail.
BACKGROUND: On February 7, the Town Council requested the proposed EHU Exchanges
be tabled to the February 21 Town Council meeting to provide the Town Council time to
discuss the proposed EHU Exchanges.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Vail Town Council approves the
proposed EHU Exchanges.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Memorandum
Attachment A - Vail Town Code 12 -13 -5
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
2/21/2012
TOWN OF
VAI
To: Vail Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Date: February 21, 2012
Memorandum
Subject: A request to authorize the Town Manager to execute the release of four deed
restrictions in accordance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit
Exchange Program, Vail Town Code
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The purpose of this hearing is to review a request to authorize the Town Manager to
execute the release of four deed restrictions from existing employee housing units
(EHU), in accordance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Exchange
Program, Vail Town Code. The deed restrictions would be released from the Exchange
EHUs and the Proposed EHUs would be restricted in exchange, as listed below:
Exchange EHU
Floor Area
1460 Buffehr Creek Rd
866 sq ft
1420 Moraine Drive
1,592 sq ft
5114 Grouse Lane
2,604 sq ft
126 Forest Road
1,470 sq ft
6,532 sq ft
Proposed EHU Floor Area
2111 N. Frontage Rd 1,330 sq ft
2700 Larkspur Ct #1 1,832 sq ft
2700 Larkspur Ct #3 1,832 sq ft
2510 Kinnickinick 1,628 sq ft
6,622 sq ft
The distribution of floor area in the Proposed EHUs do not align with the four Exchange
EHUs; consequently, the exchanges are being proposed as a "bundle ". Pursuant to the
Vail Town Code, no future credit will be given for the additional 90 square feet.
II. DOES THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL BELIEVE THE BUNDLING OF EHU EXCHANGES
COMPLIES WITH THE VAIL TOWN CODE?
On February 7, 2012, the Vail Town Council discussed whether the existing
regulations allow for the bundling of EHU exchanges.
• The bundling of exchanges was not contemplated when the EHU exchange
program regulations were adopted.
• The Town Attorney has opined that bundling complies with the adopted
regulations.
2/21/2012
5 -1 -I
• In the future, another version of an exchange may be proposed that was not
specifically contemplated, but also complies with the adopted purpose and
criteria of the EHU Exchange Program.
III. HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION
At its January 24, 2012, public hearing, the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA)
recommended that the Vail Town Council deny the proposed exchange of employee
housing units for the following reasons:
• The VLHA believes the adopted exchange regulations do not allow bundling.
The VLHA believes the proposed exchanges meet the spirit and intent of the
regulations.
The VLHA recommends the Vail Town Council amend the exchange program
regulations to expressly allow bundling. The VLHA recommends the Vail Town Council
consider the following policy objectives when considering amendments:
• Does bundling EHU exchanges meet the spirit and intent of the regulations?
• How may bundling impact the collection of fee -in -lieu payments?
• If bundling occurs, should there be no net loss in the number of existing EHUs?
• How does bundling impact the rate of owner occupied and renter occupied
Exchange EHUs?
• How does bundling affect the concentration of EHUs in certain complexes?
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council
approves the proposed exchange of employee housing units for the following reasons:
The Town of Vail adopted the exchange program to increase the quantity and
quality of occupied EHUs.
• Staff finds the proposed exchanges comply with the Purpose of the Employee
Housing Unit Exchange Program... "to provide occupied livable, affordable
employee housing units within the Town of Vail..."
• The proposed exchanges achieve the goal of the EHU Exchange Program.
Town of Vail Page 2
2/21/2012
5 -1 -2
• If the exchanges were proposed individually, the Town would have an
expectation of four EHUs totaling 6,532 square feet. The applicants are
proposing to provide the Town with four EHUs, 6,622 square feet.
• Staff finds the proposed exchanges are in compliance with the regulations.
• To the extent an EHU Exchange complies with the adopted purpose and criteria
Staff recommends they be approved by the Vail Local Housing Authority and the
Vail Town Council.
• Staff recommends the Vail Town Code not be amended at this time.
Recommended Motion
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve this employee housing unit deed
restriction exchanges, the Community Development Department recommends the
Council pass the following motion:
"The Vail Town Council approves the release of a deed restriction from an
existing employee housing unit located at Crossview at Vai111460 Buffehr
Creek Road, Lot 10, Dauphinais Mosely Subdivision, Lot 6, Block 1, Gore
Creek Subdivision /5114 Grouse Lane and Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village First
Filing 1126 Forest Road, in exchange for new deed restricted employee
housing units at Vail das Schone Condo A- 2412111 N. Frontage Road A-
24, Vail Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 112700 Larkspur Court No. 1, Vail
Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 112700 Larkspur Court No. 3 and Meadow
Creek Condominiums L- 312510 Kinnickinick L -3 in Vail, pursuant to
Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange
Program, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto."
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve these employee housing unit deed
restriction exchanges, the Community Development Department recommends the
Council make the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section 11 of the January 11,
2012, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail
Town Council finds.
1. The application meets the general requirements of subsection D of Section 12-
13-5, Vail Town Code,
2. The application is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted
goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the town,
Town of Vail Page 3
2/21/2012
5 -1 -3
3. The application furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations, Section 12 -1 -2, Vail Town Code, and the employee housing
regulations of Section 12 -13 -1, Vail Town Code, and,
4. The application promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in
a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality. "
VI. ATTACHMENTS
A. 12 -13 -5: Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program, Vail Town Code
B. Applicant's letter dated December 28, 2011
C. Applicant's letter dated January 17, 2012
D. Staff Memorandum to the Vail Local Housing Authority dated January 11, 2012
Town of Vail Page 4
2/21/2012
5 -1 -4
12 -13 -5: EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION EXCHANGE
PROGRAM:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide occupied livable, affordable employee housing
units within the town of Vail through the establishment of an employee housing unit deed
restriction exchange program. The exchange program allows the town council to release a deed
restriction from an existing employee housing unit in exchange for the placement of an employee
housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit and /or a fee in lieu payment made to the town
of Vail.
B. Applicability: The program established under this section applies to existing employee housing
units. This shall not apply to any existing employee housing unit that is already price
appreciation capped or any employee housing unit established to meet the on site employee
mitigation requirements of chapter 23, "Commercial Linkage ", or chapter 24, "Inclusionary
Zoning ", of this title or as part of an approved development plan.
C. Definitions: For the purpose of this section:
COMMERCIAL JOB CORE: Those areas located south of Interstate 70, east of the intersection
of Forest Road and South Frontage Road, north of Vail Mountain, and west of the town of Vail
soccer fields on Vail Valley Road, as further defined by exhibit A of this section.
EXCHANGE EHU: The existing nonprice appreciation capped employee housing unit or other unit
with an employee housing deed restriction that is being proposed to have the deed restriction
released as part of this program.
2/21/2012
5 -2 -1
PROPOSED EHU: The existing dwelling unit that is being proposed to receive an employee housing
deed restriction as part of this program.
D. General Requirements: The town council may approve the removal of an employee housing deed
restriction from an existing employee housing unit in exchange for the placement of an employee
housing deed restriction onto another dwelling unit, and /or the payment of a fee in lieu.
1. Exchange EHU Requirements:
a. The exchange EHU shall not be part of any employee housing project developed or deed restricted
(in part or in whole) by the town of Vail.
b. The exchange EHU shall not be part of any on site employee housing mitigation required by
inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage, or as part of an approved development plan.
c. The property that includes the exchange EHU shall comply with the prescribed development
standards (density controls including GRFA and number of units, site coverage, landscaping and
parking requirements, etc.), as outlined in the applicable zone district section of this title, upon
exchange of the deed restrictions.
2. Proposed EHU Requirements:
a. The proposed EHU(s) shall be located within the town of Vail.
b. The proposed EHU(s) shall be within a homeowners' association that does not preclude deed
restricted units, does not have a right of first refusal, does not have right to approve the sale or the
sale contract, or have any other requirements deemed to be similarly restrictive by the administrator.
c. The proposed EHU shall comply with the minimum size requirements shown in table 13 -2 of this
section.
TABLE 13 -2
MINIMUM SIZE OF PROPOSED EHUs
Type Of Unit � Minimum Size (GRFA)
Studio — F - 38 square feet
1 bedroom 613 square feet
2 bedroom 788 square feet
3+ bedrooms 1,225 square feet
d. The proposed EHU shall contain a kitchen facility or kitchenette and a bathroom.
e. The property on which the proposed EHU is located shall comply with chapter 10, "Off Street Parking
And Loading ", of this title.
2/21/2012
5 -2 -2
f. The proposed EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from the proposed
EHU to any dwelling unit to which it may be attached.
3. Exchange Rate For Proposed EHUs:
a. If the exchange EHU(s) is within the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is also within the
commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a
minimum of two (2) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange EHU.
b. If the exchange EHU is within the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is outside of the
commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a
minimum of three (3) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange EHU.
c. If the exchange EHU is outside of the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is inside of the
commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a
minimum of one and one -half (1.5) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange
EHU.
d. If the exchange EHU is outside of the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is outside of
the commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a
minimum of two (2) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange EHU.
4. No Credit Given: If the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) is in excess of
the minimum required gross residential floor area (GRFA) as set forth in subsection D3 of this
section, the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall not be eligible for use as any form of
future credit or for the commercial linkage or inclusionary zoning employee housing mitigation banks
established by sections 12 -23 -7 and 12 -24 -7 of this title.
5. Fee In Lieu: The applicant may elect to provide a fee in lieu payment to the town of Vail for any
portion of the required square footage not provided by a proposed EHU. The town shall only use
monies collected from the fees in lieu to provide new employee housing. The applicant shall pay a
fee in lieu equal to the following formulas:
Existing EHU sq ft x multiplier x inclusionary zoning fee = fee in lieu payment
a. If the exchange EHU was approved prior to July 22, 1994, and has a deed restriction that includes
the language stating "if the unit is rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time
employees... ", the formula for fee in lieu payment is:
[the square footage of the exchange EHU as recorded on the deed restriction] x [the current rate for
inclusionary zoning fee in lieu] x 1
b. If the exchange EHU was approved after July 22, 1994, and /or does not have a deed restriction that
includes the language stating "if the unit is rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time
employees... ", and if the exchange EHU is outside of the commercial job core, the formula for fee in
lieu payment is:
[the square footage of the exchange EHU as recorded on the deed restriction] x [the current rate for
inclusionary zoning fee in lieu] x 2
If the exchange EHU was approved after July 22, 1994, and /or does not have a deed restriction that
includes the language stating "if the unit is rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time
2/21/2012
5 -2 -3
employees... ", and is within the commercial job core, the formula for fee in lieu payment is:
[the square footage of the exchange EHU as recorded on the deed restriction] x [the current rate for
inclusionary zoning fee in lieu] x 3
E. Fees: The town council shall set an application fee schedule sufficient to cover the cost of town
staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application. The fee shall be paid at
the time of the application, and shall not be refundable.
F. Review Process:
Submittal Requirements: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an
employee housing deed restriction exchange application. A complete list of the submittal
requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the community development
department. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and /or modified by the administrator
and /or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials
required are not relevant to the proposed exchange. The administrator and /or the reviewing body
may require the submission of additional materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the
application.
2. Review Procedures:
Administrator Review: The administrator shall review the application for completeness and
compliance with this section, and shall make a determination of completeness and compliance with
this section within fourteen (14) days of application submittal. Should the administrator deem that the
application is incomplete or not in compliance with this section, the administrator shall deny the
application. Should the administrator deem the application is both complete and in compliance with
this section, the administrator shall forward the application for review by the Vail local housing
authority.
b. Vail Local Housing Authority Review: The review of a proposed employee housing deed restriction
exchange application shall be held by the Vail local housing authority at a regularly scheduled
meeting. A report of the community development department staffs findings and recommendations
shall be made at the formal hearing before the Vail local housing authority. Within twenty (20) days
of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the Vail local housing authority shall
act on the application. The authority may recommend approval of the application as initiated, may
recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of
this title, or may recommend denial of the application. The authority shall transmit its
recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to
the town council.
Town Council Review: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the authority, the town
council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the
closing of a public hearing on the application, the town council shall act on the application. The town
council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the Vail local housing
authority. The town council may approve, either in accordance with the recommendation of the Vail
local housing authority or in modified form, or the council may deny the application.
d. Appeal: Administrator and town council decisions may be appealed in accordance with the
provisions in section 12 -3 -3, "Appeals ", of this title.
3. Criteria And Findings:
2/21/2012
5 -2 -4
a. Criteria: Before acting on an employee housing deed restriction exchange application, the Vail local
housing authority and Vail town council shall consider the following criteria with respect to the
application:
(1) The proximity and accessibility of the proposed EHU(s) to the commercial job core and public
transportation; and
(2) The size of the proposed EHU(s) in relation to the minimum employee housing unit sizes
established for commercial linkage mitigation in section 12 -23 -3 of this title; and
(3) The effect of any homeowners' association dues or maintenance fees imposed upon the proposed
EHU(s) on the affordability of the proposed unit for an employee; and
(4) The correlation between any homeowners' association fees imposed upon the proposed EHU(s)
and the services and amenities provided by the homeowners' association; and
(5) The extent to which the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals,
objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the town; and
(6) The extent to which the exchange presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among
land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and
(7) The extent to which the exchange provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and
serves the best interests of the community as a whole.
b. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an employee housing
deed restriction exchange application, the Vail local housing authority and the Vail town council shall
make the following findings with respect to the application:
(1) The application meets the general requirements of subsection D of this section; and
(2) The application is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives
of the town; and
(3) The application furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations, section 12 -1 -2
of this title, and the employee housing regulations, section 12 -13 -1 of this chapter; and
(4) The application promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes
the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances
its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the
highest quality. (Ord. 10(2011) §§ 1, 2, 3, 4: Ord. 31(2008) § 1)
2/21/2012
5 -2 -5
a
u
Mauriello Planning Group
December 28, 2011
Nina Timm
Housing Coordinator
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81620
RE: Employee Housing Exchange Program Summary
Dear Nina:
Mauriello Planning Group is working with the following owners who are participating in
the Employee Housing Exchange Program. The table below indicate their location,
GRFA of the EHU, and the total GRFA required for the exchange:
Owner
Address
EHU Deed
Total GRFA of EHU
4 Beds/ 3 Baths
1,832
Restriction
Required for Exchange
Cohn
1460 Buffehr Creek Road /Crossview at Vail
433
866
Read
126 Forest Road /Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village
490
1,470
TOTAL
First Filing
Mertens
5114 Grouse Lane /Lot 6, Block 1, Gore
1,302
2,604
Creek Subdivision
Bailey
1420 Morain Drive /Lot 10, Dauphinais-
796
1,592
Mosely Sub F1
TOTAL
6,532
The owners have been coordinating with Peter Knobel and will be using the following
units to be deed restricted by him to fulfill the total EHU requirements for the above -
listed units:
EHU Address
Unit Type
EHU Sq. Ft.
2700 Larkspur Court #1
4 Beds/ 3 Baths
1,832
2510 Kinnickinick L -3
3 Beds / 2.5 Baths
1,628
2700 Larkspur Court #3
4 Beds / 3 Baths
1,832
2111 N. Frontage A -24
3 Beds / 2 Baths
1,330
TOTAL
6,622
2/21/2012
5 -3 -1
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970.376.3318.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Dominic Mauriello, AICP
Principal
2/21/2012
5 -3 -2
u
January 17, 2012 Mauriello Planning Group
Vail Local Housing Authority
c/o Nina Timm
Housing Coordinator
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Bundled Exchange Proposal
Dear Housing Authority Members:
appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on January 24, 2012 to obtain your final
recommendation on the proposed exchanges for four properties in Vail.
I think we all recognize that that the concept of "bundling" or packaging requests
together as a single transaction was not discussed or even thought about during the
process of amending the Employee Housing Exchange Program that occurred last year.
I think the concept of bundling is a solution developed by the market place to effectively
implement the spirit and intent of the program, which is to "provide occupied livable,
affordable employee housing units within the town of Vail."
When this program was being amended last year, the general understanding of what
existed as eligible restricted units within the Town was in the 500 to 800 sq. ft. range.
The doubling or even tripling of square footage for units in this range is fairly
manageable as most of the Town supply of dwelling units is in the 900 to 1,800 sq. ft.
range. I am not sure anyone really anticipated units requiring 2,600 sq. ft. or in the case
of the Town's Library unit, over 5,000 sq. ft.
The goal of the amended program is to see generally larger, more livable units (thus the
increase ratio on sq. ft.) and we believe the bundling of units does exactly that. In the
case of the bundle we are proposing the Town gets more square footage than the
program requires, obtains the the same number of total units, and overall provides
larger, three and four bedroom units, capable of housing families in Vail.
On January 17, the Town Council reviewed the staff recommendation for an exchange
of a Town owned unit located in the Library. Based on the requirements of the
exchange program, the exchange unit is required to be over 5,000 sq. ft. Because there
is not a reasonable supply of product within the Town of units over 2,000 sq. ft., the
Town Council preliminarily approved restricting multiple smaller units to satisfy the
requirement in a "bundle" with a total sq. ft. in excess of the square footage required.
2/21/2012
5 -4 -1
We believe this direction indicates that the Town Council is willing to operate in a
reasonable fashion and is willing to consider some of the unintended circumstances of
the program. Additionally, this action clearly sets a reasonable precedent.
We don't believe that by packaging our four requests together that we are doing
anything negative or controversial. The Town is realizing four well located and sized
dwelling units that will be occupied by local workers and residents at a total square
footage that is in excess of the program requirements (6,532 sq. ft. required /6,622 sq. ft.
provided). We believe that this proposal is a reasonable application of the rules and
does not carry forward any future credit or involve any mitigation banking.
We hope that the Authority will agree and recommend this bundled exchange request to
the Town Council even though it might be a slightly different approach than was
discussed when the program was going through the original process.
Sincerely,
Dominic Mauriello, AICP
Principal
2
2/21/2012
5 -4 -2
a
u
Mauriello Planning Group
December 28, 2011
Nina Timm
Housing Coordinator
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81620
RE: Employee Housing Exchange Program Summary
Dear Nina:
Mauriello Planning Group is working with the following owners who are participating in
the Employee Housing Exchange Program. The table below indicate their location,
GRFA of the EHU, and the total GRFA required for the exchange:
Owner
Address
EHU Deed
Total GRFA of EHU
4 Beds/ 3 Baths
1,832
Restriction
Required for Exchange
Cohn
1460 Buffehr Creek Road /Crossview at Vail
433
866
Read
126 Forest Road /Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village
490
1,470
TOTAL
First Filing
Mertens
5114 Grouse Lane /Lot 6, Block 1, Gore
1,302
2,604
Creek Subdivision
Bailey
1420 Morain Drive /Lot 10, Dauphinais-
796
1,592
Mosely Sub F1
TOTAL
6,532
The owners have been coordinating with Peter Knobel and will be using the following
units to be deed restricted by him to fulfill the total EHU requirements for the above -
listed units:
EHU Address
Unit Type
EHU Sq. Ft.
2700 Larkspur Court #1
4 Beds/ 3 Baths
1,832
2510 Kinnickinick L -3
3 Beds / 2.5 Baths
1,628
2700 Larkspur Court #3
4 Beds / 3 Baths
1,832
2111 N. Frontage A -24
3 Beds / 2 Baths
1,330
TOTAL
6,622
2/21/2012
5 -4 -3
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970.376.3318.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Dominic Mauriello, AICP
Principal
2/21 /2012
5 -4 -4
0 ) TOWN OF VAIL '
TO: Vail Local Housing Authority
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 11, 2012
Memorandum
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the release of a
deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit located at Crossview at
Vail /1460 Buffehr Creek Road, in exchange for the placement of an
employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at Vail das
Schone Condo A- 24/2111 N. Frontage Road A -24, pursuant to Section 12 -13 -5,
Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code,
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Craig and Sharon Cohn, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Housing Coordinator: Nina Timm
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicants, Craig and Sharon Cohn, are proposing to exchange a deed restriction
from an existing employee housing unit located at 1460 Buffehr Creek Road in
exchange for the placement of an employee housing deed restriction on another
dwelling unit located at 2111 N. Frontage Road A -24.
Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2011, amended Special Development District No. 29 on
October 18, 2011. The amendment facilitates this exchange.
The applicant's request (Attachment A) has been attached for review.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA
Before acting on an employee housing deed restriction exchange application, the Vail
Local Housing Authority and Vail Town Council shall consider the following criteria with
respect to the application:
1. The proximity and accessibility of the proposed EHU(s) to the commercial job
core and public transportation; and
The proposed EHU is located at 2111 N. Frontage Road and has proximity to all of the
services in West Vail, access to multiple Town of Vail and ECO bus stops and to the
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
5 -5 -I
commercial job core. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this
criterion.
2. The size of the proposed EHU(s) in relation to the minimum employee housing
unit sizes established for commercial linkage mitigation in Section 12 -23 -3 of this
title; and
The proposed EHU is a two - bedroom, two - bathroom unit in 1,330 square feet. This is in
excess of the two - bedroom minimum unit size of 788 square feet. Therefore, Staff
believes the proposed EHU complies with the applicable requirements.
3. The effect of any homeowners' association dues or maintenance fees imposed
upon the proposed EHU(s) on the affordability of the proposed unit for an
employee; and
The fees imposed by the homeowners' association are generally commensurate with
the services provided and included in the fees and are comparable to those charged in
Vail. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this criterion.
4. The correlation between any homeowners' association fees imposed upon the
proposed EHU(s) and the services and amenities provided by the homeowners'
association; and
The fees imposed by the homeowners' association are generally commensurate with
the services provided and included in the fees. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed
EHU conforms to this criterion.
5. The extent to which the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
The proposed EHU is located adjacent to the services in West Vail and has proximity
to public transportation. The existing EHU does not have proximity to public
transportation, therefore the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the town.
6. The extent to which the exchange presents a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development
objectives; and
The proposed EHU is currently an employee occupied unit. The exchange will not
change the existing harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses
consistent with municipal development objectives.
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 2
5 -5 -2
7. The extent to which the exchange provides for the growth of an orderly viable
community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole.
Staff believes the proposed exchange complies with the applicable requirements of the
Town's Zoning Regulations, and is therefore consistent with this criterion.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Local Housing
Authority forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed employee housing unit deed restriction exchange based upon a review of the
criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented.
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority pass the following motion:
"The Vail Local Housing Authority forwards a recommendation of approval
to the Vail Town Council for the release of a deed restriction from an
existing employee housing unit located at Crossview at Vail/ 1460 Buffehr
Creek Road, in exchange for the placement of an employee housing deed
restriction on another dwelling unit located at Vail das Schone Condo A-
24/2111 N. Frontage Road A -24, pursuant to Section 12 -13 -5, Employee
Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code, and
setting forth details in regard thereto."
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority make the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section 11 of the January 11,
2012, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail
Local Housing Authority finds.
1. The application meets the general requirements of subsection D of Section 12-
13-5, Vail Town Code,
2. The application is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted
goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the town,
3. The application furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations, Section 12 -1 -2, Vail Town Code, and the employee housing
regulations of Section 12 -13 -1, Vail Town Code, and,
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 3
5 -5 -3
4. The application promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in
a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality. "
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant's Request
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 4
5 -5 -4
TO: Vail Local Housing Authority
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 11, 2012
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the release of a
deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit located at Dauphinais-
Mosely Subdivision Lot 10/1420 Moraine Drive, in exchange for the placement of
an employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at
Meadow Creek Condominiums L- 3/2510 Kinnickinick L -3, pursuant to Section
12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town
Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: William and Pamela Bailey, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Housing Coordinator: Nina Timm
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicants, William and Pamela Bailey, are proposing to exchange a deed
restriction from an existing employee housing unit located at 1420 Moraine Drive in
exchange for the placement of an employee housing deed restriction on another
dwelling unit located at 2510 Kinnickinick L -3.
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2011, amended Special Development District No. 22 on
January 3, 2012. The amendment facilitates this exchange.
The applicant's request (Attachment A) has been attached for review. For exchange
purposes this request has been bundled with three other requests, the Cohn's, Read's
and Merten's.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA
Before acting on an employee housing deed restriction exchange application, the Vail
Local Housing Authority and Vail Town Council shall consider the following criteria with
respect to the application:
1. The proximity and accessibility of the proposed EHU(s) to the commercial job
core and public transportation; and
The proposed EHU is located at 2510 Kinnickinick L -3 and has proximity to all of the
services in West Vail, access to multiple Town of Vail and ECO bus stops and to the
commercial job core. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this
criterion.
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 5
5 -5 -5
2. The size of the proposed EHU(s) in relation to the minimum employee housing
unit sizes established for commercial linkage mitigation in Section 12 -23 -3 of this
title; and
The proposed EHU is a three - bedroom, two and one -half bathroom unit in 1,628 square
feet. This is in excess of the three - bedroom minimum unit size of 1,225 square feet.
Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU complies with the applicable requirements.
3. The effect of any homeowners' association dues or maintenance fees imposed
upon the proposed EHU(s) on the affordability of the proposed unit for an
employee; and
The fees imposed by the homeowners' association are generally commensurate with
the services provided and included in the fees and are comparable to those charged in
Vail. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this criterion.
4. The correlation between any homeowners' association fees imposed upon the
proposed EHU(s) and the services and amenities provided by the homeowners'
association; and
The fees imposed by the homeowners' association are generally commensurate with
the services provided and included in the fees. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed
EHU conforms to this criterion.
5. The extent to which the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
The proposed EHU is located adjacent to the services in West Vail and has proximity
to public transportation. Therefore the exchange is consistent with the applicable
elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town.
6. The extent to which the exchange presents a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development
objectives; and
The proposed EHU is currently an employee occupied unit. The exchange will not
change the existing harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses
consistent with municipal development objectives.
7. The extent to which the exchange provides for the growth of an orderly viable
community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole.
Staff believes the proposed exchange complies with the applicable requirements of the
Town's Zoning Regulations, and is therefore consistent with this criterion.
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 6
5 -5 -6
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Local Housing
Authority forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed employee housing unit deed restriction exchange based upon a review of the
criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented.
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority pass the following motion:
"The Vail Local Housing Authority forwards a recommendation of approval
to the Vail Town Council for the release of a deed restriction from an
existing employee housing unit located at Dauphinais - Mosely Subdivision
Lot 1011420 Moraine Drive, in exchange for the placement of an employee
housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at Meadow
Creek Condominiums L- 312510 Kinnickinick L -3, pursuant to Section 12-
13-5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail
Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto."
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority make the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section 11 of the January 11,
2012, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail
Local Housing Authority finds.
1. The application meets the general requirements of subsection D of Section 12-
13-5, Vail Town Code,
2. The application is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted
goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the town,
3. The application furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations, Section 12 -1 -2, Vail Town Code, and the employee housing
regulations of Section 12 -13 -1, Vail Town Code, and,
4. The application promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in
a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality. "
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 7
5 -5 -7
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant's Request
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 8
5 -5 -8
TO: Vail Local Housing Authority
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 11, 2012
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the release of a
deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit located at Lot 5, Block 7,
Vail Village First Filing /126 Forest Road in exchange for the placement of an
employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at Vail
Wilderness Townhouses Unit 3/2700 Larkspur Court No. 3, pursuant to Section
12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town
Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Steve and Mary Read, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Housing Coordinator: Nina Timm
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicants, Steve and Mary Read, are proposing to exchange a deed restriction
from an existing employee housing unit located at 126 Forest Road in exchange for the
placement of an employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at
2700 Larkspur Court No. 3.
The applicant's request (Attachment A) has been attached for review. For exchange
purposes this request has been bundled with three other requests, the Cohn's, Merten's
and Bailey's.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA
Before acting on an employee housing deed restriction exchange application, the Vail
Local Housing Authority and Vail Town Council shall consider the following criteria with
respect to the application:
1. The proximity and accessibility of the proposed EHU(s) to the commercial job
core and public transportation; and
This proposed EHU is located 2700 Larkspur Court No. 3, which is located in
Intermountain and has good proximity to all of the services in West Vail, Town of Vail
bus stops and to the commercial job core. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU
conforms to this criterion.
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 9
5 -5 -9
2. The size of the proposed EHU(s) in relation to the minimum employee housing
unit sizes established for commercial linkage mitigation in Section 12 -23 -3 of this
title; and
The proposed EHU is a three - bedroom, two - bathroom unit in 1,832 square feet. This is
in excess of the three - bedroom minimum unit size of 1,225 square feet. Therefore,
Staff believes this proposed EHU complies with the applicable requirements.
3. The effect of any homeowners' association dues or maintenance fees imposed
upon the proposed EHU(s) on the affordability of the proposed unit for an
employee; and
There is no homeowners' association fees associated with this unit. It is part of a triplex
that has a single owner. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this
criterion.
4. The correlation between any homeowners' association fees imposed upon the
proposed EHU(s) and the services and amenities provided by the homeowners'
association; and
There is no homeowners' association fees associated with this unit. It is part of a triplex
that has a single owner. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this
criterion.
5. The extent to which the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
The proposed EHU is located near the services of West Vail and has proximity to public
transportation. Therefore, the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and
is compatible with the development objectives of the town.
6. The extent to which the exchange presents a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development
objectives; and
The proposed EHU is currently an employee occupied unit. The exchange will not
change the existing harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses
consistent with municipal objectives.
7. The extent to which the exchange provides for the growth of an orderly viable
community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole.
Staff believes the proposed exchange complies with the applicable requirements of the
Town's zoning regulations, and is therefore consistent with this criterion.
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 10
5 -5- 10
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Local Housing
Authority forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed employee housing unit deed restriction exchange based upon a review of the
criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented.
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority pass the following motion:
"The Vail Local Housing Authority forwards a recommendation of approval
to the Vail Town Council for the release of a deed restriction from an
existing employee housing unit located at Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village First
Filing 1126 Forest Road, in exchange for the placement of an employee
housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at Vail
Wilderness Townhouses Unit 312700 Larkspur Court No. 3, pursuant to
Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange
Program, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto."
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority make the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section 11 of the January 11,
2012, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail
Local Housing Authority finds.
1. The application meets the general requirements of subsection D of Section 12-
13-5, Vail Town Code,
2. The application is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted
goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the town,
3. The application furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations, Section 12 -1 -2, Vail Town Code, and the employee housing
regulations of Section 12 -13 -1, Vail Town Code, and,
4. The application promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in
a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality. "
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 11
5 -5- 11
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant's Request
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 12
5 -5 -12
TO: Vail Local Housing Authority
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 11, 2012
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the release of a
deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit located at Lot 6, Block 1,
Gore Creek Subdivision /5114 Grouse Lane, in exchange for the placement of an
employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at Vail
Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 1/2700 Larkspur Court No. 1, pursuant to Section
12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town
Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: David and Jill Mertens, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Housing Coordinator: Nina Timm
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicants, David and Jill Mertens, are proposing to exchange a deed restriction
from an existing employee housing unit located at 5114 Grouse Lane in exchange for
the placement of an employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located
at 2700 Larkspur Court No. 1.
As requested, the applicant's have had the size of the existing EHU verified by a
surveyor. The existing EHU is 1,302 square feet and not the 1,833 square feet in the
recorded deed restriction.
The applicant's request (Attachment A) has been attached for review. For exchange
purposes this request has been bundled with three other requests, the Cohn's, Read's
and Bailey's.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA
Before acting on an employee housing deed restriction exchange application, the Vail
Local Housing Authority and Vail Town Council shall consider the following criteria with
respect to the application:
1. The proximity and accessibility of the proposed EHU(s) to the commercial job
core and public transportation; and
This proposed EHU is located 2700 Larkspur Court No. 1, which is located in
Intermountain and has good proximity to all of the services in West Vail, Town of Vail
bus stops and to the commercial job core. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU
conforms to this criterion.
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 13
5 -5- 13
2. The size of the proposed EHU(s) in relation to the minimum employee housing
unit sizes established for commercial linkage mitigation in Section 12 -23 -3 of this
title; and
The proposed EHU is a three - bedroom, two - bathroom unit in 1,832 square feet. This is
in excess of the three - bedroom minimum unit size of 1,225 square feet. Therefore,
Staff believes this proposed EHU complies with the applicable requirements.
3. The effect of any homeowners' association dues or maintenance fees imposed
upon the proposed EHU(s) on the affordability of the proposed unit for an
employee; and
There is no homeowners' association fees associated with this unit. It is part of a triplex
that has a single owner. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this
criterion.
4. The correlation between any homeowners' association fees imposed upon the
proposed EHU(s) and the services and amenities provided by the homeowners'
association; and
There is no homeowners' association fees associated with this unit. It is part of a triplex
that has a single owner. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed EHU conforms to this
criterion.
5. The extent to which the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
The proposed EHU is located near the services of West Vail and has proximity to public
transportation. Therefore, the exchange is consistent with the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and
is compatible with the development objectives of the town.
6. The extent to which the exchange presents a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development
objectives; and
The proposed EHU is currently an employee occupied unit. The exchange will not
change the existing harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses
consistent with municipal objectives.
7. The extent to which the exchange provides for the growth of an orderly viable
community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole.
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 14
5 -5- 14
Staff believes the proposed exchange complies with the applicable requirements of the
Town's zoning regulations, and is therefore consistent with this criterion.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Local Housing
Authority forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed employee housing unit deed restriction exchange based upon a review of the
criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented.
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority pass the following motion:
"The Vail Local Housing Authority forwards a recommendation of approval
to the Vail Town Council for the release of a deed restriction from an
existing employee housing unit located at Lot 6, Block 1, Gore Creek
Subdivision/ 5114 Grouse Lane, in exchange for the placement of an
employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit located at Vail
Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 112700 Larkspur Court No. 1, pursuant to
Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange
Program, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto."
Should the Vail Local Housing Authority choose to forward a recommendation of
approval for this employee housing unit deed restriction exchange, the Community
Development Department recommends the Authority make the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section 11 of the January 11,
2012, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail
Local Housing Authority finds.
1. The application meets the general requirements of subsection D of Section 12-
13-5, Vail Town Code,
2. The application is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted
goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the town,
3. The application furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations, Section 12 -1 -2, Vail Town Code, and the employee housing
regulations of Section 12 -13 -1, Vail Town Code, and,
4. The application promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in
a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 15
5 -5- 15
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality. "
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant's Request
Town of Vail
2/21/2012
Page 16
5 -5 -16
K �
TOWN OF'VA10
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: A request for Units 303/306 and Units 402/403 to proceed through the
development review process with a proposal to construct and maintain private improvements
(bay windows and deck) on the Town of Vail owned Hanson Ranch Road and Chute Road
right -of -ways, generally located adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building at 302 Hanson
Ranch Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell, Planner and Sid Shultz, GPSL Architects, Applicant's
Representative
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: On behalf of the property owner, the Vail Town
Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applicant's request for property
owner authorization to proceed through the Town's development review process.
BACKGROUND: The Mill Creek Court Building was constructed in 1965. The building
footprint is less than one foot off the property in multiple locations. There are existing bay
windows and decks located within the adjacent right -of -ways. These existing encroachments
are located above circulation areas for the first floor commercial and landscaping and do
not negatively affect the use of the right -of -ways for traffic circulation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town of Vail development review process requires all
applications to have the authorization of the property owner. Since the subject private
improvements are located on Town of Vail owned property, the applicant must obtain the Vail
Town Council's property owner authorization before proceeding with applications to construct
and maintain two bay windows and an expanded deck.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo to TC with Attachments
2/21/2012
TOWN OF
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 21, 2012
Memorandum
SUBJECT: A request to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to
construct and maintain private improvements (bay windows and deck) on the
Town of Vail owned Hanson Ranch Road and Chute Road right -of -ways,
generally located adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building at 302 Hanson Ranch
Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: William Morton and Nicholas Bull, represented by Sid Shultz, GPSL
Architects
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Permission to proceed through the development review process to allow for the
following improvements within the Hanson Ranch Road and Chute Road right -of -ways.
• Units 303/306 connection of exterior decks with approximately 30 square feet of
encroachment.
• Units 303/306 addition of a bay window with approximately 10 square feet of
encroachment.
• Units 402/403 addition of a bay window with approximately 10 square feet of
encroachment.
Approval of this request would not constitute an explicit approval of the proposed
improvements and will only grant the applicant the property owner authorization
necessary to proceed through the Town's development review process.
II. DOES THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL GRANT THE APPLICANT PERMISSION TO
PROCEED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS?
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applicant's
request for property owner authorization to proceed through the Town's development
review process.
2/21/2012
6 -1 -1
III. BACKGROUND
• The Mill Creek Court Building was constructed in 1965.
• The building footprint is less than one foot off the property in multiple locations.
• There are existing bay windows and decks located within the adjacent right -of-
ways.
• Existing encroachments are located above circulation areas for the first floor
commercial and landscaping.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve the applicant's request, Staff
recommends the Council pass the following motion:
"The Vail Town Council, on behalf of the property owner, approves the
applicant's request to proceed through the development review process with a
proposal to construct private improvements (bay windows and deck) on the Town
of Vail owned Hanson Ranch and Chute Road right -of -ways, generally located
adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building at 302 Hanson Ranch Road, and setting
forth details in regard thereto:"
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity map
B. Applicant's request dated February 8, 2012
C. Survey
D. Photographs depicting locations of proposed improvements
Town of Vail Page 2
2/21/2012
6 -1 -2
0
0
h
r.,
is
Vail Village Filing 5,
Block 5 -A, Lot 1
(302 Hanson Ranch Road - Mill Creek Court Building)
G
v
O
n
O
C
n
D
v
ZT
3
m
I
v
W
Feel me,,� .—wma.am ra.. U eei a —Id It, s .M V ..r�ra�ww�aoaa �a nx�reo�a'�oe`r
0 25 50 100 Laet Moo lMeJ February 13, 2012 TOWN of VA
8 February 2012
Warren Campbell
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Mill Creek Court — Bay Windows and Deck Expansion
Dear Warren,
The owners of Mill Creek Court Units 3031306 and Units 402/403 would like to add stacking
bay windows on the east side of the building. The new bays would extend slightly beyond
the property line and into the easement that was deeded to Mill Creek Court in 2006.
The owners of Units 303/306 would also like to connect their two existing balconies so they
wrap the corner, similar to Unit 403 above. In doing so, the corner of the lengthened deck
would extend beyond the property line as shown on the attached drawings.
We understand that the Town Council must approve these encroachments before we can
proceed to the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission. We
would like to schedule a review by the Town Council as soon as possible so that construction
can begin this spring after the mountain closes for the season.
Thanks for your assistance. Please let me know if you need any further information.
Regards,
+
Sidney Schultz
PSL ARCHITECTS, P.C.
1000 5o -loth Ft Road Walt, quite 102 0 Vail, Col t €vii? Y IAV 0 'r -,x: 970076, I 1 X17
Fnf www.gps[orchitecf .-.com
6 -1 -4
Ju140 -07 05:24pm From -TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
8704792452 T -872 P.002 /004 F -210
EPrLl, C[IC.►IIY. GU ry l
7rnK J 3CFIOeI}p1C Vf f Vr�
Ea Pin: A 6'1IIq]�Fs27:1 B7N
oil I
'BARGAIN AND SALE VACAMN DEED
The TOWN OF VAR,, a municipal aarpwation duly organized and exist nS under and by �
%lane of the laws o f the State of Colorado (" Gramtof j, whom street address is 75 South f� >1
Front*ge Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657, for good and valuable consideration received, and � 4
pursuant to the terms of Ordinance No -1, Series of 2006, of the Town of Vail, hereby sells and
conveys to MILL CREEK COURT CONDOMIItIIUM ASSOCIATION, a corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virttue of the laws of Colorado ( "GianW), whose stmt
address is do Bmt C "rno, Vail Rtalty, 302 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado 81557, the real
property in the Comity of Bagle and Stato of Colorado that is described on Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference~ (the FrQperty ), with all its appurtenances, but
subject to the limitations and seservatioas in favot of Grantor set forth bolow,
Grantor reserves for its benefit an ew mart c v*r, across and - lender the Property all Tights
granted to it under the oregizial plat for Vail Village FM 1 in the same manner ss that
crated on the wostera part of the property by those eertain docurnenta rerordcd in Book 174 at
Page 179 and Rcccption No. 873450 of the real estate records of The35�4gle County Clerk and
Recorder (sometxmcs x*fmvd to hcreinailer collectively as the "Easement Rights." This
reservation of Easement Rights encompasses and includes the right of Grantor to grant and
establish utility easernents in favor of utility suppliers upon such terms as those supplicrs may
prescxibe. With respect to the Easement Rights, however, the use thereof and tho spwiftc
location of any faOities established under the Easement nights will be mutually dttcrmined by
Grantor and Grantee (acting reasonably). Any exercise or enjoyment oftho Easement Rights
cstablished pursuant ther'elo may not intcrfbrc with, damage or requirt the removal of any
improvements or landscaping constructed or established by Grantee (except that any pes=o rt
holder may disturb landscaping or improvein vtrs as tz aty to ruse or enjoy its easement rights,
provided the holder substantially replaces any landscaping or impruvcments d2maged as a result,
to the extent the Town is Permitted to impose such rrquirerrecuts by law or contract),
The Easement Rights and related tww of this Dced shall run with the lazed is perpctuity
as a burden to the ownership of the Property and shall be binding upon Grantee and its
successors in interest in the owneal ip of the PropcAy (and all references herein to the Grantee
shall bt domed to include such successors in interest)-
Signed this day of Sl rr, 2006.
THE TOW14 OF VA11.., a Colorado municipal corporation
Dame: i —
Titz
UV7 Office of
Arthar A. Abplanalp, Jr., "A
Past 0mre goit 2900
Vail, Colorado 81688.28DO
2/21/2012
6 -1 -5
Jul - B -07 05:24pm From -TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4704792452
.r
STATE Of COLORADO
COLTN7Y OF EAGLE )
Tho foregoing insMvneut was ackaowtedged before me this 7 day of
2006, by
oftbe Town of Yail CorpoMtion, a Colorado municipal corpvrstiort, ,�,� ,
Myssivn exgires: ��? . Witrwss my Stand alt
r
T -572 P. 003/004 F -210
OTARY
o #sr�+Pu lia
U 8 u o
Accept moo of Limitations by Grantee
Th un(knigaed Mill Crook Coati. Condominium Association, 8 ootporatdnAMY
organized and exisdagunder and by virtue of She laws of the State of Colorado, as the Gmtea
under this T)ccd, heroby accepts the terms of wid shall be bound by this Dccd.
Mill Crcck Court C o ndominium Association,
a corporation duly organized and existing under and by
virtue of the l e State ofColorado
Nanim William Morton
Titla: President
STATF_ or
COUNTY OF
rcgoing inst=ent was acknowledged before me this l- day o f
20M, b Willi= Morton, as President of the Mill C reek Court
Condamisdum Association, a corporatiaa duly organized and existing under and by Vitale of the
laws of the State of Colorado_ /f .
my comnnissioD expires: � � /_��� � : VYitne�s tuy hand and official seal.
Notary P Iblig
� 1 .47 Pii9LIG �� ���� 1t�k
N 0
2/21/2012
6 -1 -6
Jul -�6 -07 05:24pm From -TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9704792452 T -672 P- 004/004 P -230
r ,
POINT OF BEGINNfNG
DRAINAGE
GORE CREEK DRIVE INLET
[v7iRSA ri14tt 3' OONCREIE
PRN
CQNCREfE RETAINING
WALL YATH POCK FACE
DUTAPSTER f
ENCLOSURE ?' r
CURS
id UTILITY EASEMf_NT c " , dQ � �
(BOOK 174. PACE 179)
MILL CREEK `..,' 14J <
..►
COURT BUILDING •:,�4 ' � � r.
I-OT I, BLOCK 5---A =.f cr °
,.
VAIL VILLAGE,
F IFTH FILING Y 4=
�� 's t1RAINk�,E
INLET
HANSON RANCH ROAD
( R.9 -W.)
LINE TABLE
LINE LZNC77H BEARING
L1 30 -77 $33'i]7'l9 "W
8 l.2 33.13' Ft !50:2V:04 0 5 "W 1
L3 10.19 "W
V .
LOT P -3,
VAIL VILLAGE,
FIFTH FILING
] Rrxah G 2d ft-
2/21/2012
6 -.1 -7
E) II:7 L, DnCRUMON
3F.VAII, A ia A -G LoT P —c.rx FILING
i
NEW FRENCH
DOORS
� N
N
0 O /
�BALGdNY -'
EXTENSION
5TUC,GO TRIM TO
MATCH EXI5TIN6
-NEW BAY I,
WINDOW
HILL GREEK
C O411t3 _
r
-NEW AWNING
w/ SIGNACGE
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' -0"
O a�
NEW BAY
�
WINDOW
,
s
-NEW BAY I,
WINDOW
HILL GREEK
C O411t3 _
r
-NEW AWNING
w/ SIGNACGE
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1' -0"
O a�
7
I c
F-XI571N&/DEMO FLAN
VICINITY MAP
O
LU
().2
LU
Votl. Cobroab BIb6)
iG: 9/0P16.fi4�
gprbrcnkxN.c�m
N
N
_ o
O N
REMOPEL PLAN
ROOM FINISH SYMBOL / KEY TO ROOM FINISHES
r
ROOM NAME/NUMBER
C&UNC HT
v9 �iiiSi���:l
FLOOR y BASE —
�Mtv
'— w:.LL�
CEILING
1
I
m
�r
_] 0
LJ
I
�o
O°
y
hl
hl
t
8 Fmb 2012
SNem[ NNnbm�
A2.1
m
-- ------- -
rT n
FROF05ED PNE5T ELEVATION
M VIC. TIAII C A Gl =1 C, /A -1-11
cob
t�- �76.1
LU
Lu
Sheet Nwnbcr
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
MILL CREEK COUK
VAIL, COLOF
LOT i, BLOCI
N66 VAIL VILLAGE FIF'
uu Zo1$o°0 "�l.
C3 ^ GORE CREEK DR;VE (40' ROW)
1 b' C4
C3
GENERAL NOTES:
1 1 1 �,,,° 1 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 1. Easements are based on the Final Plat of VAIL VIL
M j commitment was provided, Client did not want e
shown. '
\�O
".]5' 2. The boundary location is based on the monumer
L5 LB surveyed on May 9th, 1990. All of the monumen
® o
LOT Proposed Encroachment into Lot P -3
7_ L7
" by construction. It is recommended that bound
Land Survey Plat be produced prior to any constr
L6
3. The purpose of this survey is to show the locatior
Court Building and proposed improvements in re
�o \mo / ry ^ LOT P -3, BLOCK 5 A and southerly boundary of Lot i.
'^
Existing 2nd Story Deck C / Z 4. Date of Survey; May 1990, February 2012
5. Bearings hereon are based on a bearing of N7 °4
1 NW 1 /16th corner of Sec 8, T5S, R80W, LS 27592
marker for Bridge Proposed encroachment into HANSON ROAD a Street, L5 30091. R
G� L3
L This map is the result of a survey performed by m
°. Existing Second Story BAY surpervision and checking, and accurately represer
B IN51° 26' 00 "E HAN5ON RANCH ROA4 (40' ROW)
I V 2" ALUM CAP, LS 2568, .4' BELOW ASPHALT, FOUND MAY 1990
/ V 2 1,Y' ALUM CAP, L5 NO. 22506 FOUND MAY 1990 ��OZ/
kSPHALT, FOUND MAY 1990
Line Table
Line #
Length
Direction
L2
13.59
S75° 22'44"E
L3
6.80
N 14° 59' 301
L4
52.07
S61 ° 47' 33 "W
L5
13.44
S5 27
L6
1.90
N60° 02'27"E
L7
8.44
N 14° 37' 16"E
Curve Table
Curve
Length
Radius
Tangent
Delta
Chord Bearing
Chord
C2
69.00
117.98
35.52
33 °30'33"
S68 °II'lTW
68.02
C3
19.32
581.70
9.66
1 °54'11"
N87 °57'1 6 "W
19.32
C4
89.86
224.77
4154
22 °54'22"
S77'27'1 I "E
89.26
C5
15.25
117.98
7.64
7 °24'21"
S78 °06'59 "W
15.24
il N
Bay windows proposed for Units
303/306 and Units 402/403.
Approximately 10 s.f. of each new
bay window would encroach into the
right -of -way.
YIQLifil�t � r
k� 4
t t
A.4
Units 303/306 decks
proposed to be
connected around
the corner to match
deck above.
Approximately 30 s.f.
would encroach into
the right-of-way.
Mrl
M
W.-
I - elow—
OWN
ROW
OW
1/20
—_ , . .......
-4 -
6 -1 -14
F i!
A:.
fV
K �
TOWN OF'VA10
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, an ordinance approving a
zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
for a rezoning from Ski Base Recreation District to Ski Base Recreation 2 District, located at
598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard
thereto (PEC110067).
PRESENTER(S): Rachel Dimond, Tom Braun
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, upon first reading.
BACKGROUND: On January 30, 2012, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a
public hearing on a proposed rezoning of the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail from Ski Base
Recreation District to Ski Base Recreation 2 District and has forwarded a recommendation of
approval for the amendment to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 4 -2 -1 (Rediker, Pierce
opposed, Cartin recused).
On February 7, 2012, the Vail Town Council continued the first reading of Ordinance No. 1,
Series of 2012, to the February 21, 2012 hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012 Staff Memo
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012 First Reading
SSCV rezoning- PEC memo 013012
Letters from neighbors after 013012
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012 022112 Powerpoint presentation
Manor Vail Association Letter
Additional letters 022112
2/21/2012
TOWN OF
0 ) VAII 1
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 21, 2012
Memorandum
SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, an ordinance approving a zone
district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail
Town Code, for a rezoning from Ski Base Recreation District to Ski Base
Recreation 2 District, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village
Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC110067).
Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Rachel Dimond
SUMMARY
The applicant, Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, is requesting a rezoning of the subject
property, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, from the
Ski Base Recreation District to the Ski Base Recreation 2 District.
Staff requests the Vail Town Council answer the following question:
• Does the Town Council agree that Ski and Snowboard Club Vail should be
rezoned to the Ski Base Recreation 2 District?
Upon answering the question above, the Vail Town Council should approve, approve
with recommendations, or deny Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, upon first reading.
II. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On January 30, 2012, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended the
Vail Town Council approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, upon first reading, with a
vote of 4 -2 -1 (Rediker, Pierce opposed; Cartin recused). This recommendation was
based upon the review of the criteria outlined in the January 30, 2012 memorandum to
the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony
presented.
2/21/2012
7 -1 -1
III. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, upon
first reading, the Community Development Department recommends the Council passes
the following motion:
"The Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 11, Series Of 2012, an
ordinance approving a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to
Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a rezoning from Ski
Base Recreation District to Ski Base Recreation 2 District, located at 598
Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth
details in regard thereto."
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, the
Community Development Department recommends the Council makes the following
findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in the January 30, 2012
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence
and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds.
1. That the amendments are consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the
development objectives of the town.
2. That the amendments are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and
appropriate for the surrounding areas.
3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare
of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the
town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality. "
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012
B. PEC memorandum dated January 30, 2012
C. Letters from neighbors received since January 30, 2012
D. PowerPoint dated February 21, 2012
Town of Vail Page 2
2/21/2012
7 -1 -2
ORDINANCE NO. 1
SERIES OF 2012
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 12 -3 -7, AMENDMENT, VAIL TOWN CODE, FOR A REZONING FROM SKI
BASE RECREATION DISTRICT TO SKI BASE RECREATION 2 DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
598 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE /PART OF TRACT B, VAIL VILLAGE FILING 7, AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, zone district boundaries may be amended pursuant to the provisions of
Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code; and
WHEREAS, the subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail as part of the
original Town boundaries on August 26, 1966 and was zoned Agriculture and Open Space
District; and
WHEREAS, the subject property was rezoned to Ski Base Recreation District from the
Agriculture and Open Space District on February 15, 2000, to facilitate redevelopment as part of
the larger Golden Peak development site; and
and
WHEREAS, redevelopment of the subject property anticipated in 2000 never occurred;
WHEREAS, the subject property owner would like to redevelop the subject property and
is requesting a rezoning to facilitate said redevelopment separate from the Golden Peak
development site; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2012, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on a proposed rezoning from Ski Base Recreation District to
Ski Base Recreation 2 District, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing
7, and has forwarded a recommendation of approval for the amendment to the Vail Town
Council by a vote of 4 -2 -1 (Pratt, Rediker opposed, Cartin recused); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail
Town Council finds that the amendments are consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives
of the town; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail
Town Council finds that the amendments are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and
appropriate for the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail
Town Council finds that the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a
manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a
resort and residential community of the highest quality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012 1
2/21 /2012
7 -2 -1
Section 1. This ordinance adopts the following zone district boundary amendment:
A rezoning from the Ski Base Recreation District to the Ski Base Recreation 2 District, located
at 598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, as further described in Exhibit A of
this ordinance. This zone district boundary amendment shall be effective upon the adoption of
this ordinance.
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of
any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall
not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 21S day of February, 2012 and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 6 th day of March, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. in
the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012 2
2/21 /2012
7 -2 -2
Exhibit A
J N
N N
0
w N
Vail Village Filing 7
Part of Tract B
(598 Vail Valley Drive - Ski Club Vail)
Milk
eS.
IF , -
Existing Zoning
- Hqn DensOy M W ipb FemN B00M[
Q SM Base Re[rvMMn (SBR)
- 0-1.1—W
V)
Feet
150 150 300
r ,
�- - -ak r te
g
m. ms •.. n.MW ww ro.nm..loa r..x. u. Ms. � sx.1Me. a q.n.M ww...em rn. rw.rMw de.em.�ws. m�.[- emn.��m�.MmmM.n.an[..n
n�Me MM.n.o.od Meal. nsno..nm1
Last Wchied. Jawary 16. 2012 TOWN 0 VA11;
Proposed Z.M.0
- - . >ny Mpnple Family (HDMF)
S+. Ba;e Recro Man (SBR)
Base RBCreMwn 2 (SBR 2)
- General Use (GU)
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012
3
0
TOWN OF VAIL
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 30, 2012
Memorandum
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
to allow for a rezoning from Ski Base /Recreation District to Ski Base /Recreation
2 District, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110067)
Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Rachel Dimond
SUMMARY
The applicant, Ski and Snowboard Club Vail (SSCV), is requesting a zone district
boundary amendment to rezone the SSCV property, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive,
from Ski Base /Recreation District to Ski Base /Recreation 2 District.
Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval of the request, subject to the findings noted in Section
IX of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The purpose of this request is to rezone the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail (SSCV)
facility from the Ski Base Recreation (SBR) District to the Ski Base Recreation 2 (SBR2)
District. A vicinity map (Attachment A), a zone district amendment map (Attachment B),
the applicant's request (Attachment C), letters from neighbors (Attachment D) and the
Golden Peak Operational Management Plan (Attachment E) are attached for review.
Upon approval of a rezoning, the applicant will submit a development plan that includes
details on site plan, height and all other development parameters. The Vail Town Code
does not require development plans to be viewed concurrently with rezoning
applications. If rezoned, all impacts of redevelopment of the site will be reviewed and
addressed with the development plan, pursuant to 12- 8E -17, Mitigation of Development
2/21/2012
7-3 -i
Impacts, Vail Town Code. Generally, development plans and rezoning requests are
heard together for larger projects or when part of a larger development.
III. BACKGROUND
SSCV was founded in 1962 as a ski and snowboard youth development program.
The existing SSCV structure was constructed in 1976 after the Planning and
Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit for a structure in the
Agriculture and Open Space District. At the time, the PEC did not require any parking,
stating that "additional parking in this location is not appropriate." At the time, Ski Club
Vail served 75 users.
On March 24, 1986, the PEC granted a front setback variance to allow a drop off area
that also encroached into the Vail Valley Drive street right -of -way. The proposal also
included the addition of the second floor of the club facility. At the time, Ski Club Vail
leased parking spaces from the Rams -Horn Condominium Association to alleviate the
on -site parking shortage.
In January, 1998, the Town of Vail, Vail Associates and Ski Club Vail drafted a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding parking management for the Golden
Peak Ski Base area facilities. Under this MOU, the Town Manager agreed to discuss
Ski Club Vail's parking situation with the Town Council. At their October 13, 1998
hearing, the Vail Town Council directed Ski Club Vail personnel to submit an application
to fix the parking and drop -off issues on site. In November 1999, the PEC approved a
variance request for expanded parking and drop -off in the right -of -way in anticipation of
an approved development plan.
On December 13, 1999, the PEC recommended approval to the Vail Town Council for a
rezoning of the property to the SBR District from the Agriculture and Open Space
District. Contingent upon the rezoning, the PEC also approved a development plan and
a conditional use permit for a "quasi- public club." The proposed redevelopment scheme
included a 24,000 square foot commercial building for use by SSCV that included
encroachments onto the adjacent Vail Resorts property, with half of the building located
on Vail Resorts property. The development plan added SSCV to the Golden Peak
development site. Figure 1 shows the proposed site plan as part of the approved
development plan.
On February 15, 2000, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000,
which rezoned the subject property from the Agriculture and Open Space District to the
Ski Base/ Recreation District. The SSCV building was legally nonconforming in this
district, and did not have the ability to expand under its existing zoning. According to
the Staff memorandum dated February 1, 2000, "due to the encroachment onto Vail
Associates' property, it is necessary to apply a consistent zoning among the parcels." A
rezoning was implemented in anticipation of a redevelopment that never occurred.
Town of Vail Page 2
2/21/2012
7 -3 -2
w�
KD
Fenrx
f ' Esun
:.Gm.
�.� nt.xvEn
ww
SKI CLUB VAIL
V A I L, COLORADO
Figure 1: Ski Club Vail proposed site plan from 1999
4 0
L -L
SUILMATIC SITE PLAN
SSCV now serves over 500 members in a variety of alpine racing, free - skiing, freestyle,
Nordic and snowboarding programs. The Club is a 501(c)3 non - profit charitable
organization. The club would like to redevelop the club facility, which is too small for
current programming. According to the applicant's request in Attachment C, "The need
to expand and update these facilities is acute. Creating a club facility that will be
commensurate with its training facilities on Vail Mountain is the driving factor behind this
redevelopment proposal."
SSCV envisions a 16,000 square foot club facility with an entry/lobby area, a community
room, lockers and other space for athletes in the Club's various programs,
administration and coach's space, conditioning /training space and storage. Structured
parking is planned in the lowest level of the building. In order to finance the project
during this economic downturn, the club anticipates the inclusion of dwelling units on the
site as part of any future development plan.
The subject property was rezoned to the SBR District and had an approved
development plan, as part of the larger Tract B development site. The language in the
SBR District is very specific to the Golden Peak Lodge, and does not accommodate the
stand alone development of the SSCV facility as a mixed use building.
Upon initial discussion with the Town of Vail Staff regarding redevelopment scenarios,
there were numerous options discussed regarding potential process routes SSCV could
take to achieve a redevelopment scenario:
Town of Vail Page 3
2/2 1/2012
7 -3 -3
• Amend the SBR District to include mixed use club facility as a land use (still non-
conforming minimum lot size)
• Special Development District (underlying zone district dictates allowable land
uses)
• Create a new zone district (results in an additional ski base area zone district)
• Rezone the property to an existing zone district (SBR2 District meets the
applicant's needs of the proposed redevelopment)
After reviewing the issues related to each option, the Town Staff and the applicant
agreed that rezoning to the SBR2 District would be the best option to peruse the
redevelopment goals of the SSCV.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master
Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal:
Vail Land Use Plan (in part)
Chapter 11- Land Use Plan Goals / Policies (in part)
1. General Growth /Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the
visitor and the permanent resident.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
2. Skier /Tourist Concerns
2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should
work together to improve facilities for day skiers.
Chapter VI — Proposed Land Use (in part)
SB Ski Base: Ski base areas are designated at the main mountain portals found
within the Town. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe,
convenient and aesthetically - pleasing transition between the ski mountain and
surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski
Base (SB) land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails,
base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, open spaces, parking
and loading /delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses.
Town of Vail Page 4
2/21/2012
7 -3 -4
Vail Village Master Plan (in part)
GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING
UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action
Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design
Guide Plan.
Policy 1.4.2: The Town may grant flexibility in the interpretation and
implementation of its regulations and design guidelines to help protect and
maintain the existing character of Vail Village.
GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR -
AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND
FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas
throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these
established land use patterns.
Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of
activities for our guests, visitors and residents.
Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term
overnight accommodations.
Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels
are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available
for short term overnight rental.
Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity
where compatible with existing land uses.
Policy 2.4.1: Commercial infill development consistent with established
horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators,
accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the
pedestrian network throughout the Village.
Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of
existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
Town of Vail Page 5
2/21/2012
7 -3 -5
Policy 2.5.1: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other
amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of
lodging properties.
LAND USE PLAN: There is a well- defined overall pattern of land use throughout the
Village that establishes one of its more pleasant characteristics. The greatest variety
and intensity of uses are found within the Village Core Area and along the pedestrian
ways of East Meadow Drive. The mixed use character of these areas make significant
contributions to the vitality of the pedestrian experience in the Village. Land uses
surrounding these areas are predominantly residential with a mixture of lodging,
condominium, and low density residential development. Other land use designations in
the Village include heavy service, public facility /parking, and ski base /recreation.
Ski Base /Recreation: Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak area
and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to provide for the
facilities and services inherent to the operation of a ski area. Uses and activities for
these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient, and aesthetically - pleasing
transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of
uses and activities appropriate in the Ski Base /Recreation land use category may
include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms,
ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, outdoor cultural /art events and sports venue, open
spaces, parking and loading /delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant
uses.
GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE SUB -AREA ( #10
"VA.
r EAST G RE
CREEK
`�� � �a� \ • �i � �, h _ rte_ — r
The Golden Peak Ski Base Sub -Area has traditionally served as a recreational activity
center throughout the year. The Golden Peak Ski Base facility provides one of four
access portals to Vail Mountain during the winter months, and accommodates a number
Town of Vail Page 6
2/21/2012
7 -3 -6
' • �.
_
fM4Yl
�'� —"
1 �
ce "' vAk illy OiVh_ .•
_.
GOLDEN PEAK
`�� � �a� \ • �i � �, h _ rte_ — r
The Golden Peak Ski Base Sub -Area has traditionally served as a recreational activity
center throughout the year. The Golden Peak Ski Base facility provides one of four
access portals to Vail Mountain during the winter months, and accommodates a number
Town of Vail Page 6
2/21/2012
7 -3 -6
of the Town's recreation programs during the summer. In 1983, Vail Associates
received approval for the redevelopment of this facility and in 1988, completed the
Children's Ski Center. The further redevelopment of this area will serve to reinforce its
role as a major ski base and recreational activity center for the entire community.
Development or redevelopment of this sub -area will attract additional traffic and
population into this area and may have significant impacts upon portions of Sub -Areas 6
and 7.
tj �
-4 3 5
34 34
45 2.3 3'4
K
�w
3-4 3.4
u v Z.3
2 -3. 1 -2,3
v t
CONCEPTUAL.
BUILDING
LEGEND =- _�� � ���.,. � , -� w. H EIGH T PLAN
3.4 NAXIM M NM E OF BIfMMNG HE GHT IN S O E5 � 4 ` , \ AIL VILLAGE PLAN
WItlYg Laylo d,NneH eeAfeel of hegNl .i, -H ��� \;
no IMJ� ® ®. Evec Iglu
VariW reMre'
NMO b/ leg, cool Mgglo �Ni e
w�um r,.y, SDeellod it deo =nd la esvT WiAlirg -. A. e E ,
^�( DENOTES EI(ISTIlG @i h PNOVFL BIInLINLS WHILH
W NDT COt&gPM TO THE C�n'CE>'TUU6 BUiIUING
HEGHT A.PN
9uENMG E{ yiES p1✓Ep5 OF SIMILM HE/3Hi �\ �1� .... ^•
Title 12, Zonin_p Re_pulations, Vail Town Code (in part)
Chapter 12 -1: Title, Purpose And Applicability
12 -1 -2: Purpose:
A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of high quality.
B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific
purposes:
1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities.
Town of Vail Page 7
2/21/2012
7 -3 -7
2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and
other dangerous conditions.
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to
lessen congestion in the streets.
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading
facilities.
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with
structures.
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable
natural features.
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities
and facilities conducive to desired living quarters.
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community.
Article 12 -8D. Ski Base /Recreation (SBR) District
12 -8D -1: Purpose: The ski base /recreation district is intended to provide for the base
facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi - family residential
dwellings as a secondary use if certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational
uses and facilities are encouraged to achieve multiseasonal use of some of the facilities
and provide for efficient use of the facilities.
12 -8D -2: Permitted Uses:
A. Within Main Lodge: The following uses shall be permitted within the main base lodge
building in the ski base /recreation district:
Basket rental.
Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for owners' use.
Lift ticket sales.
Meeting rooms for owner use and community oriented organizations.
Restaurant /bar /snack bar /candy sales.
Ski lockers /employee locker rooms.
Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories.
Ski school and ski patrol facilities.
Special community events.
Summer seasonal recreational, cultural and educational programs and offices.
Tennis pro shop.
B. Retail And Meeting Room Space Limitation:
a. Retail sales space in the first two (2) floors shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen
percent (15 %) of the nonresidential gross square footage of the main base lodge
building. Under this section "retail" shall be defined as tennis pro shop, candy
sales, ski repair /rental sales, accessories and clothing, basket rental, ski lockers
and storage for the public.
Town of Vail Page 8
2/21/2012
7 -3 -8
b. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent (10 %) of the
nonresidential gross square footage of the main building.
C. Dwelling Units: Multi- family dwelling units within the main base lodge building if the
following requirements are met:
1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main base lodge building if
they meet the following criteria:
a. No residential use on ground level.
b. Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be minimized
by providing at least forty percent (40 %) of the required parking within the main
base lodge building or in an attached parking structure.
c. The maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling units
shall not exceed thirty percent (30 %) of the total gross square footage of the
main base lodge building.
2. Before acting on multi - family dwelling units, the planning and environmental
commission shall consider the following factors in regard thereto:
a. Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives of the town.
b. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
c. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area.
d. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
3. The planning and environmental commission shall make the findings set forth in
subsection 12 -16 -6B of this title before permitting multi - family units within the
main base lodge building.
D. Children's Ski School Building: Permitted uses within the children's ski school
building:
Children's ski school services and programs.
Community events and programs.
Summer recreational, cultural and educational programs.
Year round childcare and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational facilities
and programs.
E. Outside Of Lodge: The following uses shall be permitted outside the main base lodge
and children's ski school buildings as shown on the approved development plan
zoned ski base /recreation district:
Bus and skier drop off.
Food and beverage service.
Indoor and outdoor ski storage.
Mountain storage buildings.
Private unstructured parking.
Public parks, tennis and volleyball courts, and playing fields, playgrounds.
Ski racing facilities.
Town of Vail Page 9
2/21/2012
7 -3 -9
Ski school activities.
Ski trails, slopes and lifts.
Snowmaking facilities.
Special community events.
Water treatment and storage facilities buildings.
F. Employee Housing Units: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13
of this title.
12 -8D -3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation district,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of
chapter 16 of this title:
Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment.
Additions or expansions of public or private parking structures or spaces.
Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12 -14 -18 of this title.
Child daycare center.
Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment.
Food and beverage cart vending.
Public, private or quasi - public clubs.
Recreation room /minor arcade.
Redevelopment of public parks, playgrounds.
Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows.
Redevelopment of ski racing facilities.
Redevelopment of water storage extraction and treatment facilities.
Seasonal structures to accommodate athletic, cultural, or educational activities.
Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment.
Summer seasonal community offices and programs.
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation district:
Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and necessary
for the operation thereof.
Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance
with the provisions of section 12 -14 -12 of this title.
12 -8D -5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. All offices and retail sales conducted
in the ski base /recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a
building except for approved special events and food and beverage vending.
12 -8D -6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED:
A. Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the
natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that
development in the ski base /recreation district will meet the intent of the zone
district, a development plan shall be required.
Town of Vail Page 10
2/21/2012
7 -3 -10
B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan shall be in
accordance with section 12 -8D -7 of this article and shall be submitted by the
developer to the administrator, who shall refer it to the planning and environmental
commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. A report
of the planning and environmental commission stating its findings and
recommendations shall be transmitted to the town council for approval in
accordance with the applicable provisions of section 12 -16 -6 of this title.
C. Plan As Guide: The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide
for all development within the ski base /recreation district.
D. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan will be
considered in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -9A -10 of this title.
E. DRB Approval Required: The development plan and any subsequent amendments
thereto shall require the approval of the design review board in accordance with the
applicable provisions of chapter 11 of this title prior to the commencement of site
preparation.
12 -8D -7: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS: The administrator shall establish the
submittal requirements for a development plan application. A complete list of the
submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the
department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived
and /or modified by the administrator and /or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by
the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the
proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail
comprehensive plan. The administrator and /or the reviewing body may require the
submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if
deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal.
12 -8D -8: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS /CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: The following
criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development
plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed
development plan complies with all applicable design criteria.
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding
neighborhood.
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a
functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood
and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to
preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for
access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed
uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing
open space and recreation areas.
Town of Vail Page 11
2/21/2012
7 -3- 11
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient
and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating
measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan.
F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans.
12 -8D -9: LOT AREA: The minimum lot or site area shall be forty (40) acres of site area,
at least one acre of which shall be buildable area.
12- 8D -10: SETBACKS: In the ski base /recreation district, front, side, rear and stream
setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plan.
12- 8D -11: HEIGHT: Up to sixty percent (60 %) of the building (building coverage area)
may be built to a height of thirty five feet (35'), or less. No more than forty percent (40 %)
of the building (building coverage area) may be higher than thirty five feet (35'), but not
higher than forty feet (40). Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar
architectural features not usable as gross residential floor area may extend above the
height limit a distance of not more than twenty five percent (25 %) of the height limit nor
more than fifteen feet (15).
12- 8D -12: DENSITY CONTROL: Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per
eight (8) acres of site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple - family building may include one
attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third ( 1 13) of the total floor area of the
dwelling
12- 8D -13: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall be as shown on the approved
development plan.
12- 8D -14: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. Landscaping requirements
shall be as shown on the approved development plan. All areas within the area(s) of
disturbance in the landscape plan not occupied by building, ground level decks or
patios, or parking shall be landscaped.
12- 8D -15: PARKING PLAN AND PROGRAM: Parking plan and management program
shall be as shown on and described in the approved development plan.
ARTICLE 12 -8E. SKI BASE /RECREATION 2 (SBR2) DISTRICT
12 -8E -1: PURPOSE: The ski base /recreation 2 district is intended to provide sites for
facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski
mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not limited to,
residential, public and semipublic uses and special community events typically
associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the zone district.
The ski base /recreation 2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space
Town of Vail Page 12
2/21/2012
7 -3 -12
and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional uses throughout the zone
district. In order to achieve this objective and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land
uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the zone district shall be
subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the
provisions of this article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this district being located
at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to
the future success and resort character of the town, development within this district shall
be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this title and to
provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond
any economic benefits to the landowner.
12 -8E -2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted within the ski base /recreation 2 district:
Eating and drinking establishments including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products
specifically for sale on the premises.
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shop.
Fountains and sandwich shops.
Restaurants.
Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Lodges.
Private or public off street loading facilities.
Private or public off street vehicle parking structures.
Public parks and outdoor recreation facilities.
Residential uses including the following:
Accommodation units.
Multi - family residential dwelling units.
Single- family residential dwelling units.
Two - family residential dwelling units.
Ski base oriented uses including the following:
Commercial ski storage on the basement or garden level of a building.
Retail stores and establishments.
Ski lifts and tows.
Ski patrol facilities.
Ski racing facilities.
Ski school facilities.
Ski trails.
Skier and guest services including, but not limited to, uses such as basket rental,
lockers, ski repair, ski rental, lift ticket sales, public restrooms, information /activity desk.
Snowmaking facilities.
Special community events, including, but not limited to, ski races, festivals, concerts,
and recreational, cultural and educational programs and associated
improvements /facilities, subject to the issuance of a special events license.
12 -8E -3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation 2 district,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Town of Vail Page 13
2/21/2012
7 -3 -13
chapter 16 of this title:
Brewpubs.
Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment.
Fractional fee units.
Outdoor dining decks and patios.
Private and public clubs.
Public utility and public service uses.
Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional or permitted uses described in
this chapter, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title.
12 -8E -4: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation 2 district:
Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and necessary
for the operation thereof.
Ski patrol offices.
Ski school offices, sales, and activities.
Skier and guest service employee offices, locker rooms, and meeting rooms.
Swimming pools, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted
uses.
12 -8E -5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, retail sales, and commercial ski storage conducted
in the ski base /recreation 2 (SBR2) district shall be operated and conducted entirely
within a building, except for approved special community events, outdoor display of
goods, and outdoor restaurant seating.
B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in
front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's
own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall
not be obstructed by outdoor display.
12 -8E -6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Development Plan Required: Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other
improvements to land within the ski base /recreation 2 district, there shall be an
approved development plan for said district or portion thereof. An approved
development plan shall be the principal document in guiding the development, uses
and activities of land within the zone district. A development plan shall be approved
by the planning and environmental commission. Development standards including
setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, density (GRFA) and parking shall be
determined by the planning and environmental commission as part of the approved
development plan. This determination is to be made based on the proposed
development plan's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12 -8E -9 of
this article.
B. Application: An application for approval of a development plan may be filed by any
owner of property within the ski base /recreation 2 district or his /her agent or
authorized representative. The application shall be made on a form provided by the
department of community development and shall include a legal description of the
property, a list of names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and
written consent of owners of all property to be included in the development plan, or
Town of Vail Page 14
2/21/2012
7 -3 -14
their agents or authorized representatives. The application shall be accompanied by
submittal requirements outlined in subsection 12 -8E -8A of this article and a
development plan as outlined in subsection C of this section.
C. Contents: The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in
accordance with subsection 12 -8E -8A of this article. The development plan shall
contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters
within which land in the district may be developed. The development plan may
consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections
and elevations, vicinity plan, off street parking /loading plan, off site improvements
plan, preliminary open space /landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional
and accessory uses.
12 -8E -7: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES:
A. Preapplication Conference: Prior to submittal of a formal application for a
development plan, the applicant shall hold a preapplication conference with the
department of community development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to
discuss the goals of the proposed development plan, the relationship of the proposal
to applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, and the review procedure
that will be followed for the application.
B. PEC Conducts Final Review: The final review of a proposed development plan shall
be by the planning and environmental commission at either a regularly scheduled
meeting or a special meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the
administrator, a work session may be held with the applicant, staff and the planning
and environmental commission to discuss the development plan. A report of the
department of community development staff's findings and recommendations shall
be presented at a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission.
The planning and environmental commission shall review the development plan in
accordance with the provisions of section 12 -8E -9 of this article.
12 -8E -8: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. Information And Materials Required: The administrator shall establish the submittal
requirements for an approved development plan application. Certain submittal
requirements may be waived or modified by the administrator or the planning and
environmental commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information
and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to
the Vail comprehensive plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be
maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community
development.
The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the
merits of a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed
development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one
or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest has been achieved:
Town of Vail Page 15
2/21/2012
7 -3 -15
A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined
in chapter 10 of this title.
D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies
and urban design plans.
E. Natural And /Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and /or
geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is
proposed.
F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off site traffic circulation.
H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to
optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable,
functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development
plan.
J. Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and
demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest.
12- 8E -10: LOT AREA: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10, 000)
square feet of buildable site area.
12- 8E -11: SETBACKS: In the ski base /recreation 2 district, front, side and rear setbacks
shall be as indicated on the approved development plan.
12- 8E -12: HEIGHT. In the ski base /recreation 2 district buildings shall range in height
from zero feet (0) to forty three feet (43) and be indicated on the approved
development plan. All development shall comply with the building height guidelines
found in the Vail village master plan conceptual building height plan. In no instance,
however, shall the maximum building height exceed forty three feet (43).
12- 8E -13: DENSITY CONTROL (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE /GRFA): Total density
shall not exceed eight (8) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. The total
Town of Vail Page 16
2/21/2012
7 -3 -I6
allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be as indicated on the approved
development plan.
12- 8E -14: SITE COVERAGE: In the ski base /recreation 2 district, site coverage shall be
as indicated on the approved development plan.
12- 8E -15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: In the ski base /recreation 2
district, landscaping requirements shall be as indicated on the approved development
plan.
12- 8E -16: PARKING /LOADING PLAN AND PROGRAM: Off street parking and loading
shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least ninety five percent
(95 %) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings, and
as approved by the planning and environmental commission in review of the
development plan. The off street parking and loading plan shall be indicated on and
described in the approved development plan.
12- 8E -17: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners /developers
shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public
infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the
development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by
qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be
balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and
environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use
permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following:
deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway
improvements, loading /delivery, streetscape improvements, stream tract /bank
improvements, public art improvements, parking, and similar improvements. The intent
of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment /development
projects which produce substantial off site impacts.
12- 8E -18: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES:
A. Minor Amendments:
1. "Minor amendments" are modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans
that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved development plan,
and are consistent with the design criteria of this article. Minor amendments may
include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (5) to approved
setbacks and /or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not
adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the development
site; or changes to gross floor area of not more than five percent (5%) of the
approved square footage of residential floor area or retail, office, common areas
and other nonresidential floor area.
2. Minor amendments consistent with the design criteria outlined in section 12 -8E -9
of this article may be approved by the department of community development. All
minor amendments shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan.
Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the department of
community development.
Town of Vail Page 17
2/21/2012
7 -3 -17
3. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staff action of said
request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the zone
district that may be affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as
determined by the department of community development. Notifications shall be
postmarked no later than five (5) days following staff action on the amendment
request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time
and date of when the planning and environmental commission will be informed of
the administrative action. In all cases the report to the planning and environmental
commission shall be made within twenty (20) days from the date of the staff's
decision on the requested amendment.
4. Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of
property within the zone district, the applicant, planning and environmental
commission members or members of the town council as outlined in section 12 -3 -3
of this title.
B. Major Amendments:
1. "Major amendments" are any proposal to change uses; increases to residential
floor area greater than five percent (5%) of the approved square footage; increases
to retail, office, or common floor area greater than five percent (5%) of the
approved square footage; increases or decreases to the number of dwelling,
accommodation, or fractional fee club units; any request to modify, enlarge or
expand the boundary of an approved development plan and any amendment to the
approved development plan that is not a minor amendment as determined by the
administrator and defined in this article.
2. Requests for major amendments to an approved development plan shall be
evaluated based upon the degree of deviation of the amendment from the basic
intent and character of the approved development plan and reviewed in
accordance with the procedures described in section 12 -8E -7 of this article. All
major amendments shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan.
Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the department of
community development.
3. Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized
representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment
shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the
proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the zone district, and
owners of all property within the zone district that may be affected by the proposed
amendment (as determined by the department of community development).
Notification procedures shall be as outlined in subsection 12 -3 -6C of this title.
12- 8E -19: TIME REQUIREMENTS:
A. Start Of Construction; Completion: The developer must begin initial construction of
the development plan within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and
continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the development plan is to
be developed in phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent
phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase.
B. Approval Voided: If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the
completion of the development plan or any stage of the development plan within the
time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the approval of said development
plan shall be void. The planning and environmental commission shall review the
Town of Vail Page 18
2/21/2012
7 -3 -18
development plan upon submittal of an application to reestablish the development
plan following the procedures outlined in section 12 -8E -7 of this article.
V. SITE ANALYSIS
Existing Zoning: Ski Base /Recreation District
Proposed Zoning: Ski Base /Recreation 2 District
Existing Land Use Designation: Ski Base
Proposed Land Use Designation: Ski Base (no change)
Mapped Geological Hazards: None
Lot Area: Approximately 0.265 acres/ 11,543 square feet
Development Standard
Ski Base /Recreation
Ski Base /Recreation 2
Land Use Designation
District
District
Minimum Lot Size
40 acres with
10,000 square feet of
Recreational
1 acre buildable area
buildable area
Minimum Setbacks
Per the approved
Per the approved
Ski Base
development plan
development plan
Maximum Height
60% max 35 feet
43 feet and per the Vail
40% max 40 feet
Village Master Plan
Maximum Dwelling
1 DU/ 8 acres
8 DU/ acre
units /acre
(2 DU on subject
property)
GRFA
30% of gross floor area
Per the approved
in lodge
development plan
Site coverage
Per the approved
Per the approved
development plan
development plan
Minimum Landscaping
Per the approved
Per the approved
development plan, all
development plan; 95%
disturbed areas without
of required parking shall
structure, parking or
be within the building
patios must be
landscaped
Required Parking
Per parking and
In accordance with
management plan
Chapter 12 -10
Development Review
PEC review of
PEC review of
Process
development plan
development plan
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Town of Vail Page 19
2/21/2012
7 -3- 19
Existing Use
Zone District
Land Use Designation
North:
Mixed Use
Residential Cluster
Village Master Plan
South:
Recreational
Ski Base /Recreation
Ski Base
West:
Recreational
Ski Base /Recreation
Ski Base
East:
Recreational
Ski Base /Recreation
Ski Base
Town of Vail Page 19
2/21/2012
7 -3- 19
VII. ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT CRITERIA
Before acting on a zone district boundary amendment application, the Planning and
Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to this
proposal:
1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the
Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of
the town.
Staff believes a rezoning of the subject property to the SBR2 District is consistent with
all applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and Section IV of this memorandum. The SBR2 District will allow
for a coordinated and predictable development review process and will allow for the
development vision anticipated by the Club.
• Vail Land Use Plan: This zone district boundary amendment meets the goals
and objectives of the Vail Land Use Plan, including:
o Goal 1.1, which states that "Vail should continue to grow in a controlled
environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and
recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. "
• Vail Village Master Plan: The applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Vail
Village Master Plan will be met by rezoning to SBR2 District, including:
• Objective 1.2, which states that the Town should "encourage the
upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities."
• Objective 2.2, which calls for recognition of "the importance of Vail Village
as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. "
• Objective 2.3, which states the Town should "increase the number of
residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. "
Should dwelling units be approved on the subject property as part of a
development plan once SBR2 zoning is in place, these dwelling units will
most likely not be occupied by full -time residents, and thus, could become
available for short -term rental.
Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion.
2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing
and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land
uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents.
The rezoning of the subject property to the SBR2 District will be in line with the
recommendations for the designation of Ski Base in the Vail Land Use Plan, and the
Vail Village Master Plan's Golden Peak subarea #10. The Vail Land Use Plan Ski Base
designation of the subject property states that "uses and activities for these areas are
intended to encourage a safe, convenient and aesthetically - pleasing transition between
the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities
appropriate in the Ski Base (SB) land use category may include skier and resort
Town of Vail Page 20
2/21/2012
7 -3 -20
services, base facilities, public restrooms, clubs, parking and loading /delivery
facilities, and residential..." This is directly in line with the SSVC rezoning request and
their vision to redevelop with a mix of uses not achievable in the SBR District.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning also meets the recommendations of the Vail Village
Master Plan's Golden Peak subarea #10, which states that "the further redevelopment
of this area will serve to reinforce its role as a major ski base and recreational activity
center for the entire community. "
Therefore, Staff believes this proposal meets this review criterion.
3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal
development objectives.
Staff believes the rezoning of the subject property to the SBR2 District will allow for
more harmonious, convenient and workable development of the subject property by
providing a more harmonious and workable zone district. This is due to the broader
nature of the SBR2 District versus the prescriptive and restrictive nature of the Ski Base
Recreation District, which was established to facilitate the development of Golden Peak
without any consideration of the SSCV property. Further, the proposed zone district is
very similar in purpose to the existing zone district, as both purpose statements
ultimately result in the shared outcome of ski base land uses and structures that interact
with the adjacent ski mountain.
There are many issues that need to be addressed with the development plan
application that are not addressed through a rezoning application. In some cases,
impacts of development must be mitigated, as outlined in Section 12- 8E -17, Mitigation
of Development Impacts. The impacts that will be addressed during the development
plan review include deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, traffic
mitigation, pedestrian walkway improvements, loading /delivery, streetscape
improvement, parking, landscaping, public art, and similar issues. There is also a
Golden Peak Operational Management Plan (see Attachment E) that will need to be
updated to further address traffic impacts, parking, and loading and delivery.
The Vail Town Code does not require development plans to be viewed concurrently with
rezoning applications, and Staff believes these impacts will be adequately addressed
with the development plan.
Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion.
4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an
orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment
serves the best interests of the community as a whole.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning of the subject property to SBR2 District will help
facilitate the redevelopment of an aging building that needs to be updated. This will
provide for the growth of an orderly viable community, and does not constitute spot
Town of Vail Page 21
2/21/2012
7 -3 -21
zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole by
facilitating the redevelopment of this aging property and complying with the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. Land use decisions in various courts have determined that if the
amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole, the rezoning is not
spot zoning. Further, the SBR2 District is only one parcel away from the subject
property and the districts are compatible because of the similarities in their purpose
statements.
Therefore, Staff believes the proposal meets this review criterion.
5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or
beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water
quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other
desirable natural features.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning of the subject property to SBR2 from Ski Base
Recreation will not adversely impact the natural environment, including, but not limited
to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other
desirable natural features, as the difference in allowable bulk and mass between the
already development property and a potential redevelopment scenario is marginal, and
the site is small enough and removed enough from the hillside that none of the above
elements will be adversely impacted. Further, when specific details are provided in the
development plan, these elements will be reviewed again during the development plan
review.
Therefore, Staff believes the proposal meets this review criterion.
6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is cons istent with the
purpose statement of the proposed zone district.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning of the subject property is consistent with the purpose
statement of the proposed zone district. The purpose statement of the SBR2 District
states:
"the District is intended to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses
necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of
other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not limited to, residential.. and
semipublic uses.. associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted
within the zone district. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this district being
located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and
important lands to the future success and resort character of the town,
development within this district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet
the specific purposes of this title and to provide "compelling public benefits which
further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the
landowner. "
The SSCV facility rezoning and subsequent redevelopment furthers the purpose of the
zone district by providing a semipublic use that works in conjunction with Vail Mountain
Town of Vail Page 22
2/21/2012
7 -3 -22
to provide world -class ski and snowboard development programs that provide a public
benefit. The permitted residential land uses that are anticipated to finance the project
are also consistent with the purpose statement's inclusion of residential uses.
Therefore, Staff believes the proposal meets this review criterion.
7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions
have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted
and is no longer appropriate.
When the subject property was rezoned to the Ski Base Recreation District, it was
rezoned to facilitate redevelopment of the subject property with encroachments onto the
adjacent Vail Mountain property. In order to allow the development site to encompass
all of Tract B, including Golden Peak, a consistent zoning needed to apply to the entire
development site that shared one development plan.
The current strategy of SSCV is to redevelop within the confines of their own property,
and with a separate development plan and development potential from Vail Mountain
and Golden Peak. As a result, they are legally non - conforming in terms of lot size, and
thus, have difficulty in redeveloping the property. The proposed rezoning allows for the
development of dwelling units, which could be integral to financing, as was the case in
most of the redevelopment projects that occurred during Vail's "Billion Dollar Renewal."
Therefore, Staff believes the proposal meets this review criterion.
8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and /or council deem
applicable to the proposed rezoning.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town
Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Ski Base /Recreation District
to Ski Base /Recreation 2 District, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail
Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is
based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of
this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission
passes the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment,
pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning
from Ski Base /Recreation District to Ski Base /Recreation 2 District, located at
Town of Vail Page 23
2/21/2012
7 -3 -23
598 Vail Valley Drive /part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of
this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission
makes the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 30,
2012, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and
Environmental Commission finds:
1. That the amendments are consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the
development objectives of the town.
2. That the amendments are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and
appropriate for the surrounding areas.
3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare
of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the
town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality. "
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
C. Applicant's request
D. Letters from neighbors
E. Golden Peak Operational Management Plan
Town of Vail Page 24
2/21/2012
7 -3 -24
Attachment A
Vail Village Filing 7
Parr of Tract B
(598 Vail Valley Drive - Ski Club Vail)
A&Nk P
r
# e
'
1
M
------------
ms meo.�ees wetea q me raw, wwiois re.n. uae n e.a w: a. aim -+e� waer+r. rro rmw oe w deee Fv wnene oneame me �nermsim mri��ee ���N�
Feet ,��
0 25 50 75 150 FUN OF VAIL"
Last Mo65ed. ,3arxtary 16. 2012
7 -3 -25
Attachment B
Vail Village Filing
Part of Tract 6
(598 Vail Valley Drive - Ski Clux
® F Feet miem•a wu cre.re•prrn•ro-rn mrvricisrwm, uu•tnremw awue•Ar s•�wsiw••e•s•mr m•rmn•rvwi a•• :eat venrnm••cw.may orm•imsmaian comwrea n•r•in.
0 150 300 cn•b.ew�.,.w�rai im, m.x �ao•�im•te�
Last Modified: January 16, 2012 TOWN OF SP
2/21/2012
7 -3 -26
A oMPBRAUN
11SSC7CIA I CS, INC.
LAND PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
December 27, 2011
Mr. Warren Campbell
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81632
RE: Proposed Rc- zoning of SSCV Clubhouse Site
Dear Warren:
Attached you will find an application to re -zone the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail property from
Ski Base /Recreation to Ski Base/Recreation 2. Material provided herein includes:
1. Written description of the request,
2. Diagrams graphically depicting the area to be re -zoned
3. Application form
4. Filing fee
I think you will find the material submitted to be very consistent with what we have discussed
over the past few weeks. Thank you for your time and efforts to date. Please do not hesitate to
contact me with any questions you may have. I look forward to working with you on this
exciting project.
Regards,
Thomas A. Braun
CC: Aldo Radamus
Phil Hoversten
David Viele
Glen Davis
Opal Building - 225 Main Street - Suite G -002 • Edwards, Colorado • 81632
970 - 926 -7575 - 970 -926 -7576 fax • www.braunassociates.com
2/21/2012
7 -3 -27
SKI Al D SI OWBOARD CLUB VAIL
Re- zoning Request, December 27, 2011
The purpose of this report is to provide background information and rationale for the proposed
re- zoning of the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail (the Club, or SSCV) property located within the
Golden Peak neighborhood of Vail. This request is to re -zone the subject property from Ski
Base /Recreation to Ski Base /Recreation 2. The purpose of the re- zoning is to establish zoning on
the property that could facilitate the redevelopment of existing Club facilities. The following
information is provided below:
• a brief summary of SSCV, a description of existing club facilities and goals for and need
for upgrading Club facilities,
• an assessment of re- zoning alternatives and the rationale for the proposed re- zoning, and
• a statement regarding how the proposed re- zoning is consistent with applicable review
criteria.
This application is submitted by and on behalf of Ski and Snowboard Club Vail. Due to the
projects proximity to Vail Mountain the Club will be coordinating with Vail Resorts (and with
other neighbors) on any future redevelopment plans for their property. However, this project is
not a Vail Resorts or Vail Resorts Development Company project.
Ski and Snowboard Club Vail
Founded in 1962, the mission of the Club is to provide youth the opportunity for character
growth and excellence through athletics. The Club is widely recognized as one of the premier
ski and snowboard clubs in the Country and is highly respected throughout the Valley as a leader
in youth development. Ski and Snowboard Club Vail serves over 500 members in a variety of
alpine racing, free - skiing, freestyle, Nordic and snowboarding programs. The Club is a 501(c)3
non -profit charitable organization.
Originally a small club dedicated to ski racing, SSCV has evolved into one of our community's
largest organizations dedicated to serving our youth. In doing so the influence of the Club has
grown to cover a wide range of topics, all making significant contributions to our community.
The Kids
The Club has had amazing success in developing snow -sport athletes who have gone on to excel
on an international stage. The most recognizable among these is of course Lindsey Vonn, but
not to be overlooked are the achievements of Toby Dawson, Chris Del Bosco, Sarah Schleper
and many others. Over the course of the past two years four athletes have been named to the
U.S. Ski Team, notable among them are two local, "home grown" athletes born and raised here
in Eagle County.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -28
Athletic achievements are an important goal, however the underlying purpose of the Club in
serving our youth is to use athletics to instill the "3 C's" of courage, character and commitment,
to help kids development life lessons that will help them in the years to come.
The Community
The Club utilizes its staff and athletes to volunteer in a variety of community events throughout
the year. Most notable among these is the Birds of Prey at Beaver Creek. Each year the Club
provides on average 4,000 hours of volunteer help to this event. The presence of Club volunteers
is also found at the Community Fund Rummage Sale, the Copper Triangle and other community
events.
The Academy
In the fall of 2007 Ski and Snowboard Club Vail partnered with the Eagle County School District
to establish the Vail Ski and Snowboard Academy. The Academy is a fully accredited and
certified public school with the goal of providing its students with a rigorous academic
curriculum while supporting a world class training and competition schedule. From 31 students
in its first year, the Academy grown to 141 students in 2011. While most students are from
Eagle County, this past year a total of 17 families re- located to Eagle County in order for there
kids to attend the Academy. The economic impact of these new families is significant.
Economic Impact
The Club's programs and visitors drawn to Vail are instrumental in generating significant
economic activity for the community. Foremost among these is the early season training at
Golden Peak. Snowmaking improvements made a few years ago have made Golden Peak a
prime location for early season race training. This past year, for a five week period 20 ski clubs,
10 colleges and 20 national ski teams came to Vail to train. This resulted in the Club issuing
approximately 7,600 tickets to visitors who on average spent a week in Vail. This resulting in
literally millions of dollars spent on lodging, meals and shopping. By way of example, Manor
Vail alone had 2,200 "group nights" during this period, at a time of year when the facility is
typically very quiet. Throughout the winter the Club hosts a number of races and other events.
This year 42 race days are planned and most of them are multi -day events. This year Vail will
host a Junior Olympic event for 13 and 14 year olds that will involve 160 athletes, coaches and
families over an eight day period. The economic impact of this and other events is quite
considerable.
Existing Club Facilities
The Club currently operates from a building located at the base of Vail Mountain at Golden Peak
that is approximately 6,000 square feet in size. This building was originally constructed in the
2/21/2012
7 -3 -29
mid -70's and a second floor was added in the mid -80's. At that time the Club was serving just
over 100 athletes. With a current membership of over 500 athletes the space constraints within
the existing facility are severe and the building is certainly showing its age. The need to expand
and update these facilities is acute. Creating a club facility that will be commensurate with its
training facilities on Vail Mountain is the driving factor behind this redevelopment proposal.
Goals of the Club Re- development
The goal of the Club is to re- develop their building to provide the space and facilities necessary
to serve its membership — be they five year olds in the Future Stars program or world class
athletes competing in Olympic or World Cup events. Conceptual plans for the building envision
approximately 16,000SF of Club space that would include an entry /lobby area, a community
room, lockers and other space for athletes in the Club's various programs, administration and
coach's space, conditioning /training space and storage. Structured parking is planned in the
lowest level of the building.
As a non - profit organization financing a building of this size is extremely challenging. The
"economic engine" for the redevelopment would be two for -sale residential condominiums on
the upper floors of the building.
Additional information on existing club facilities, the need for the project and specifics on the
proposed re- development would be provided as an element of the Development Plan to be
provided in subsequent steps in the Town's development review process.
The Problem Statement — Existing Zoning
The property is .265 acres in size and is currently zoned Ski Base /Recreation. This zone district
was created in the early 80's and was written with the specific intention of facilitating the re-
development of the Golden Peak Base Lodge. The degree of specificity with which the zone
district was written (in order to facilitate the base lodge redevelopment) is extreme. For
example, allowable GRFA is based on a percentage of the square footage of the "base lodge ".
As such GRFA ratio cannot reasonably be applied to the Club's parcel (or any other parcel for
that matter). Another complication is that the minimum lot size in the Ski Base /Recreation
District is 40 acres, making the SSCV parcel a non - conforming lot.
In summary, the Ski Base /Recreation zoning currently applied to the Club's parcel does not
provide a "workable process" for the review of redevelopment plans for the Club's land.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -30
The problem statement, or question is - what zoning and development review process is most
appropriate for this project.
Alternative Review Processes
There would appear to be four possible zoning alternatives for how this project could be handled.
The goals of this review process would be two -fold — to provide a process that would allow
SSCV to propose a building consistent with its redevelopment goals and to provide the Town
with the tools necessary to review the proposal. The following summarizes each of these.
Amend the Ski Base /Recreation Zone District
In theory the "problematic" sections of the Ski Base /Recreation district could be amended
such that the zone district could be used on other properties. However, given the
specificity with which this zone district was written relative to the Golden Peak Base
Lodge, any amendments would create other complications and could raise questions
relative to the larger, +/ -40 acre Ski Base /Recreation parcel. Amending this district is not
considered a viable alternative.
2. SDD Overlay
An SDD could provide a zoning process for the Club to propose their redevelopment
plans and an SDD would also provide the town with the tools to review the proposal.
However, an SDD is an overlay district and the underlying zone district would still come
into play, i.e. the inherent complications with the Ski Base /Recreation District would
remain a problem. An SDD is not considered a viable alternative.
Create a new zone district
A new zone district could be drafted and applied to the SSCV property. However,
drafting a new zone district is an extensive effort and begs the questions — how many
different zone districts does the town really need and as an alternative is there an existing
zone district that could "work "?
4. Re -zone with existing zone district
In 2006 the Town established the Ski Base /Recreation 2 (SB/R2) district in order to
facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door. The underlying purpose of the Ski
Base /Recreation 2 district is to "provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary
for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain ". A ski and snowboard club would
certainly seem to be consistent with this purpose.
Proposed Zoning Amendment
2/21/2012
7 -3 -31
While the Ski Base /Recreation 2 district was created to facilitate the development of Vail's Front
Door, this zone district was not written with the same degree of specific attention to one building
(Golden Peak Base Lodge) as was done with the Ski Base /Recreation District. As such, the land
uses, development standards and review procedures outlined in SB /R2 could reasonably be
applied to other properties. From a technical standpoint the permitted and conditional uses,
allowable densities and other development standards would all "work" for the project envisioned
by the Club. Any development approval is subject to the Town's review and approval of a
development plan so the town would have the tools necessary to ensure the project is consistent
with Town goals. The SB /R 2 zone district is a viable alternative for the Club to use in pursuing
their redevelopment plans and the zone district amendment is to apply SB /R2 to the SSCV
property.
The proposed amendment is in many ways a housekeeping item necessary to correct the
complications created by the specificity with which the SB /R2 district was written. Consider the
following comparisons:
• Density (8 units per acre) is the same in both districts,
• Most development standards are the same in both districts,
• Allowable land uses (oriented toward ski mountain /base area uses) are very similar in both
districts, and
• The requirement for a Development Plan and the review processes are very similar in both
districts.
Diagrams depicting the subject property are found on the following two pages.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -32
Rezoning Request
J N
N
W N
_O
W
� N
Ski and $nowloard Club ;Tail
Context Map
Town of Vail, Colorado
Criteria for Reviewing the Proposed Re- zoning Request
In accordance with the Town Code, the following factors are to be considered by the PEC and
Town Council with respect to the requested zone district amendment.
(1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable
elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
The property has been zoned Ski Base /Recreation since 2000. This zone district was deemed to
be consistent with "all applicable elements of the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan" when the property was originally zoned SB/R and it is reasonable to
assume that the SB /R zoning remains consistent with these goals, policies and objectives. As
described in earlier sections of this report, rezoning to Ski Base /Recreation 2 will not
significantly change the underlying purpose of the zone district, the allowable uses, density
provisions, review processes or the majority of development standards. For these reasons it is
reasonable to conclude the proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the Town's
comprehensive plan.
The Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan are the two most relevant master plan
documents to consider relative to the proposed re- zoning. Each of these documents includes a
wide array of goals, objectives and policies along with other elements to be considered in
reviewing a re- zoning proposal. The following is a brief summary of these two plans:
Vail Village Master Plan (adopted 1990, updated 2006 and 2009)
The SSCV club facility is located just outside of the boundary of the Vail Village Plan boundary
and as such is also located outside the Land Use Plan and other Illustrative Plans found in the
document. For example, the subject property is located immediately outside the Ski Base
Recreation land use category which reads:
Ski Base /Recreation: Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak
area and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to
provide for the facilities and services inherent to the operation of a ski area. Uses
and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient, and
aesthetically- pleasing transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land
use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski
Base /Recreation land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts,
ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas,
outdoor cultural /art events and sports venue, open spaces, parking and
loading /delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses.
Given the subject property was zoned Ski Base /Recreation prior to the adoption of the VVMP, it
is a reasonable assumption to consider this land use category relative to the proposed re- zoning.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -35
A major element of the VVMP is the "Action Plan ". The Action Plan provides graphic and
narrative descriptions of opportunities, constraints and other considerations relative to future land
uses for ten unique "sub areas" throughout the Village area. These sub area concepts are
intended to provide "advisory guidelines for future land use decisions to be used by the Planning
and Environmental Commission and the Town Council.
The Action Plan for the "Golden Peak Sub Area" does include the SSCV property. This element
of the Plan states:
The Golden Peak Ski Base Sub -Area has traditionally served as a recreational activity
center throughout the year. The Golden Peak Ski Base facility provides one of four
access portals to Vail Mountain during the winter months, and accommodates a number
of the Town's recreation programs during the summer. In 1983, Vail Associates received
approval for the redevelopment of this facility and in 1988, completed the Children's Ski
Center. The further redevelopment of this area will serve to reinforce its role as a major
ski base and recreational activity center for the entire community. Development or
redevelopment of this sub -area will attract additional traffic and population into this area
and may have significant impacts upon portions of Sub -Areas 6 and 7.
This element of the VVMP would clearly support the proposed zoning for the SSCV property.
Vail Land Use Plan (adopted 1986, updated 2009)
The most pertinent goal from this Plan is 1.3 — "the quality of development should be maintained
and upgraded whenever possible ". The underlying purpose of this request is to establish a
"workable" zoning and development review process that will allow the Club to propose the
upgrading of existing facilities.
The subject property is designated "SB Ski Base" on the Land Use Map. This category is
described as:
Ski base areas are designated at the main mountain portals found within the
Town. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe,
convenient and aesthetically pleasing transition between the ski mountain and
surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in
the Ski Base (SB) land use category may include skier and resort services, ski
lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas,
open spaces, parking and loading /delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and
restaurant uses.
The proposed re- zoning to Ski Base /Recreation 2 is consistent with this land use category.
(2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and
potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in
the town's adopted planning documents; and
2/21/2012
7 -3 -36
The proposed zoning is suitable for both the existing use of the subject property and the potential
future use of the property, and both existing and future uses are compatible with surrounding
land uses. This finding is clearly evident when considering the very minor changes in proposed
zoning when compared to the properties existing zoning. Potential future uses are also consistent
with the town's adopted master plans.
(3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives;
and
The existing Ski Base /Recreation zoning has been in place on the property for many years.
Based on the fact that the Town zoned the property Ski Base /Recreation in 2000, one can
reasonably assume the existing zoning was deemed to provide a "harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses ". Given the fact that proposed zoning to Ski
Base /Recreation 2 would result in very few material changes as compared to the existing zoning,
it is concluded that the proposed re- zoning is consistent with this criteria.
Purpose of district is to ensure compatibility and that compatibility is ensured by requirement of
development plan review as requisite of any development.
(4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly
viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best
interests of the community as a whole; and
One of the stated purposes of the SB /R 2 district is ". . . to ensure compatibility with adjacent
land uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the zone district shall be subject to
approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this article ".
The requirement for all development within the SB /R 2 district to obtain approval of a
development plan would inherently provide a system to ensure "orderly growth of our
community ".
"Spot zoning" is generally considered applying zoning to a single (often small - sized) property
without consideration the community's broader context. By the same token, courts have upheld
re- zoning of single properties (regardless of size) if the re- zoning is consistent with a
communities land use objectives and relevant community plans. Given the proposed re- zonings
conformance with applicable community plans, this request would not be considered "spot
zoning ".
(5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial
impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air
quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features;
and
The proposed re- zoning would not result in an adverse impact on any of the considerations listed
above.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -37
(6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose
statement of the proposed zone district; and
The stated purpose of the Ski Base /Recreation 2 district is:
The Ski Base /Recreation 2 district is intended to provide sites for facilities,
activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski
mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not
limited to, residential, public and semipublic uses and special community events
typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the
zone district. The ski base /recreation 2 district is intended to ensure adequate
light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional
uses throughout the zone district. In order to achieve this objective and to ensure
compatibility with adjacent land uses, all permitted uses, development and
activity within the zone district shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive
development plan in accordance with the provisions of this article. Furthermore,
due to the likelihood of this district being located at the base of Vail Mountain,
and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and
resort character of the town, development within this district shall be evaluated
based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this title and to provide
"compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any
economic benefits to the landowner. (Ord. 29(2005) § 25: Ord. 4(2003) § 1)
The existing and planned uses of the subject site are consistent with "uses and activities,
including, but not limited to, residential, public and semipublic uses and special community
events typically associated with a vibrant resort community"
(7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have
changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer
appropriate; and
This is not necessarily a case where "conditions have changed" so much as it is a situation where
the existing Ski Base /Recreation District was drafted in such a manner as to be exceedingly
specific to the Golden Peak Base Lodge development. The degree of specificity is such that the
SB /R district does not provide a "workable" zone district for the subject property.
(8) Such other factors and criteria as the commission and /or council deem applicable to the
proposed rezoning.
To be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission and /or Town Council.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -38
Rachel Friede Dimond
From: Shelley Bellm
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Rachel Friede Dimond
Subject: FW: Ski Club
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI
From: DeiahanOne(&aol.com Finailto:DeiahanOne(�aol.coml
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Shelley Bellm
Subject: Ski Club
I live full time in the Vail Golf Course neighborhood and I am in favor of this project. However, I would like to
see some form of speed control measures implemented along Vail Valley Drive to slow the traffic down. It is a
race course on the weekend and the police do not cite speeders. Thanks,
Kevin Deighan
Timberline Commercial Real Estate
1163 Cabin Circle
Vail, CO 81657
970 - 476 -3436
970 - 476 -1986 Fax
213 - 347 -6428 Los Angeles Phone
www.timberlinere.com
DRE #00983852
1
2/21/2012
7 -3 -39
From: Carrie Walker f mailto :carrieswalker(cDgmall.comI
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:02 PM
To: Shelley Bellm
Subject: SSCV Re -Zone
To Whom it May Concern:
As a resident of the Rams Horn Lodge and member of the VHA, I would like to ask some questions
regarding the proposed re- zoning of the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail. No doubt, the club is an important
asset to Vail mountain and the people to whom it serves. As an owner in Vail I am concerned by a few
things.....
1. 1 have not yet seen any development plans proposed by the SSCV - Can that be provided before the
vote on zoning assessment?
2. What parking measures has the SSCV taken to alleviate any parking issues that will result from its
expansion?
3. To what degree is the zoning changing as it pertains to having residential and business use mixed?
4. What is the length of time for construction?
5. What is the parking consideration during construction?
To date, no information has been circulated to neighbors in the area. Any information the development
team has would be greatly appreciated in order to vote in a more educated manner on this issue.
Regards,
Carrie Walker
2/21/2012
7 -3 -40
January 24, 2012
Town of Vail Planning Commission
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Members of the Planning Commission
The following is sent on behalf of the Rams -Horn Lodge Condominium Association in reference to the Ski
and Snowboard Club Vail potential rezone and redevelopment of their current facilities. The facility is
old and most likely in need of update. Prior to any approvals, however, we would like to see the plans
and elevations for the proposed facility. Additionally, and perhaps of equal importance is a traffic
impact study. As an Association, we have voiced our concerns on a number of occasions regarding the
traffic, congestion, and safety of pedestrians on Vail Valley Drive. There also are issues regarding drop
off, pick up and parking. Our concern at this point is that the potential re- development will lead to even
greater issues of safety. As to whether the redevelopment including potential residential additions is
within the realm of what is permitted in this area will most likely require significant discussions and
meetings.
We will participate in the public hearing process. We are also willing to be involved in a neighborhood
study committee if that is found to be of any benefit to the Town of Vail.
Sincerely
John and Diane L. Milligan
Association Managers and Owners Representatives
2/21/2012
7 -3 -41
All Seasons Condominium Association, Inc.
C/O Lin Grubbs, President
2080 Meadow Brook Drive
Vail, CO 81657
January 24, 2012
Town of Vail Planning Commission
Vail, Colorado
Re: The Ski and Snowboard Club Vail (SSCV) Rezoning Proposal
To Whom It May Concern:
The Board of All Seasons Condominium Association, Inc. has recently learned of a
proposal by SSCV to rezone its present site on Golden Peak for the redevelopment of
the existing building and the expansion of its services and facilities. The proposed
rezoning application suggests the possibility of allowing residential use of some
portion of the existing site.
In addition to this request, we have learned of plans to redevelop the current Vista
Mahn area for the construction of a Vail Village Gondola.
All Seasons residents are concerned about the impact of both of these proposed
projects, not only in connection with the residential usage of the site on Golden
Peak, but also as to the likely increase in vehicular traffic and congestion near
Golden Peak, particularly on weekends during the winter ski season.
When the Golden Peak Ski Base was redeveloped, the rezoning and redevelopment
plans proceeded simultaneously. We feel strongly that this should be the case with
these proposed developments, thereby allowing affected neighborhoods to better
understand the possible impact on safety and traffic along Vail Valley Drive.
While we all welcome improvements to the Town of Vail, the safety of pedestrians
should be of paramount concern. While crosswalks for skiers apparently exist,
there are no signs requiring vehicles to stop for pedestrians and most cars do not
stop or cannot see the crosswalks on the pavement when they are covered by snow..
A building design for SSCV should be required prior to any rezoning application, as
well as a proposal for traffic and congestion mitigation along Vail Valley Drive and
the Skier Drop Off area.
We are confident that with the input of affected neighborhoods, improvements
to the Town of Vail will proceed in a thoughtful manner, mindful of the needs of
pedestrians, skiers, and vehicles alike.
All Seasons Condominium Association, Inc. Lin Grubbs, President
J
r
y
2/21/2012
7 -3 -42
Barbara Bruecker, Board President
Vail Trails East Condominium Association
bbruecker(aaol.com
303 - 324 -5223
January 25 2012
Town of Vail
RE: Plan to redevelop the Ski and Snowboard Club and add the new Gondola,
Dear Town of Vail,
On behalf of the Board of the Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, I wish to
express our concern for the redevelopment of the Ski and Snowboard Club. Specifically,
the Vail Trails East Board is very concerned about the increase in the traffic in the area
that this could bring. In addition, the traffic flow itself is of concern to the owners of the
Vail Trails East Association.
We ask that the Town engage in an impact study and rezoning meeting and include the
neighboring condominium associations and if approved to carry out this project is a
manner that minimizes the impact on the residence owners at Vail Trails East and other
neighboring homeowners.
Very truly yours,
Barbara Bruecker
Board President,
Vail Trails East Homeowners Association
2/21/2012
7 -3 -43
ma.n ®r Vail 595 East Vail Valley Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 970.476.5000 800.950.VAIL (8245) 970.476.5683 manorvail.com
LODGE
January 26, 2012
George Ruther
TOV Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear George,
Manor Vail Condominium Association understands that the Ski and Snow Club Vail (SSCV) have
submitted an application for rezoning from Ski Base Recreation to Ski Base Recreation II. We further
understand that this is the precursor to a proposed redevelopment. Without knowing the specifics of
the redevelopment, Manor Vail Condominium Association Board of Managers wants to go on record
as expressing some potential concerns.
Currently, traffic is often an issue around Manor Vail; a lot of it a result of drop -offs and pick -up's at
Ski Club Vail. This is not only a significant pedestrian safety concern, but it impedes traffic into and
out of the property. Therefore, there are concerns about impacts to traffic. We understand that the
proposal calls for significantly increasing the size of the building. Increasing the mass and the height
are of significant concern, as are the aesthetics. Additionally, there's concern about the impacts of
increased pedestrian traffic, noise, lighting, and general building appearance. The current situation is
often an eye -sore with trash and other debris scattered around the building. What will be done to
improve this?
Manor Vail enjoys a good business relationship with SSCV. The lack of information on the potential
redevelopment is troubling.
Thank you,
I leary ral Manager
MV Board of Ma agers
th
A distinctive experience Pj3i &W_by Destination Hotels & Resorts
destig4 i%jrbotels.com
Vail Homeowners Association
Correspondence: RE - Ski Club Vail and Vail Village Gondola Issues
TOV /PEC Hearing 01/30/2012
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Morton, Bill (NYC -JMW) [mailto:Bill_Morton @jackmorton.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:45 AM
To: Dwight Henninger
Cc: Stan Zemler
Subject: RE: Enforcement
Dwight,
Many thanks for your note, and apologies for my delay in responding. My wife and I
have been traveling internationally since January 4 and just returned.
I and all of my neighbors on Hanson Ranch Road, the row houses, etc., appreciate
all of your efforts to address and hopefully resolve these traffic issues. Certainly
we're all aware of the issues during the "busiest" times, and more are ahead with
Presidents' weekend and Spring break. I believe the problems will continue until
summonses are issued on a regular basis. There needs to be signage and perhaps
even barriers preventing these vehicles from Hanson Ranch Road during these
periods.
Again, my thanks for your note and consideration in continuing to address and support
the situation.
... and a Happy New Year to you.
Bill
William Morton
/ Jack Morton Worldwide / + 1.212.401.7330 / mob: +1.917.864.2372 /
http: / /www.jackmorton.com / blog at http://blog.jackmorton.com
Follow us on: Twitter / Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / Flickr
From: Dwight Henninger [mailto:DHenningerkvailgov.coml
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:28 PM
To: Morton, Bill (NYC -JMW)
Cc: Stan Zemler
Subject: Enforcement
Bill
Stan forwarded me you email, I'm the Police Chief here in Vail.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -45
I am aware of the problems on Hanson Ranch Road and I spent a half day out there
last week working to keep the Shuttle vehicles and skier drop -off private vehicles
from blocking the roadway.
I have talked with the Shuttle service managers and hope the situation will improve
in the coming weeks and months. Clearly last week is our busiest of the year and we
had numerous issues all over town with parking and traffic. This made it
impossible to have an officer, or CEO at every problem spot, but we are aware of
the problems on Hanson Ranch road and will continue to do our best to enforce the
rules in that area, while trying to balance the guest service component.
Thanks for bring the concerns to us.
Happy New Year!
Dwight
From: Morton, Bill (NYC -JMW) fmailto:Bill_Morton(c jackmorton.coml
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:06 PM
To: Stan Zemler
Cc: Andy Daly
Subject: ENFORCEMENT
Good morning, Stan.
It was good to see you again at the Vail Village Homeowners Association Annual
Meeting the other day. From my 21 years of being a Board member (now Emeritus,) I
felt that this was truly one of the best.
Kay and I have had a wonderful two weeks in Vail, and as I'm about to leave (yet
returning again in February and March,) I thought
I'd drop you a quick note around the subject of enforcement.
The issue is the skier drop off and pick up on Hanson Ranch Road just past the
Christiania. In short, between 8:30am and 10:30am and 2:30pm and 4pm every
day, the traffic sometimes backs up beyond the Christiania. When this happens
even the open lane gets blocked, and traffic doesn't move. It's obvious that the
various hotels and "clubs" use that as their primary drop off and pick up. Is there
some way to control that or find another location?
While there has been a significant improvement in the trucks not using Hanson
Ranch Road or unloading in the Village, it's too bad that there's not more
enforcement of these trucks using the underground pickup and delivery. A stricter
enforcement of this would enhance the functioning and ambiance of the Village.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -46
In any case, I drop you this note with continued appreciation for all that you and the
Village leadership continue to provide to this very special community.
Thanks,
Bill
William Morton
/ Jack Morton Worldwide / + 1.212.401.7330 / mob: +1.917.864.2372 /
http: / /www.jackmorton.com / blo at t http: / /blogjackmorton.com
Follow us on: Twitter / Facebook / LinkedIn / YouTube / Flickr
Dwight Henninger
Chief of Police
Vail Police Department
970.479.2218 direct
970.479.2210 main
970.479.2216 fax
dhenninger a,vailgov.com
vailgov.com
twitter. com/vailgov
2/21/2012
7 -3 -47
ACHMENT 14 1
C L IED
GOLDEN PEAK OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
Vail Associates, Inc. ( "VA ") has filed an application to amend the Approved
Development Plan for the Golden Peak Base Facility. The amendments include
revisions to vehicular parking on the site, the design and function of both public
skier and Children's Center drop off, as well as alterations to employee parking, lift
capacity, and ski base operations In the course of the submittal, VA has made
certain representations regarding the physical site plan and the operations of the
portal. The Town of Vail Department of Community Development has requested
elaboration. This plan expands upon and supplements the application and, to the
extent it is inconsistent with the application, supplants it.
This Golden Peak Management Plan is intended to enhance the experiences
of guests to Vail and of the residents of the Golden Peak neighborhood in a manner
consistent with the goals and objectives of the agreement between the Town of Vail
( "TOV ") and' Vail Associates to manage peak periods in this resort community. In
effect, the measures proposed in this plan are means of managing or controlling the
demands upon the Golden Peak portal and the impacts upon its surrounding
infrastructure. The concepts and principles of the Program To Manage Peak
Periods Agreement (the "Agreement ") between TOV and VA are therefore
incorporated by reference into this management plan.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -48
2
A reality that must be recognized in examining the creation of infrastructure
and operational systems for Golden Peak or Vail at large is that both the ski
company and the greater Vail community are engaged in the winter and summer
resort business. For reasons beyond the complete control of the community the
demands for and use of resort goods and services will always be subject to specific or
isolated events such as the Christmas holiday or a world class competitive or
cultural event. Events such as these will by necessity mean that Vail will experience
surges or peaks of visitor use that may be mitigated, but will not be entirely
overcome or eliminated by investment in hard assets. To the extent that such high
demand events tax the capacity of our systems and our collective patience, we must
also acknowledge that these events, if well managed, are also what give us life,
vitality, excitement and special appeal.
It is the effort to "manage well" that leads to the creation of this plan. In its
application VA has proposed significant physical improvements to the Golden Peak
portal. These include:
- doubling the skier drop off zone capacities;
- improving drop off flow and function;
- giving locational primacy to public transit;
- structuring and landscaping private auto parking;
- improving lift access to balance portal use across the Village; and
- improving base lodge facilities for the guest and local alike.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -49
A reality that must be recognized in examining the creation of infrastructure
and operational systems for Golden Peak or Vail at large is that both the ski
company and the greater Vail community are engaged in the winter and summer
resort business. For reasons beyond the complete control of the community the
demands for and use of resort goods and services will always be subject to specific or
isolated events such as the Christmas holiday or a world class competitive or
cultural event. Events such as these will by necessity mean that Vail will experience
surges or peaks of visitor use that may be mitigated, but will not be entirely
overcome or eliminated by investment in hard assets. To the extent that such high
demand events tax the capacity of our systems and our collective patience, we must
also acknowledge that these events, if well managed, are also what give us life,
vitality, excitement and special appeal.
It is the effort to "manage well" that leads to the creation of this plan. In its
application VA has proposed significant physical improvements to the Golden Peak
portal. These include:
- doubling the skier drop off zone capacities;
- improving drop off flow and function;
- giving locational primacy to public transit;
- structuring and landscaping private auto parking;
- improving lift access to balance portal use across the Village; and
- improving base lodge facilities for the guest and local alike.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -49
3
This major investment in hard assets satisfies to the highest degree possible the
programmatic requirements of the Golden Peak project's planning professionals.
The proposed management techniques which follow are meant to be flexible
guidelines and dynamic tools which may be altered, revised, enhanced, or even
eliminated over time as needs require to "manage well ". And, while these
techniques are described in terms of VA or TOV responsibilities, it must be noted
that others, the greater Vail community and each and every Golden Peak neighbor,
must likewise contribute, act responsibly and treat others equitably in managing or
mitigating the impacts of use, growth and congestion during peak periods within
our community.
For their parts, pursuant to the Agreement, both VA and TOV have
immediate responsibilities to undertake growth management measures. Section III
(pages 11 -16) of the Agreement outlines these immediate responsibilities under Tier
I of the Plan. VA's obligations include measures which might mitigate impacts at
Golden Peak such as providing bus passes to appropriate employees for use on the
Town of Vail system, encouraging carpooling, and pursuing Park and Ride sites for
employees. TOV's obligations, set forth in the Agreement, include controlling peak
traffic and parking issues, productive management of traffic circulation and parking
systems, creative allocation of the bus service, effective utilization of law
enforcement personnel, and better distribution of skiers to different base area
facilities.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -50
4
For these purposes it is pertinent to note that in the Agreement "Peak
Periods" are defined as:
Christmas Peak: That period which extends between December 26 and
December 31;
and
High Season: That period which includes Presidents' Weekend and each
weekend beginning the third weekend in February through the end of
March.
"Nonpeak Periods" are defined as:
Those periods falling outside of the Christmas Peak and High Season and
which normally include the early ski season, Thanksgiving, the pre -
Christmas Period, the January to mid - February period, and the late ski
season.
Another pertinent concept in the Managed Growth Agreement is the
benchmark capacity of the mountain which has been defined as 19,900 skiers at one
time ( "SAOT "). The theory behind the Managed Growth Agreement is to
implement tiers of management techniques to control infrastructure demands and
operations at or below the 19,900 SAOT threshold. An additional factor for
consideration is the design day standard for Golden Peak planning studies and
infrastructure assessment which is 15,000 SAOT, a typical skier day count for the
2/21/2012
7 -3 -51
E
current Christmas Peak. The physical infrastructure of Golden Peak is designed to
accommodate the portal demands of a 15,000 SAOT event.
The Assessment Committee, described in S
entity charged with monito
is the
evaluating, and refining the operations of th
community management lan. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Assessment
Committee is likewise
with t his responsibility, but it is underst that for
loses the Asses sment Committee ma
its review
Vail Transportation Task Force or other designee and shall include representatives
of the affected Golden Peak neighborhood in the review process.
The project components or elements which might be considered for tiered
management techniques at Golden Peak include the following: (a) Managed
Parking Structure; (b) Public Skier and Children's Center Drop -off Areas; (c)
Employee Parking; (d) Mountain Operations; (e) Local and Community Programs,
such as DEVO; (fl Ski Club Vail Activities; (g) Adult and Children's Ski School; (h)
Loading, Delivery and Trash Removal; (i) Snow Management; 0) Ticketing; and (k)
these
Special Events.
II. MANAGED PARKING STRUCTURE
The Approved Development Plan of 1984 depicted 130 surface parking
spaces, primarily located on the north side of Tract F along Vail Valley Drive for all
varieties of users of this particular portal and 6 interior parking spaces for the
residential condominiums. The Children's Center plan of 1988 required 12 spaces.
2/21/2012
4
7 -3 -52
6
Taken together these total 148 spaces for drop off and parking. Presently the
surface lot existing at Golden Peak holds approximately 150 automobiles or less
depending on the a of snow storage on the lot and the efficiencies of car
storage: Of these 150 spaces roughly 18 -20 are used by employees; p
raddle Creek
Property reserve and utilize 8 spaces; 4 spaces are used for Cross Country
a:nd dro off;_ and approximately 118 spaces are available for use
Ski Van pic�i =up P
by the skiing - public fora fee..
' requirements _for ,the - Ski Base/Recreation District are i in
Section 18.39.2230 o#'the.uail.Ordinances which reads:
"Off- street parking shall be provided in accordance with "Chaptier 18.52
and /or as specified on the Approved Development Plan. "(emphasis supplied)
The language of this section permits and contemplates a parking function and
design unique to this district and its development plan. In response to this unique
environment the parking structure proposed in this plan consists of 148 parking
spaces (including 5 handicapped or ADA spaces) located at or below the street
elevation and landscaped across the top to provide an aesthetic benefit to the
development and the surrounding neighborhood.. The fundamental concept of the
organization and management of these parking spaces, the equivalent of a Tier I
management technique, is to create a managed or reserved "right to park"
mechanism designed to control the availability and use of the spaces and hence cut
down on indiscriminate traffic flows while providing for and paying for the aesthetic
2/21/2012
7-3 -s3
7
benefits of the landscaped structure. The mechanism formulated to provide this
managed parking product to the public is a non - equity club or association of up to
500 members who would have the right to park in this structure for a fee. Two tiers
of membership in the association are contemplated. The first tier would consist of
up to 50 members who would have a right to park in an identified reserved parking
space. The second tier of members would be up to 450 people who have a right to
park in the structure based upon a monitored and computer controlled reservations
system. It is the intent of the applicant to initially offer 50 first tier and 200 second
tier memberships to the public. Parking memberships would be sold in the fall of
1995 contingent upon final approval of the Golden Peak Base Facility Project by the
Town of Vail and sufficient subscriptions to commence construction of the parking
structure in the spring of 1996, but no later than spring of 1997. In the event that
the necessary subscriptions are not forthcoming to commence construction in 1997,
VAI will initiate discussions with the Town Council concerning payment in lieu of
parking alternatives.
The first tier member would secure a right to use a particular parking space
on a y ear-round basis. Hence, the ratio of first tier members to parking spaces
reserved for their use would be 1 to 1. The second tier members would have a year-
round right to use a parking space based upon availability and prior reservation,
monitored by a computerized rotation system to insure equitable and optimized use.
The
initial offering of second tier memberships would constitute a ratio of
2/21/2012
7 -3 -54
8
approximately 2 members to every parking space. These members would call the
parking arkin manager more than 24 -hours in advance to reserve their use of available
spaces. A reservation list from among the members would be compiled daily for the
management of entry access by personnel stationed in the attendant booth at the
entry to the structure. Access into the structure would be permitted upon
presentation of a photo I.D. identifying the bearer as a member and a confirmation
of a reserved parking space on the parking availability list.
In the event that all parking spaces are not fully reserved and utilized by the
club members, VA, as operator of the facility, reserves the right at any time of the
year to utilize unreserved spaces for other guests, members of the skiing public,
employees or other persons who likewise must call and reserve a space less than 24-
hours in advance. This short- notice use by non - members would be permitted only
on a daily basis by reservation. However, this managed operational feature would
expand the available user groups and increase the utilization of the structure in non-
peak periods without adding appreciable, unwanted traffic. Further, if the utility of
the structure can be maximized by offering additional memberships for sale, VA will
do so after the first year of operation establishes typical occupancies.
III. SKIER DROP OFF
Skier drop off occurs presently on the east side of the existing Golden Peak
structure and immediately to the north of the Children's Center. Existing
conditions provide for 21 head -in spaces adjacent to the Children's Center and 10
2/21/2012
7 -3 -55
9
parallel, or active parking spaces, in a loop drop -off area for the general public,
totaling 31 spaces currently dedicated to all drop -off functions. The proposed plan
nearly doubles this capacity by providing for 30 head -in spaces dedicated to
Children's Center drop off and 29 spaces for general skier drop off north of the
proposed building, totaling 59 spaces for skier drop off at this portal.
(A.) Ti= Management measures to be undertaken in a sequential fashion
concurrently with redevelopment include:
1. During the Christmas Peak period and Presidents' Weekend VA will
staff the General Skier and Children's Center drop off zones with 4 to 6
people, split between the drop off zones as traffic needs demand, during peak
arrival and departure hours or approximately from 8:30 to 10 a.m. and 3
p. to 4:30 p.m. These traffic managers will direct traffic, assist and
expedite the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment, encourage
the timely and swift departure of vehicles, and enforce restrictions against
unauthorized parking by calling for the removal or towing of offending
vehicles.
2. During the High Season period VA will staff the General Skier and
Children's drop off zones with 2 to 4 people, split between the zones as traffic
needs demand during peak arrival and departure hours.
3. During non -peak periods and during evening or night hours the drop off
zones would be staffed or managed upon the operational discretion of VA as
2/21/2012
7 -3 -56
10
may b
e needed to prevent congestion or vehicle stacking into Vail Valley
these periods and times, except for special
Drive or the bus lane. During
events, VA will permit parking by the general public in the drop -off zone
surface spaces consistent with the practice and use of other VA parking lots
such as North Day lot.
4. Permanent, static, �signage at the top of Blue Cow Chute will be installed
by TOV indicating that there is no public parking at Golden Peak and that
only Children's Center and skier drop off is permitted.
5. In Section V (page 25) of the Agreement additional skier drop off zones
have been identified as "pressing current transportation and circulation
needs ". VA will therefore cooperate with the TOV in identifying additional
skier drop off zones elsewhere in the town including Ford Park, the Main
Parking Structure, Lionshead, and other locations which will be formalized
and improved by the Town of Vail. Initially TOV will develop and
implement a plan for general skier drop on the upper deck of the
Transportation Center utilizing existing physical improvements and facilities.
6. Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and ski season the Assessment
Committee or its designee, will specifically assess access to and egress from
the mountain at Golden Peak, together with traffic and drop off impacts
associated with the skier movements and will make recommendations for
2/21/2012
7 -3 -57
11
adjustments or improvements to the Tier I management techniques
described above.
(B.) Tier H . In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques above have been implemented and traffic congestion in the drop
off zones still results in vehicle stacking into the street or bus lanes to a
degree detrimental to the ordinary operation of the infrastructure, then the
following successive management efforts will be undertaken in the neat
succeeding ski season:
1. VA and /or TOV will implement additional Tier I techniques which have
not yet been employed or will enhance those Tier I techniques already in use
according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee.
� 2.
TOV pursuant to its general obligations in the Agreement to implement
pro- active management efforts in coordination with VA to control traffic, will
increase utilization of law enforcement personnel during peak periods in the
management of traffic at Golden Peak (Section M. A. 2. a., page 13).
3. Based upon the impacts of traffic congestion and as transportation needs
demand, TOV will implement an electronic signage program which would
display messages on the town arterials regarding traffic conditions within the
town parking garages, drop off zone traffic status conditions and lift maze
conditions at the base portals.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -58
12
IV: EMPLOYEE PARKING
Presently 18 to 20 VA employees park at Golden Peak of the approximately
500 employees who are based there in Peak Periods. Another 25 to 30 spaces are
seasonally easonall leased by VA from third parties for employee parking. The remaining
90% of Golden Peak based employees park in public lots, use public transit, or use
other private parking spots.
(A.) Tier I . The following management techniques will be implemented
sequentially upon redevelopment to mitigate employee transportation
impacts and serve the needs of the community's employees:
1. VA, together with TOV, will enter into negotiations with the Colorado
Department of Transportation to secure, if possible, an employee park and
ride intercept lot on Highway 6 in Eagle -Vail. This lot would be used for VA
and TOV employees to park their vehicles in Eagle -Vail and utilize
established public transportation routes to continue on to their job locations
in Vail. In the event the CDOT site is not available or unsuitable, other sites
will be located and secured for a park and ride lot.
2. To the extent space availability exists during non -peak periods, V. A. will
permit managed employee parking by reservation in the parking structure at
Golden Peak.
2/21/2012
7-3 -s9
13
3. During Peak Periods VA employees will carpool to the soccer field lot
pursuant to the Holiday Traffic and Parking Plan as managed and operated
by TOV or alternatively as managed by VA.
4. During the Christmas peak period and, in fact, extending beyond it from
December 24 until January 1 in any given year, VA will implement its
Holiday Traffic and Parking Plan. During this period VA will provide free
bus tickets for the Avon/Beaver Creek bus system to all Golden Peak based
staff. Parking in VA lots such as West Day Lot and North Day Lot, will be
available for free to employees who carpool. Employees not carpooling will
be charged a fee.
5. VA will add the Holy Cross Lot to its parking inventory for peak - period
employee carpooling.
6. As necessary, VA will assign employees carpooling locations in particular
lots among the West Day, North Day and Holy Cross properties and manage
entry access into these properties.
7. VA will lease 20 parking spaces from a third party or, alternatively,
purchase 20 "blue" parking passes from the TOV for parking in the town
structures.
8. Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and the ski season, the
Assessment Committee or its designee will monitor the Tier I techniques
2/21/2012
7 -3 -(0
14
described above, assess the operational results, and make recommendations
for alterations or enhancements to the plan.
(B.) Tier H . In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and employee parking and transit is still a
concern, additional methods of employee transit and parking will be
undertaken at the recommendation of the Assessment Committee or its
designee.
V. MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS
(A.) Tier I. Management measures to be undertaken during peak periods in
a sequential fashion concurrently with redevelopment include:
1. VA will extend its periods of mountain operations later into the day (e.g.
until 4:00 p.m.) to spread out the departure times of skiers from the
mountain.
2. Employee passes will be restricted during the Christmas Peak and
Presidents' weekend.
3. Improvements to the food and beverage offering at the base facility
restaurant, including apres ski and dinner offerings, will be designed to
attract the skiing public and stagger the public's departure from the portal .
4. VA will cooperate and coordinate with TOV and the Colorado
Department of Transportation regarding the installation of signage at base
facilities, including Golden Peak, advising departing skiers of road conditions
2/21/2012
7 -3 -61
• 15
and, if conditions are adverse, inviting or advising departing skiers to stay
later in the village and draw out their departure times.
5. Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and the ski season the
Assessment Committee or its designee will assess mountain operation impacts
and make recommendations for adjustments or improvements to the Tier I
management techniques described above.
(B,) Tier H . In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and congestion still exists in the portal
during peak periods, then the following successive management efforts will
be undertaken in the next succeeding ski season or Peak Period:
1. VA and /or TOV will implement additional Tier I measures which have
not Y et been employed or will enhance those Tier I techniques already in use
according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee or its
designee.
2. VA will continue to take operational measures to balance the
functionality and use of its portals, as well as on- mountain circulation.
V1, DEVO/LOCAL AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
"DEVO" is an abbreviation for the Vail Development Team, a Children's Ski
School Program consisting of 300 children which offers specialized ski school classes
to
the children of locals and front range skiers. The high concentration of locals
2/21/2012
7 -3 -62
16
participating in the program results in an inordinately high drop oft' impact on non-
peak Saturdays which mimics peak conditions throughout the season.
,A, Tier I - Measures to be sequentially undertaken concurrently with
redevelopment include:
1. The DEVO program does not run during the Christmas Peak or over
Presidents' Weekend. The program will continue to be limited in this
fashion.
2. Arrivals for the DEVO program will be staggered in advance of the
typical ski school or mountain opening times. DEVO arrival will be
scheduled for 8:30 a.m., one -half hour prior to lift opening. Pick up will
likewise be scheduled earlier than regular mountain closure.
3. Drop oft' for DEVO will be formalized and managed by DEVO instructors
in the Golden Peak skier drop off zones to prevent stacking into the streets.
4. VA will investigate splitting the DEVO program further and basing some
portion of the program in Lionshead or staging it at other drop off zones.
For example, moving the Freestyle Program, approximately 15% of the
DEVO skiers, to another drop off zone such as the TOV structure will be
explored and implemented if alternate drop offs are created. Staging DEVO
out of the Lionshead Teen Center will also be explored with TOV, including
the creation of short -term, 30 minute, drop -oft' and pick -up parking spaces in
the Lionshead Parking Structure.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -63
17
5. DEVO race events will be moved in whole or in part to other local courses.
6. Upon the conclusion of each ski season the Assessment Committee or its
designee will assess the impacts caused by the DEVO program and make
recommendations for adjustment or improvement to the Tier I techniques
described above.
(B.) Tier II . In the event that some or all of the Tier I techniques have been
implemented and DEVO still adversely impacts portal congestion then the
following successive management efforts will be undertaken in the neat ski
season or Peak Period:
1. DEVO will be relocated in part or in whole to other portals, including
down - valley portals accessing Beaver Creek Mountain.
2. DEVO and other such local programs will be terminated.
VII. SKI CLUB VAIL
Ski Club Vail is a private, non - profit ski club which is not owned, operated,
or managed by VA. VA, however, provides on- mountain access for training and
racing events for Ski Club Vail. Ski Club Vail training accounts for approximately
60,000 gate starts per year and Ski Club Vail racing activities account for an
additional 15,000 gate starts per year. Generally racing activity, including Ski Club
Vail, runs from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. and frequently occurs seven days per week
during the ski season.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -(4
18 '
(A.) Tier I . Management measures to be taken concurrently with
redevelopment include:
1. Ski Club Vail programs will be coordinated with other special events, as
was done during the 1994/1995 season, to prevent overcrowding of groups in
the portal at any one time.
2. Start times for Ski Club Vail during peak periods and high season will be
coordinated so that Ski Club Vail arrival times will occur before the 9 a.m.
peak hour rush and will be terminated later in the afternoon to spread the
departure from the ski mountain.
3. VA will allow and encourage Ski Club Vail users to arrive and depart
using the General Skier Drop -off Zone.
4. Upon the conclusion of the ski season, the Assessment Committee or its
designee will monitor the Tier I techniques described above, assess the
impact of Ski Club Vail on the use and efficiencies of the portal and make
recommendations for alterations or enhancements to the plan.
(B.) Tier H . In the event that some or all of the Tier I measures have been
implemented and Ski Club Vail still poses logistical problems for the
optimized use of the portal, the recommendations of the Assessment
Committee or its designee will be implemented.
1. Ski Club Vail will be terminated in whole or in part in its use of the
Golden Peak race courses and base facility.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -65
19
VIII. ADULT AND CHILDREN'S SKI SCHOOLS
The Golden Peak portal is somewhat unique in that it supports a full
children's ski school, including nursery, as well as the adult ski school.
Approximately 37,000 ski school students per season, or an average 264 per day, are
serviced at this portal.. The size and scope of ski school activities in the portal are
naturally constrained by the size of the base area facilities. The Children'.s Ski
School in particular is functionally limited by the building size and the ski yard
available for introductory children's classes.
(A.) Tier I . Management measures to be undertaken in a sequential fashion
concurrently with redevelopment include:
j 1. Ski school classes will be coordinated with morning arrivals of other
special user groups so that ski school classes will sequentially follow the
arrival times of other groups and activities and spread out portal arrivals.
2. VA will emphasize a "one stop shop" of lessons and equipment, including
overnight storage, which will reduce the need for arrival by private
automobile as well as reduce dwell times of automobiles which do arrive for
drop off.
3. VA will promote in its marketing materials the convenience of public
transit which services the area.
4. VA will explore the implementation of telephone or electronic
preregistration in ski school, including the Children's Ski School, in an effort
2/21/2012
7 -3 -66
20
to cut down the dwell times of automobiles dropping skiers off for ski school
registration.
5. Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and the ski season, the
Assessment Committee or its designee will assess congestion in the portal
related to ski school activities and make recommendations for adjustments or
improvements to the Tier I management techniques discussed above.
(B.) Tier II . In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and congestion associated with the ski
schools still results in crowding in the portal then the following additional
management steps will be sequentially implemented:
1. The recommendations for improvements or adjustments made by the
Assessment Committee or its designee will be instituted in the following
season or Peak Period.
2. VA will make improvements to its Lionshead Ski School facilities upon the
redevelopment of that portal taking pressure off of the Golden Peak portal.
IX. LOADING, DELIVERY AND TRASH REMOVAL
The Golden Peak Base Facility requires the delivery of food and liquor for its
restaurant operations and trash and recycling pick -up for all functions located at
Golden Peak. Currently, food and liquor delivery takes place daily between 6:00
a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and again between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The majority of
2/21/2012
7 -3 -(7
21
food and liquor deliveries are first sorted out at the Gondola Building in Lionshead,
then delivered to Golden Peak by VA employees.
Currently, there is no formal loading dock at Golden Peak which results in
the need for two (2) daily food and liquor delivery trips. In addition, there is a trash
compactor at Golden Peak currently which results in the need for daily trash
collection at 7:00 a.m.. Recycling pick -up is done by VA and occurs as needed
concurrently with food and liquor drop -off. It is estimated that current delivery
times will remain the same to avoid interference with skier traffic, though the
addition of a formal loading area and storage may reduce the number of daily
delivery trips by VA from two (2) to one (1). The addition of a trash compactor at
Golden Peak should reduce the frequency of daily trips required for trash pick -up.
(A.) Tier I . Measures to be undertaken concurrently with redevelopment
include:
1. Delivery times will be managed so that no delivery or trash pick -up will
occur during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
2. The Assessment Committee will review and assess truck deliveries and
service at the conclusion of each ski season and make recommendations for
alterations or improvements as necessary.
(B.) Tier H . In the event that some or all of the above measures have been
implemented and if loading, delivery and /or trash removal results in
2/21/2012
7 -3 -(8
22 ,
operational inefficiencies in the portal then the following management
techniques will be implemented in the neat succeeding ski season:
1. The recommendations of the Assessment Committee will be implemented.
2. VA will endeavor to deliver larger loads directly to Golden Peak and store
additional food and beverage on site thus reducing the number of trips or
will arrange night delivery to avoid traffic congestion.
X. SNOW MANAGEMENT
Snow management at Golden Peak will be conducted in a manner similar to
that in other VA portals. Snow storage zones have been depicted upon the revised
snow storage map prepared and submitted with the Application.
(A.) Tier I . The following management efforts will be undertaken with
respect to snow storage and management during the ski season, including
peak and high season periods.
1. VA will by contract with third parties or through its own forces plow all
areas of vehicular circulation as depicted on the Snow Management Plan by
6 a.m. every morning upon a snowfall of 4 or more inches.
2. VA, through its own forces, will remove snow from sidewalks and plaza
areas depicted upon the Snow Management Plan by means of a bobcat, an
ATV and /or by hand between the hours of 7 and 8:30 on all mornings
following a snowfall of 4 inches or more.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -69
23
3. VA will store snow in temporary snow storage areas within the drop off
zones and within two to seven days of a 4" snowfall will use loaders and
trucks to remove the snow stored there and transport it from the site.
Impacts on traffic congestion will determine the speed and frequency of
removal of snow from the temporary snow storage areas. VA will remove
snow immediately if snow storage results in congestion in the drop -off zones
causing auto stacking into the street.
4. At the end of each Peak Period and the ski season the Assessment
Committee or its designee will review snow removal performance during the
season and, as necessary, make recommendations for adjustments or
improvements to the Tier I techniques described above.
(B.) Tier H . In the event that some or all of the Tier I techniques designed to
manage snow have not effectively cleared the snow from the drop off zones or
other public areas and /or have impacted circulation on the public streets,
then VA will implement recommendations made by the Assessment
Committee or its designee.
XI. SPECIAL EVENTS AND SKI RACING
Golden Peak is the site of many ski races and special events during the course
of a ski season. Typically the racing season begins in mid- December and runs
through early April. Training for ski racing can be broken down as follows: Ski
Club Vail generates 60,000 gate starts per year; high school programs add 7,500
2/21/2012
7 -3 -70
24 .
gate starts per year; and corporate /club training events add 7,500 more starts per
year. Actual racing starts for these three user groups are approximately 15,000 gate
starts per year for Ski Club Vail, with an additional 2,000 starts per year for local
high school programs, and 10,000 starts per year for corporate and club racing.
These total roughly 102,000 gate starts per year and average 4.5 ski racing events
per week. Daily activity for ski racing typically commences at 8:30 a.m. and
continues until 4:30 p.m. Of these race events two or three major televised events
occur each year, not all of which are headquartered out of the Golden Peak course.
These include the Pro Tour, FIS World Cup and North American Trophy Series
races. In 1999 the World Championships will be held at Vail and opening
ceremonies are scheduled for Golden Peak. Race starts and demand for training
space have been growing steadily for the past decade.
Special Events.which occur at Golden Peak, in addition to the routine racing
programs, include various snowboarding events which draw typically 100 to 250
people, the U.S. Pro Tour.which draws about 500 people, and Hot Winter Nights
events which draw 500 to 1000 people typically in February and March and up to
3000 people during the Christmas holiday.
(A.) Tier I . Management techniques already utilized and in place at Golden
Peak or which will be implement with redevelopment include:
2/21/2012
7 -3 -71
- • 1.0 25
1. Snowboarding events typically held in non -peak periods are usually small
with minimal impact on portal arrivals or use. Arrivals and staging of event
participants will be managed with VA personnel on an "as needed" basis.
2. Hot Winter Nights events are held during off hours and do not interfere
with other portal arrivals or demands on infrastructure. These will be
managed with VA personnel on an "as needed" basis.
3. Major events, such as televised FIS racing events, the World
Championships, major bicycle race events, and summer fireworks will be
managed through the standard special event permitting process of the TOV.
4. At the end of each Peak Period and ski season the Assessment Committee
or its designee will review and make recommendations concerning Special
Events and racing activities at Golden Peak and their impacts on the portal
and congestion in the surrounding infrastructure.
(B.) Tier U . In the event some or all of the Tier I techniques have been
implemented and congestion has still resulted at the portal which adversely
effects traffic or surrounding town infrastructure then VA will implement the
recommendations of the Assessment Committee or its designee in the
following ski season or Peak Period. In addition the following successive
management techniques will be implemented:
1. Special events will be moved in part from this portal to down valley
locations.
2/21/2012
7 -3 -72
VAIL HOMEOWI ERs ASSOCIATIOI , II C.
President - Gail Ellis Secretary - Judith Berkowitz Treasurer - Rob Ford Executive Director - Jim Lamont
Directors: John Gorsuch - Alan Kosloff - Kent Logan - John Lohre - Trygve Myhren
Larry Stewart - Miguel Jauregui Rojas - Doug Tansill
Emeritus: Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Richard Conn - Patrick Gramm - Eugene Mercy - Bill Morton - Gretta Parks
In Memoriam: Bob Galvin
February 4, 2012
Town of Vail
Mayor and Town Council
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail Rezoning.
The Vail Homeowners Association has received communications from its membership that indicate there are
apparent traffic congestion issues in the Golden Peak thru Golf Course neighborhoods which have continued
unabated since the adoption of the Golden Peak Ski Base Plan. Now with the proposal to redevelop the Ski and
Snowboard Club Vail (SSCV) site it seems appropriate to revisit the traffic flow issues for this area.
The resolution of the neighborhoods' traffic congestion is not the SSCV's sole responsibility. However, while
it is their responsibility to resolve any traffic problems their development causes, it would be a welcome benefit
to this redevelopment effort to see wider participation on the resolution of these challenges. Manor Vail has
redeveloped recently and the traffic control at the Golden Peak Ski Base has not held up to the promises made.
The Town of Vail review process in practice requires that a development plan be provided by any property
owner seeking rezoning. The purpose of the plan is to demonstrate that the supporting infrastructure for any
substantive increase in density or change -in -use can be provided on the site, without recourse to special
treatment or variances. It seems appropriate at this stage to make sure that all the traffic problems are addressed
throughout the neighborhoods involved so that they also work well with the SSCV's development plan.
The Association is disappointed that the Planning and Environmental Commission did not require such a
development plan at its public hearing for a rezoning, as has been required in practice. If the development plan
had been presented, neighbors could have commented specifically on where the traffic problems seem to start
and make some suggestions as to how to alleviate them. It is disappointing that the Town of Vail seems to be
rather arbitrary in its enforcement of their own development and review criteria.
The Association observes that the neighborhood worked with both the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts to create a
unified zone district for the Golden Peak Ski Base Area, which includes the SSCV site. This was done, so that
there would be a harmonious neighborhood plan to address building massing, on -site uses and infrastructure
functionality. Increasing traffic congestion in the Golden Peak neighborhood, particular on Vail Valley Drive
and on some of its tributary streets is the consequence of growth and the changes approved by the Town.
Therefore, as part of any rezoning and redevelopment effort which could further aggravate ski base related
traffic congestion, we would hope a development plan for the capacity of the intended uses be provided prior to
any approval, rezoning or otherwise. The development plan should address the functionality of onsite traffic
circulation, parking, loading & delivery and drop - off/pick -up requirement needed to service the size of the
development and uses proposed. The process should include all adjacent and affected property owners in
drafting such a plan as it would be a huge step towards its eventual success. In this regard the Association, if
requested would be pleased to help coordinate this effort.
The Homeowners Association wishes to reiterate its disappointment that the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) did not follow its own requirements in demanding a development plan before any zoning
changes are acted upon. It is difficult for affected parties to participate in the process if such process is
arbitrarily altered by the Commission. It is requested that the Town Council reverse the PEC's decision and
table the rezoning ordinance until a development plan is forthcoming from the applicant.
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 82725b180o12 FAX: (970) 827 -5856
E -mail: vha a)vail.net I Web Site: www.vaillioincowncrs.com
As a resident of the golf course area, I am writing to express my
very serious concern about the redevelopment of the Ski Club
Vail property.
Weekends on the stretch of road between the Golden Peak
Building and the Ski Club Vail building defy description.
Already the town starts putting cones out hours in advance of
what we have all come to know will be a gridlock of traffic.
Parents stop cars while they unload kids. Guests put cars in
park in the middle of the road as they take skis off of racks.
Kids dart in and out of cars without looking- all while carrying
the massive amount of equipment needed for the day. Or their
parents leave the car unattended while they carry their
family's equipment to the curb. And when they're finished with
that, they decide the best way to head back to the parking
structure is to make a U turn in between the cones!
Buses can't make the turn into lots because of backed up
traffic. It's not unusual to have traffic backed up on the west
end all the way up to Terra Bistro. There have been many times
when it's been impossible make the turn at the stop sign on the
Frontage Road south to Vail Valley Drive. That's when as a
resident, you make the decision to go down to the Golf Course
turn and double back.
The point I'm making is that the situation as it is not only is
inconvenient- not to mention infuriating- but it's absolutely
dangerous. Anything that brings one more car, one more body,
one more bicycle, one more anything is unacceptable.
Once again, we are trying to accommodate specific needs in an
area that was not designed for the kind of traffic flow that
these popular programs have generated. And while we should
2/21/2012
7 -4 -2
all be grateful for the enthusiasm that has been created by the
sport itself and racing training in particular, we still have the
responsibility to balance those needs with the needs of the
community and in this case, the neighborhood.
For the residents of the Vail Golf Course it's not the case of
moving next to the airport and then complaining about the
noise. We live here and bought here because of its proximity to
town and the quiet nature of the surroundings. To change that
dynamic after the fact is not fair to the taxpayer who supports
the Town of Vail.
Kaye Ferry
2/21/2012
7 -4 -3
From: Ahgramm(cDaol.com fmailto:Ahgramm(cDaol.coml
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Re: lack of plan
A complete, thorough, and detailed plan MUST be presented before any action can take
place. The entire character of Vail on this, the east side of Bridge Street could be affected.
What has been traditionally a residential and 'old town" could now face extinction.
Has any research been done to see if the area could be accessed from the east? - - - -- rather
than using Vail Valley Drive ? Annemie Gramm (413 Gore Creek Drive)
2/21/2012
7 -4 -4
From: Lyda Hill fmailto:lyda(aD-lhholdings.netl
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 5:18 PM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Ski Club building
Please wait until a development plan has been created before considering the project.
Lyda Hill
Manor Vail #461
Sent from my iPhone
2/21/2012
7 -4 -5
From: Diane Milligan fmailto :diane(cDmountainmax.netl
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:56 AM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail
We encourage the Town Council to delay any decision on the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail
request for rezoning. The Rams -Horn Condominium Association firmly believes that a
development plan should first be in place and there be a reasonable time for neighborhood
input. We would like the review process to include a re -visit of agreements that were put into
place when the current Golden Peak Ski Base was constructed. There were numerous
discussions regarding traffic and pedestrian safety and a plan was developed to help address
those issues. We are not certain that the plan is currently being followed and whether it may
also need some revisions. Although we are supportive of the efforts of Ski and Snowboard Club
Vail and its importance to the community, it should not be excused from presenting a
development plan prior to any decision on rezoning.
Thank you for your consideration
John and Diane L. Milligan
Rams -Horn Managers and Owners Representatives
2/21/2012
7 -4 -6
From: tlowrey753(cDaol.com fmailto:tlowrey753(cDaol.coml
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 4:09 AM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: redevelopment
Please consider the impact of traffic congestion before approving the re- zoning of ski
snowboard club Vail. It is hard to envision anything short of a nightmare at 3pm in the
afternoon when cars already line Vail Valley Drive for miles.
Thank you,
Tracy Lenehan Manor Vail owner
2/21/2012
7 -4 -7
From: Don Childress fmai Ito: Don. Child ress(a)childressklein.coml
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:40 PM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Vail Ski and Snowboard Club rezoning
Gentlemen,
My wife and I own Unit F -6 in Northwoods at 600 Vail Valley Drive. It is our understanding that
the Ski and Snowboard Club are petitioning to come before you to rezone their property which is
clearly their right to do so. We are concerned that their petition is coming before you without a
Development Plan in place. We respectfully request that you decline to hear this rezoning until
such time as a Development Plan has been submitted. As you very well know, it is through the
submission of and vetting of a proposed Development Plan that the community has an
opportunity to weigh in on a proposed rezoning.
I believe that the Ski and Snowboard Club is a good organization for the kids of Vail and we
would like to see them with a new building as their existing structure is both old and
unattractive. That being said, we think that it is wrong for the Town Council to consider this
rezoning application with a Development Plan.
I thank you in advance for your consideration.
J. Donald Childress
2/21/2012
7 -4 -8
From: bbruecker@aol.com fmai Ito: bbruecker @ aol.coml
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:38 PM
To: Council Dist List
Cc: jim @butterwoth.net fhp911@yahoo.com terencebritton @comcast.net stephwhitt @comcast.net
Ibarnes @vailhomerentals.net vha @vail.net bbruecker@aoLcom
Subject: Request forDevelopmet Plan for Ski & Snowboard Club Proposal
Dear Town Council,
As the Board President from Vail Trails East, I am writing to request that a Development Plan of the Ski
and Snowboard Club be presented to the citizens of Vail and the residents affected by the proposed
redevelopment. I attah herewith a copy of our initial letter of January 25th on this subject.
We believe a number of the residences will be affected by the proposed redevelopment. We
respectfully request that a Develoment Plan be in place before th rezoning is approved. Among the
numerous concerns are traffic congestion, parking, and the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
We believe that as elected representatives, you should follow the rezoning process.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
Barbara Bruecker
Board President, Vail Trails East Homeowners Association
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: B Bruecker fmailto:bbruecker @aol.coml
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:48 PM
To: Council Dist List
Cc: Lamont Jim
Subject: Ski and Snowboard Club redevelopment
Dear Town Council,
I am writing on behalf of Vail Trail EastCondominium Association and as a homeowner in the Golden
Peak area. I find it very concerning that the Town of Vail would move forward without a development
plan in place for the Ski and Snowboard Club redevelopment .
I would request that you please wait on any approval for this redevelopment . The neighboring
communities should be allowed input and the proper development plan should be in order.
Best Regards,
Barbara Bruecker
President of Vail Trails East
bbruecker@aol.com
2/21/2012
7 -4 -9
Barbara Bruecker, Board President
Vail Trails East Condominium Association
bbruecker (@aol.com
303 - 324 -5223
January 25 2012
Town of Vail
RE: Plan to redevelop the Ski and Snowboard Club and add the new Gondola,
Dear Town of Vail,
On behalf of the Board of the Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, I wish to express our concern for
the redevelopment of the Ski and Snowboard Club. Specifically, the Vail Trails East Board is very
concerned about the increase in the traffic in the area that this could bring. In addition, the traffic flow
itself is of concern to the owners of the Vail Trails East Association.
We ask that the Town engage in an impact study and rezoning meeting and include the neighboring
condominium associations and if approved to carry out this project is a manner that minimizes the
impact on the residence owners at Vail Trails East and other neighboring homeowners.
Very truly yours,
Barbara Bruecker
Board President,
Vail Trails East Homeowners Association
2/21/2012
7 -4- 10
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Foxhall A. Parker [ mailto:foxp @optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:58 AM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail Rezoning
Gentlemen:
We are owners of Unit #1, Texas Town Houses, 483 Gore Creek Drive. Vail.
We are writing to endorse the content of the Vail Homeowners Association's letter to you on this
subject dated February 4, 2012.
Please do not approve any zoning changes until a development plan has been made available for for
study and comment by neighborhood property owners and other affected parties.
Sincerely,
Foxhall and Helen Parker
2/21/2012
7 -4- 11
From: McCleary, Bob fmai Ito: bmccleary (a)desti nation hotels. coml
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 7:36 PM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail rezoning request
The Manor Vail Condominium Association respects what SSCV does for local athletes, the
exposure they bring to the town and very much appreciates the business opportunities the
organization provides.
That said, the association's Board of Managers have expressed some concerns about the
anticipated redevelopment that drives the requested zoning change. The concerns include
traffic impacts, building size, height and scale, site aesthetics and upkeep. Through
management, they have requested information, at least at the conceptual level, that might help
them better understand what is being considered. Apparently no conceptual design exists so the
concerns persist.
Traffic concerns include both volume and pedestrian safety. At times long waits are necessary
to get to and from Manor Vail. Pedestrians, people getting dropped off /picked up from the
various venues and vehicles all share the same space often in a state of chaos. A number of
factors contribute and certainly not all SSCV. However, with no development plan there is no
way to ascertain if their project will make the situation worse, or if there is an opportunity to
improve the current condition.
The proposed new zoning allows for a substantially larger building than currently exists. At the
PEC hearing a question about the height of the existing building was asked. No one could
answer it, but the proposed zoning would allow for a building 43 feet in height. That would seem
to equate to approximately 4 stories, the current building is 2 stories. This is a substantial
increase which could be detrimental to MVCA homeowners. Understanding there is a need for
more space for the athletes and a desire for residential units leads to an assumption the building
size will increase but to what extent? Again, with no development plan MVCA can only assume
the worst.
It would seem appropriate that a development plan be submitted to support a rezoning request
before such a request be approved. This was required of Manor Vail when this association
proposed its redevelopment and that allowed for a productive planning process and final
product.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob McCleary, CHA I General Manager
Manor Vail Lodge 1 595 East Vail Valley Drivel Vail, CO 81657
Office 970 - 343 -6101 1 Fax 970 - 476 -5683 1 Email: bmccleary (a)destinationhotels.com
2/21/2012
7 -4- 12
From: mcquppie(CDaol.com fmailto:mcquppie(cDaol.coml
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 6:33 PM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Development Plan
To the Town Council;
Please do not make a huge mistake! It is important to have a development plan in place before
approving the rezoning. DO NOT MAKE AN EXCEPTION, since you require everyone else to
provide one.
Thank you.
Peggy Fuller
Vail Homeowner
303 - 902 -6416
2/21/2012
7 -4- 13
From: Bill Bethke fmailto:bethke151(cDyahoo.coml
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Concerns about the SSCV Proposal
Dear Council Members,
I had hoped to convey my concerns about SSCV's rezoning /redevelopment proposal at last night's
meeting, but I heard right before the meeting that they had requested to defer their presentation until the
February 21, 2012 meeting. Here are my thoughts
I am fully supportive of renovating or rebuilding SSCV to provide a better facility for athletes and
coaches. SSCV has done a great job in developing on -slope training facilities, and the existing building is
clearly not consistent with what is needed to support a world class ski and snowboard program.
BUT, I am troubled by the approach which is being proposed. Adding residential units strikes me as the
wrong solution for the athletes, the coaches, and the community. Consider what adding residential units
does: it adds at least one floor to the building, blocking views of the mountain and continuing the alarming
slide in zoning standards in Vail; it will further exacerbate traffic and parking problems which will get worse
even without residential units; and, it results in a less than optimal training facility. Think about some of
the things that are required if you add dwelling units on top of the building: elevators and stairs from the
garage to the top floor, four dedicated parking spots, and condo decks and condo access on the slope
side -- none benefitting the athletes and coaches, and all requiring design considerations which will detract
from the intended purpose of this facility. Even without residential units, the facility will nearly triple in size.
SSCV is proposing the inclusion of dwelling units strictly for the sake of financial expediency. I repeat,
strictly financial expediency -- in their own words, "to finance the project during this economic
downturn." And you, the Council, are being asked to rule on this without hearing anything about the
tradeoffs and potential alternatives. How much more square footage will be required for dwellings and the
additional elevators, stairs, parking, and other amenities needed to support the residential space? How
much lower, smaller, and more efficient and aesthetically appealing would the facility be without dwellings?
Are we happy walling off the mountain? Is a residential property with SSCV underneath it really a world
class training facility? Using the economic downturn as an excuse is short- sighted. Launching a dedicated
fund raising effort to build a world class facility would not be the easy route for SSCV, but it is certainly
possible in this community, and the resulting product would be one which SSCV and the community could
be proud of. I urge the Council to delay approval and ask SSCV to submit a development proposal without
residential units.
Thanks for your consideration ... and hard work.
William M. Bethke
Manor Vail #145
595 E. Vail Valley Drive
Vail, CO 81657
( bethke151(a)-yahoo.com )
2/21/2012
7 -4- 14
Pinos del Norte Association, Inc.
600 Vail Valley Drive
Vail, CO 81657
February 13, 2012
Town of Vail Planning Commission
Vail, Colorado
I =T7!T 1 1 R 111 1
..
To Whom it May Concern:
The Board of Pinos del Norte Association, Inc. recently learned of a proposal by SSCV to
rezone its present site on Golden Peak for the redevelopment of the existing building and the
expansion of its services and facilities. The proposed rezoning application suggests the
possibility of allowing residential use of some portion of the existing site.
Pinos residents are concerned about the impact of this project, not only in connection
with the residential usage of the site on Golden Peak, but also as to the likely increase in
vehicular traffic and congestion near Golden Peak, particularly on weekends during the winter
ski season.
When the Golden Peak Ski Base was redeveloped, the rezoning and redevelopment plans
proceeded simultaneously. We feel strongly that this should be the case with these proposed
developments, thereby allowing affected neighborhoods to better understand the possible impact
on safety and traffic along Vail Valley Drive.
While we all welcome improvements to the Town of Vail, the safety of pedestrians
should be of paramount concern. Further, crossing the driveway at Ski Club Vail is usually very
icy, and often blocked by cars trying to pick up children. Because it is so treacherous crossing
the Ski Club Vail driveway, we frequently walk on the snow to the Gold Peak bus stop (south of
the current Ski Club Vail building). We do not know if this will be impacted.
A building design for SSCV should be required prior to any rezoning application, as well
as a proposal for traffic and congestion mitigation along Vail Valley Drive and the Skier Drop
Off area From the plans submitted, we cannot tell exactly where the building will be, how tall it
will be, and whether it will block the existing recreation path.
We are confident that with the input of affected neighborhoods, improvements to the
Town of Vail will proceed in a thoughtful manner, mindful of the needs of pedestrians, skiers,
and vehicles alike.
del lJortA Association, Inc.
n. n.1rnT reveen • v , n
2/21/2012
7 -4- 15
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012
Ski and Snowboard Club Vail Rezoning Request
Vail Town Council Hearing
s
�00�
t*
rowN of VA
Commurii�y Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -1
Redevelopment Process
• Rezoning to SBR2: Would allow
two (2) dwelling units on site
• Development Plan: Detailed
review of development including
study of impacts
• Development plan review after
rezoning to ensure ability to
include two (2) dwelling units
• Vail Town Code does not require
concurrent review of rezoning and
development plan
Design
Review
Development
Plan
Rezoning
Master Planning
Land Planning 101
0
TOWN OF VAIL
Com Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -2
Vail Village Filing 7
Part of Tract B
(598 Vail Valley Drive - Ski Clux
L i 0EE4
150 300
�kd by the Tau- Oft GISTeem. Utt If rh{s m *9 tGe tryen WK-6y. Tf Tm mWl etesrut rwrenr hrc m:aerxv ortheiMameelan ca dtl herein.
(Wre�e ahvxn, psml Gna Work is ypmximety)
Last Modifiod January 16, 2012
TE N 6F VA
Why rezone?
• SSCV was rezoned SBR
District because the
proposed redevelopment
encroached onto Golden
Peak
• Ski Base Recreation District
is specific to Golden Peak
development plan
• SSCV is not part of Golden
Peak development plan area
• Other processes (SDD, text
amendment) have
drawbacks
TOM OF VAIL
CommuAy Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -4
21
1999 approved site plan
10,000 square feet of
buildable area
k �
TOWN OF VAIL
Per the approved
development plan
60% max 35 feet
40% max 40 feet
1 DU/ 8 acres
30% of gross floor area in
lodge
Per the approved
development plan
Per the approved
development plan, all
disturbed areas without
structure, parking or patios
must be landscaped
Per parking and management
plan
PEC review of development
plan
2/21/2012
7 -5 -5
Per the approved
development plan
43 feet and per the Vail
Village Master Plan
8 DU/ acre
(2 DU on subject property)
Per the approved
development plan
Per the approved
development plan
Per the approved
development plan; 95% of
required parking shall be
within the building
In accordance with Chapter
12 -10
PEC review of development
plan
Minimum Lot Size 40 acres with
1 acre buildable area
Height Comparison- SBR & SBR2
SBR2= 43 feet maximum SBR= 60% @35 feet, 40% @40 feet
TOWN OF VAIL
Com 212111 Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -6
Height Comparison- SBR & SBR2
TOWN OF VAIL
Com 212111 Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -7
Vail Village Master Plan
i
jWL 2w
Yle.
OPP
A r���r � Y�SY![SYY'
- EAST GORE
CREEK
,
{.�. �•P_� r''. - :. #rY.'F� 44,,i'• 1R�l RRl[Y �DLi''k - _ r
r
s p -
_ R .� GOLDEN PEAK
J'
TOWS' OF VAIL
Commurii�y Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -8
s
Vail Village Master Plan
GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE SUB -AREA ( #10)
The Golden Peak Ski Base Sub -Area has traditionally
served as a recreational activity center throughout the
year. The Golden Peak Ski Base facility provides one of
four access portals to Vail Mountain during the winter
months, and accommodates a number of the Town's
recreation programs during the summer... The further
redevelopment of this area will serve to reinforce its role as
a major ski base and recreational activity center for the
entire community. Development or redevelopment of this
sub -area will attract additional traffic and population into
this area and may have significant impacts upon portions
of Sub Areas 6 and 7.
TOWN OF VAIL
Com Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -9
Ski Base Recreation 2 District Purpose
• Provide sites for facilities for the operation of a ski mountain
• A variety of other.. uses and activities, including.. residential,
public and semipublic uses.. associated with a vibrant resort
community
• Subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan
• Development within this district shall be evaluated based
upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this title
• Provide "compelling public benefits which further the public
interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the
landowner
TOWN OF VAIL
Com 212111 Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -10
PEC Recommendation
• On January 30, ' R
4
2012, the PEC
recommended;
I
approval of the
rezoning
application to the
Vail Town Council
• Vote: 4 -2 -1
(Rediker, Pierce
opposed; Cartin
recused)
0 TOWN OF VAIL
Com' // ' Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -11
Town Council Action
• Does the Town Council want to approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012?
N
i
TOM OF VAI
S a At
Y
a a,
CommuANy Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -12
��I
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012
Ski and Snowboard Club Vail Rezoning Request
Vail Town Council Hearing
February 21, 2012
s
�00�
t*
rowN of va ii�
Commurii�y Development Department February 21, 2012
7 -5 -13
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEMO
MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Wayne Lowell, President Board of Managers, Manor Vail Condominium
DATE: February 16, 2012
Regarding: Ski and Snovvboand Club Vail Expansion Proposal
4s the Board of Managers of the Manor Vail Condominium Association vearesubmittin0this
memorandum un behalf of our 14U property owners in the Manor Vail Lodge. In addition tothe
property owners, Manor Vail maintains a staff of 100 and on certain weekends the number of guests
staying at MV may be as many as 250.
Ski and Snowboard Club Vail isavalued part of our community, and we applaud their efforts in
developing and supporting future skiers and snoxvbuardars. They have done o marvelous job in
bringing ski and snowboard athletes and events to the slopes of Vail. Those in our rental pool at Manor
Vail have benefited from this activity.
We support SSCV'x desire to renovate and expand their facility at the base of Golden Peak, but xvewish
to ensure that the changes enhance, and are not detrimental to, our community. SSCVisseeking
approvals without spelling out in any detail what they want to do, nor is there any analysis of impacts.
The proposed project will unquestionably impact Vail residents and visitors to the Valley, as well as SSCV
staff and athletes. Some of our specific concerns are the following:
(I) Traffic. The amount of existing traffic at certain times of the year, and times of the day, is
almost unmanageable. Any addition to the SSCV will only increase the traffic problems.
/Z\ Safety. This issue io tied directly to the traffic problem. Frequently Manor Vail owners have
voiced concerns for the safety of children and adults as they attempt to cross near SSCV, the
Children's Ski School, and the Golden Peak base area. Onan almost daily basis during ski season
drivers attempt to bypass the stalled traffic and thus create a dangerous situation for
pedestrians ms well other motorists.
(3) Height While xvedo not know the specific details of the SSCV planned expansion, vve
understand that at least one and probably two floors are tobe added to the existing building
(which currently has a flat roof. Depending upon the topography of the parcel and placement
of the building such an expansion could significantly impact the views of Vail Mountain and the
open feeling at the base mfa wonderful mountain.
2/2|/20|2
(4) Mixed Use. The addition of dwelling units will invariably exacerbate the traffic, parking, safety
and height problems while adding nothing to the efficacy of the SSCV facility. The issues will be
exacerbated due to more around the clock activity associated with a building that has residential
units along with the current Ski Club operations. SSCV has indicated that their own needs will
nearly triple the size of the facility. Adding dwelling units will add at least one additional floor to
the building and require additional amenities which won't support the role of SSCV in our
community. Coupling residential units in a facility largely servicing children also introduces a
whole new range of safety issues.
As noted at the outset, we would like to be supportive of SSCV in the redevelopment of their facility;
however, it is impossible to do so without knowing what they are planning and how they intend to
address the various issues. At this juncture, we urge the Council to delay approval of any actions
associated with the SSCV proposal until a detailed proposal is submitted by SSCV and until adequate
time has been allowed for review and evaluation.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
2/21/2012
Lorelei Donaldson
From: bbruecker @aoi.com
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 1:32 PM
To: Council Dist List
Cc: terencebritton @comcast.net; jim @butterworth.net; fhp911 @yahoo.com;
stephwhitt @comcast.net; Ibarnes @vailhomerentals.net; bbruecker @aol.com
Subject: Vail Ski and Snow Board Club
Dear Town Council,
It has come to my attention that one of the presiding members of the Town Council may be a member of the Vail Ski and
Snowboard Club and we respectfully request that if this is in fact the case that this or any other conflicted Council
members recuse themselves on the issue of any approvals for the redevelopment of Vail Ski and Snowboard Club.
Very Truly Yours,
Barbara Bruecker, President
Vail Trails East Homeowners Association
2/21/2612
7 -7 -1
Lorelei Donaldson
From: Larry Barnes <lgbarnes @centurytel.net> on behalf of Ibarnes@vailhomerentals.net
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 4:13 PM
To: Council Dist List
Cc: Xavier Olazabal; operations @vailhomerentals,net
Subject: Vail Ski and Snow Board Club.
Dear Town Council,
I am writing as the Managing Agent for Pinos del Norte on Vail Valley Drive. There has been considerable concern voiced
to me by numerous homeowners living in the vicinity of Pinos del Norte expressing concern over the approval of such a
project being presented by Vail Ski and Snow Board Club. The general concerns are all negative and the specifics are
traffic congestion, parking and all around traffic flow. Please deny any further development of the project until the traffic
items have been thoroughly addressed and a complete discussion has been held with the condominium associations
impacted.
Sincerely,
Larry Barnes
2/21/2012
7 -7 -2
Lorelei Donaldson
From: Fred Pack <fhp911 @yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 5:07 PM
To: Council Dist List
Subject: Ski and Snowboard Club
Gentlemen:
I understand that no development plan is being required in regard to the Ski and Snowboard Club.
This (a) deprives residents the opportunity to comment or object as is the custom, and (b) gives the impression that you
are merely rubber - stamping the proposal.
Additionally, I believe the proposed new building is to be 3 feet taller than the existing structure - my building, Vail Traits
Fast, was denied a much smaller s"sue expansion years ago.
The procedures you seers to be following in this case do not appear customary or appropriate.
Thank you,
Fred Pack
1
2/21/2012
7 -7 -3
K �
TOWN OF'VA10
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, an ordinance amending Chapter 12 -6,
Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to establish a new zone district, Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth
details in regard thereto; and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, amending Chapter VII, Vail
Village Sub - Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area ( #6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to
Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail Village Master Plan, to include
recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC110040, PEC110041)
PRESENTER(S): Bill Gibson, Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session to introduce the
proposed new Vail Village Townhouse District (VVTD). Final action on the proposed ordinance
and resolution will be requested at a future public hearing.
BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2011, Planning and Environmental Commission
forwarded a recommendation of approval, with modifications, to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, by a vote of
4 -1 -1 (Rediker opposed and Pratt recused).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the
Vail Town Council listens to a Staff presentation, asks questions, and tables the first reading of
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, to its March 6, 2012,
public hearing for further deliberation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Town Council memorandum
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
Bridgewater letter
Mauriello Planning Group letter
Mauriello VVTH handout information 021712
2/21/2012
TOWN OF
0 ) VAIL 1
Memorandum
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 21, 2012
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, an ordinance amending Chapter 12 -6,
Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment,
Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Vail Village Townhouse (WT)
District, and setting forth details in regard thereto; and Resolution No. 7, Series of
2012, amending Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub - Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area
( #6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation and
Amendment, Vail Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a
new Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC110040, PEC110041)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this work session is to introduce the proposed new Vail Village
Townhouse District (VVTD). Final action on the proposed ordinance and resolution will
be requested at a future public hearing.
II. WHY CREATE A VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE ZONE DISTRICT?
The existing townhouse properties in Vail Village are currently zoned High
Density Multiple Family District (HDMF). The HDMF zone district was not
designed to address townhouse properties. The existing townhouses are legally
non - conforming in regard to current zoning standards (setbacks, density,
landscape area, parking, etc.)
• Two types of plats: some units are part of a larger development site (Vail
Townhouse Condominiums Lots 1 -6, Vail Trails, Vail Trails East) while others
units were platted as individual development sites (Vail Rowhouses Lots 7 -13,
Texas Townhomes).
2/21/2012
8 -1 -1
• Redevelopment is only possible with variances. Previous variances have
created inconsistency, inequity, and extended the length and complexity of the
development review process.
• Demo /Rebuild construction results in a loss of development rights.
• Creating a new zone district can streamline the development review process.
III. WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF THE NEW ZONE DISTRICT?
• Streamlining the development review process by establishing a new zone district
to specifically address townhouse properties which reduces legal non -
conformities and the need for future variances.
• Create incentives for redevelopment of existing townhouse properties.
• Preserve the existing residential character of the townhouse properties and the
neighborhood.
IV. HOW WILL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHANGE FROM HDMF TO VVTD?
Development
HDM F
VVTD
Standard
Permitted Uses
Lodges
Multiple - Family Dwellings
Multiple - Family Dwellings
Employee Housing Units
Employee Housing Units
Lot Area
10,000 sf buildable lot area
10,000 sf total lot area
30 ft min street frontage
2,000 sf individually platted lots
80 ft x 80 ft square
20 ft min street frontage
Setbacks
Front 20 ft
Front 20 ft
Sides 20 ft
Sides 20 ft
Rear 20 ft
Rear 20 ft
between attached units 0 ft
Building Height
Flat roof 45 ft
Flat roof 40 ft
Sloping roof 48 ft
Sloping roof 43 ft
Density
25 units /acre
greater of existing number and
25 units /acre
GRFA
0.76 ratio to buildable lot area
1.35 ratio to total lot area
+ "250 Additions"
No "250 Additions"
+ Interior Conversions
No Interior Conversions
+ Individual garage deduction
No individual garage deduction
Site Coverage
55% of total lot area
55% of total lot area
Town of Vail Page 2
2/21/2012
8 -1 -2
Landscape Area
30% of total lot area
20% of total lot area
Parking
75% of spaces enclosed
Surface parking allowed
Not allowed in front setback
Allowed in front setback
Allowed in street right -of -way
Design Guidelines
n/a
see Vail Village Master Plan
V. WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES?
• DEVELOPMENT PATTERN: residential row style development
• ARCHITECTURAL THEME: architecturally integrated units, uniformity vs.
individuality
• BUILDING FORM & MASSING: two -story facade appearance, building step -
backs from street
• STREET EDGE: street enclosure, continuity, visual interest
• FACADE: reduce appearance of building height, residential character, no
unbroken wall planes, street level garage doors discouraged
• CANTILEVERS: more than 3 feet discouraged and stacking not allowed
• ROOF PITCH: primary roofs 3:12 to 4:12, secondary roofs 6:12 to 9:12, limit flat
roofs, discourage mansard roofs
• ROOF RIDGE: parallel to front facade, create visual interest, reduce appearance
of building height, articulation, add dormers
• FENCE /SITE WALL: discouraged except to screen trash and utilities
• LANDSCAPING: add privacy and soften front building facades
• DECK RAILS: reduce the appearance of building height, include transparency,
include material changes, step from walls
• PARKING: allow at -grade surface parking and below grade parking structures,
discourage individual garages and carports on the first floor (street level)
VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNCIL
Town of Vail Page 3
2/21/2012
8 -1 -3
Table the first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, and Resolution No. 7, Series
of 2012, to the Town Council's March 6, 2012, public hearing for further deliberation.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
On November 14, 2011, Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with modifications, to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, by a
vote of 4 -1 -1 (Rediker opposed and Pratt recused).
The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council listens to
a Staff presentation, ask questions, and tables the first reading of Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 2012, and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, to its March 6, 2012, public
hearing for further deliberation.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Existing Vail Village Townhouse Properties Map
B. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
C. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
D. Bridgewater letter dated January 4, 2012
E. Mauriello Planning Group letter dated February 13, 2012
Town of Vail Page 4
2/21/2012
8 -1 -4
Attachment A
Town of Vail Page 5
2/2 1/2012
a -1 -5
ORDINANCE NO. 2
Series of 2012
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 -6, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, VAIL TOWN
CODE, TO ESTABLISH THE VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE (VVT) DISTRICT, AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, sets forth the procedures
for amending the Town's Zoning Regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments is to establish a new zone district to
regulate existing townhouse properties in Vail Village that were legally non - conforming in
regard to the provisions of the High Density Multiple - Family District; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments is to establish incentives for the
redevelopment of existing townhouse properties in Vail Village; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments is to preserve the existing character of
the townhouse properties in Vail Village and to preserve the existing character of the
neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on the application to amend the Town's Zoning
Regulations and establish the Vail Village Townhouse District, in accordance with the
provisions of the Vail Town Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with modifications, for the proposed Zoning Regulation
amendments to the Vail Town Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment is
consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives
of the town; and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment to the
Town Code furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment
promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the
coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and
enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of the highest quality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
2/21/201)
8 -2 -1
SECTION 1 . Table of Contents, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, is
hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in striLo+hrA, ,nh text that is
to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted):
Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District ... 6J
SECTION 2 . Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, is hereby amended in
part as follows (text to be deleted is in c+ril,o +hr,,, ,nh text that is to be added is bold,
and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted):
TOWNHOUSE PROJECT: A building or group of associated buildings
consisting of multiple - family dwelling units designed as attached or
row dwellings that are treated as one entity for zoning purposes.
INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED TOWNHOUSE LOT: A portion of a townhouse
project that is subdivided and for zoning purposes is treated as a
separate entity from the remainder of the project.
SECTION 3 . Section 12 -4 -1, Designated, Vail Town Code, is hereby amended in
part as follows (text to be deleted is in c+ril,o +hr,,, ,nh text that is to be added is bold,
and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted):
The following zone districts are established:
Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District
SECTION 4 . Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, is hereby
established as follows (text that is to be added is bold):
ARTICLE J. VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE (WT) DISTRICT
12 -6J -1: PURPOSE:
The Vail Village Townhouse District is intended to provide sites for, and
maintain the unique character of, existing townhouse properties in the
Vail Village Master Plan area of the Town of Vail. The Vail Village
Townhouse district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities commensurate with townhomes, and to
maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the zone
district by establishing appropriate site development standards.
Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which
relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and year -
round community and, where permitted, are intended to blend
harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district.
This zone district was established to regulate existing townhome
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
2/21/2013
8 -2 -2
properties that were legally nonconforming in the High Density Multiple
Family District. The Vail Village Townhouse District is meant to
encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment of existing
townhouse properties in accordance with the Vail Village Master Plan.
The incentives in this zone district include addressing both townhouse
projects and individually platted townhouse lots, reductions in lot area
standards, reductions in setbacks, increases in density, increases in
gross residential floor area (GRFA), reductions in landscaping area, and
changes in parking design requirements. More restrictive design
considerations have been applied to these properties in accordance
with the Vail Village Master Plan to maintain the unique character of
existing townhouse developments in Vail Village.
12 -6J -2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the VVT district:
Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of
this title.
Multiple - family residential dwellings, including attached and row
dwellings and condominium dwellings.
12 -6J -3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the VVT district,
subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12 -14 -18 of
this title.
Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-
14-12 of this title.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Timeshare units.
12 -6J4: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the VVT district:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation
permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -14 -12 of
this title.
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
2/21/20 1
8 -2 -3
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
12 -6J -5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS:
The minimum lot or site area for a townhouse project shall be ten
thousand (10,000) square feet of total site area. Each site shall have a
minimum frontage of twenty feet (20').
The minimum lot or site area for individually platted townhouse lots
shall be two thousand (2,000) square feet of total site area, each site
shall have a minimum frontage of twenty feet (20').
12 -6J -6: SETBACKS:
The minimum setback shall be twenty feet (20') from the front and rear
property lines. The minimum setback shall be twenty feet (20') from the
side property lines, except the setback shall be zero feet (0') from the
side property lines between attached dwelling units.
12 -6J -7: HEIGHT:
For a flat roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty feet (40').
For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty three
feet (43').
12 -6J -8: DENSITY CONTROL:
The existing number of legally established units on a development site
or twenty -five dwelling units per acre of total site area, whichever is
greater, shall be allowed. A dwelling unit may include one attached
accommodation unit no larger than one -third (1/3) of the total floor area
of the dwelling.
12 -6J -9: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA:
Not more than one hundred thirty five (135) square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred
(100) square feet of total site area. Attached or row dwellings in this
zone district shall not be entitled to additional gross residential floor
area under section 12 -15 -5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area
(250 Ordinance), or section 12 -15 -4: Interior Conversions of this title.
There shall be no exclusion to gross residential floor area granted for
enclosed garage space within individual dwelling units as referenced in
Chapter 15 Gross Residential Floor Area.
12- 6J -10: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five (55 %) of the total site area.
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
2/21/201
8 -2 -4
12- 6J -11: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least twenty percent (20 %) of the total site area shall be landscaped.
12- 6J -12: PARKING AND LOADING:
Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with
chapter 10 of this title. Required parking legally established within the
street right -of -way may be continued subject to a revocable right -of -way
permit issued by the Town of Vail.
12- 6J -13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN:
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence before the Design Review Board and /or Administrator that
the proposed new construction, addition, or minor exterior alteration is
in compliance with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master
Plan, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Vail Village Design
Considerations.
SECTION 5 . Section 12- 10 -17 -13, Lease Qualifications, Vail Town Code, is hereby
amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in striLo+hre inh text that is to be
added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted):
1. Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or
manages ten (10) or more private parking spaces located in commercial core
1, commercial core 2, commercial core 3, high density multiple - family, Vail
Village Townhouse, public accommodations, Lionshead mixed use 1,
Lionshead mixed use 2, or special development zone districts and provides
sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to the administrator of the
town for a permit to lease parking spaces.
r
Type
III
SECTION 6 . Section 12 -13 -4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU)
Type, Vail Town Code, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in
o+rikethrei ,nh text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not
amended have been omitted):
Residential cluster
Low density multiple - family
Medium density multiple -
family
High density multiple - family
Vail Village Townhouse
Public accommodation
Commercial core 1
Commercial core 2
Commercial core 3
Commercial service center
Arterial business
Heavy service
Lionshead mixed use 1
Lionshead mixed use 2
Public accommodation 2
The EHU
may be
sold or
transferred
separately.
The EHU
is
excluded
from the
calculatio
n of
G R FA.
n/a
n/a Per
A. Dwelling
The EHU is
chapter
unit: 300 sq.
excluded
10 of
ft. minimum
from the
this title
and 1,200
calculation
as a
sq. ft.
of density.
dwelling
maximum.
unit.
B. Dormitory
unit: 200 sq.
ft. minimum
for each
pe rso n
occupying
the EHU.
Ordinance No. 2. Series of 2012
2/21/201
8 -2 -5
Ski base /recreation F
N Ski base /recreation 2
F Special development district
Parking district
General use
SECTION 7 . Section 12 -15 -2, GRFA Requirements By Zone District, Vail Town
Code, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in o+riLo+hre 1914
text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have
been omitted):
Zone Districts GRFA Credits
(Added To Results Of
GRFA Ratio Application Of Percentage)
VVT 1.35 of total site area None
Vail Village Townhouse
SECTION 8 . Section 12 -15 -3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town
Code, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in c +ril,o +hrn. inh
text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have
been omitted):
B. Within The Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF),
Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family
(HDMF), A44d Housing (H), and Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) Districts:
SECTION 9 . Section 12 -15 -3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town
Code, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in -strike +hrn, 1914
text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have
been omitted):
C. Within All Districts Except The Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family
Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family
Primary/Secondary (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -
Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density
Multiple - Family (HDMF), A-Rd Housing (H), and Vail Village Townhouse
(VVT) Districts:
SECTION 10 . Section 12 -15 -4, Interior Conversions, Vail Town Code, is
hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in stril ethrn,1914 text that is
to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted):
B. Applicability: Within all zone districts except the single - family residential
(SFR), two - family residential (R), aPA two - family primary/secondary
residential (PS), and Vail Village Townhouse (WT) districts, dwelling
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 2/21/201P
8 -2 -6
units that meet or exceed allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior
conversions provided the following criteria are satisfied:
1. Any existing dwelling unit shall be eligible to add GRFA, via the "interior
space conversion" provision in excess of existing or allowable GRFA
including such units located in a special development district; provided,
that such GRFA complies with the standards outlined herein.
2. For the purpose of this section, "existing unit" shall mean any dwelling
unit that has been constructed prior to August 5, 1997, and has received a
certificate of occupancy, or has been issued a building permit prior to
August 5, 1997, or has received final design review board approval prior
to August 5, 1997.
SECTION 11 . Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250
Ordinance), Vail Town Code, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be
deleted is in striLo+hrni ,nh text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that
are not amended have been omitted):
B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to dwelling units in
all zone districts except the single - family residential (SFR), two - family
residential (R), aPA two - family primary/secondary residential (PS), and Vail
Village Townhouse (VVT) districts.
SECTION 12 . Section 12 -24 -1, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, is
hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in o+riLo +hr,,, ,nh text that is
to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted):
B. This chapter shall apply to all new residential development and
redevelopment located within the following zone districts, except as provided
in section 12 -24 -5 of this chapter:
2. Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)
SECTION 13 . Section 14 -8 -1 Site Development Standards, Inclusionary
Zoning, Vail Town Code, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is
in strikpthrAi g h , text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not
amended have been omitted):
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 7
2/21/2011
8 -2 -7
Zone Districts
Max. EHU
Density Allowance
Residential Districts
VVT Vail Existing
Village number of
Townhouse legally
established
units or 25
per acre of
total site
larea.
x N �
N
N N
x
0
N
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
,
Min. Min. Deck
Building (Ground
Setbacks Level)
Setback
Max.
Architectural Min. Lot Size
Projection (Buildable Area In
Min. Deck Into Setback Min. Sq. Ft.) Min. Max.
(Not Ground Max. Site Land- Min. Square Building Parking And
Level) Coverage scape Frontage Area Height Loading
Setback J 1 Area Location
Type III 20' front May May project
and Type 20' rear not more not more
IV, Type IV- 20' sides than the than the
IZ, Type 0' lesser of lesser of 5'
VII-1Z between 10' or 1 /2 or 1 /2 the
attached the required
dwelling required setback
units setback
J
8
55% 20% 110,000 sq. ft. for 20' n/a
comprehensive
development site;
2,000 sq. ft. for
individually platted
townhouse lots
40' flat
See title 12,
roof
chapter 10 of
this code.
43'
Existing
sloping
parking in
roof
street right -of-
way may
continue
subject a
revocable right -
of -way permit.
M
SECTION 14. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Vail Town Council
hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one
or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
SECTION 15. The Vail Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares
that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the
Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. The Council's finding, determination and
declaration is based upon the review of the criteria prescribed by the Town Code of
Vail and the evidence and testimony presented in consideration of this ordinance.
SECTION 16. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code of Vail as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty
imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under
or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby
shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expressly stated herein.
SECTION 17. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance,
or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 21 day of February, 2012
and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 6 day of
March, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building,
Vail, Colorado.
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 g
2/21/20 1 Z
8 -2 -9
RESOLUTION NO. 7
Series of 2012
A RESOLUTION AMENDING CHAPTER VII, VAIL VILLAGE SUB - AREAS, EAST
GORE CREEK SUB -AREA ( #6), VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO A NEW VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE (WT)
DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail Village Master
Plan, sets forth the procedures for amending the Town's Zoning Regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the adoption of the Vail Village Townhouse (WT) District
necessitates associated updates to the Vail Village Master Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments is to establish recommendations
and design considerations for the redevelopment of existing townhouse properties in
Vail Village; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments is to preserve the existing character
of the townhouse properties in Vail Village and to preserve the existing character of the
neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011 the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the application to amend the
Town's Zoning Regulations and establish the Vail Village Townhouse District and
associated amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
forwarded a recommendation of approval, with modifications, for the proposed Vail
Village Master Plan amendments to the Vail Town Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendments
are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment to
the Vail Village Master Plan furthers the general and specific purposes of the plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendments
promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the
coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and
enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
2/21 /2012
8 -3 -I
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
SECTION 1. Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub - Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area
( #6), Vail Village Master Plan, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be
deleted is in st ,nh text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text
that are not amended have been omitted):
EAST GORE CREEK SUB AREA ( #6)
A number of the earliest projects developed in Vail are located in the East
Gore Creek Sub -Area. Development in this area is exclusively multi - family
condominium and townhouse projects with a limited amount of
support commercial. Surface parking is found at each site, which creates a
vAefy dominant visual impression of the sub -area.
While the level of development in East Gore Creek is generally greater
than that allowed under existing zoning, this area has the potential to
absorb density without compromising the character of the Village. These
Th s developments could be accommodated by partial infills of existing
parking areas balanced by greenspace additions or through increasing the
height of existing buildings (generally one story over existing heights). In
order to maintain the architectural continuity of projects, additional density
should be considered ep�y in conjunction with the comprehensive
redevelopment of projects or individual units. There are several
townhouse properties within this sub -area which were platted and /or
constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction. These townhouse
properties are nonconforming with the many of development
standards (including, but not limited to density, gross residential
floor area, setbacks, site coverage, landscape area) of the High
Density Multiple Family (HDMF) District. It is recommended that
greater flexibility with the development standards may be necessary
to allow these townhouse projects to redevelop. This flexibility may
be achieved through the rezoning to the Vail Village Townhouse
(VVT) District. However, the granting of variances from the HDMF
District or rezoning to the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District
should consider potential impacts to the character of the
neighborhood.
Clearly, one of the main objectives to consider in the redevelopment of
any property should be to improve existing parking facilities. This includes
satisfying parking demands for existing and additional developmen
Well -Ao deGigR GGRSirlor _A4ir_no rod _A+iyP_ to Fede elgpMeRt PrGPGo . The
opportunity to introduce below grade structured parking will greatly
improve pedestrian ization and landscape features in this area. This should
be considered a goal of any redevelopment proposal in this sub -area.
2
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
2/21 /2012
8 -3 -2
Development or redevelopment of this sub -area may w+4 attract additional
traffic and population into this area and may have significant impacts upon
portions of Sub -Areas 7 and 10.
There are several existing townhouse properties in the East Gore
Creek Sub -Area, including the Vail Townhouse Condominiums, Vail
Row Houses, Vail Trails Chalet, Vail Trails East, and Texas
Townhomes. These design considerations provide
recommendations for the redevelopment of these properties. The
purpose of these design considerations is to preserve the unique
character of the existing townhouse properties in Vail Village.
Redevelopment should be consistent with the existing pedestrian -
oriented, urban character of Vail Village. All demo /rebuild and new
construction projects in the Vail Village Townhouse District shall
comply with these guidelines. It is understood that renovations to
existing buildings may be unable to fully comply with some of these
design considerations. Redevelopment to existing buildings will be
evaluated on a case -by -case basis, with determination of compliance
based upon whether the renovation to an existing building meets the
general intent of these design considerations.
A. Zoning: The existing townhouse properties in the East Gore Creek
Sub -Area including the Vail Townhouse Condominiums, Vail Row
Houses, Vail Trails Chalet, Vail Trails East, and Texas Townhomes
should be rezoned from the High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF)
District to the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District.
B. Development Pattern: Townhouse properties in the East Gore
Creek Sub -Area should exhibit the appearance and characteristics of
a residential row style development. Buildings should face the street
and appear to be a series of proportionally sized, individual dwelling
units occupying the space from the ground to the roof that are
attached inline by shared side walls. Buildings should exhibit these
characteristics regardless of ownership patterns or the horizontal
and vertical subdivision of properties, and should create a perceived
dwelling unit occupying the space within a building from the ground
to the roof.
C. Architectural Theme: The existing architectural and aesthetic
character of the townhouse properties in Vail Village shall be
preserved.
1. Units: The architectural theme of each dwelling unit or
perceived dwelling unit (occupying the space within a building
3
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
2/21 /2012
8 -3 -3
from the ground to the roof) shall be expressed on all sides of
that unit to create an architecturally integrated unit.
2. Buildings: Townhouse buildings shall express an
architectural theme of either uniformity or individuality. To
portray architectural and aesthetic integrity, a combination of
both themes within a single building is discouraged.
a. Uniformity: Townhouse buildings may express a
singular, unified architectural theme in which every
perceived dwelling unit (occupying the space from
ground to the roof) in a building is composed of
substantially the same exterior design, materials,
textures, and colors.
b. Individuality: Townhouse buildings may express an
individualistic architectural theme in which each
perceived dwelling unit (occupying the space from
ground to the roof) in a building varies in exterior
design, materials, textures, and colors; so that abutting
units do not have the same architectural treatment. This
expression of individuality among units must be
balanced with the character of the adjacent units and
the building as a whole.
D. Building Form and Massing: Buildings shall step back from the
front property line to create the appearance of a two -story facade
along the street. For the purposes of these design considerations, a
story is considered the space between the surface of any floor and
the next floor or ceiling above, not exceeding 11 feet in height.
The front facade of the first floor or street level and the second floor
shall be located within 20 to 28 feet of the front property line. The
front facade of the third floor and any floors above shall step back 6
to 10 feet from the facade of the second floor below.
E. Street Edge: Front facade shall be generally parallel to the street
and form a strong, but irregular edge to the street. Front facades
shall generally align with adjacent units and buildings to create a
sense of street enclosure and continuity, but shall have enough
offset between units and buildings to create visual interest.
F. Facade: To reduce the appearance of building height and mass,
and to create a residential scale and character, all facades shall
incorporate vertical and horizontal articulation to reduce the
appearance of building height and mass and to foster the
4
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
2/21 /2012
8 -3 -4
appearance of a residential neighborhood. Facades should
incorporate doors, decks, porches, balconies, fenestration, recesses,
bay windows, ornamentation, and other traditional residential
architectural elements. No facade shall appear to be a large
unbroken plane. To preserve the existing pedestrian scale and
residential character of the neighborhood, dwelling unit entries are
encouraged on the front of the building; however, garage entries are
strongly discouraged on the front facade.
G. Cantilevers: On the front facade, floor area cantilevered more than
three feet beyond the level below is strongly discouraged.
Cantilevered floor areas shall not be stacked or cantilevered atop
one another.
H. Roof Pitch: The primary roof form should be sloping with pitches
from 3:12 to 4:12. Secondary roofs should be sloping with pitches
from 6:12 to 9:12. Flat roofs may have limited use as secondary
roofs for decks and mechanical equipment areas. Mansard roofs
create the perception of additional bulk and mass and are
inconsistent with the architectural character of the existing
townhouse properties and the existing neighborhood. Therefore,
mansard roofs are discouraged.
I. Roof Ridge: The primary roof ridges shall be parallel with the front
facade of the building and should be oriented to not shed snow or
rain onto adjacent properties. To create visual interest and to reduce
the perception of building bulk and mass, roofs shall not create the
appearance of continuous ridges between units or buildings. Roof
ridges should be articulated by stepping in elevation and varying
from front to rear. Dormers and other secondary roof forms may
also be used minimize the perception of a continuous ridge.
J. Fences and Site Walls: Privacy fences and walls along the street
are discouraged, except to screen trash areas, utility equipment, and
other similar items.
K. Landscaping: Landscaping should be used to create privacy and
to soften the visual transition from roadways and parking areas to
the building facades.
L. Deck Rails: Deck rails shall be designed to minimize the
perception of additional building bulk and mass. Deck rails should
incorporate transparency, material changes, and stepping in
alignment from other building elements. Solid railings that appear to
extend the exterior wall material from below are discouraged.
5
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
2/21 /2012
8 -3 -5
M. Parking: Off - street parking should be located on at -grade surface
driveways or in below grade shared parking structures. Off - street
parking should not be accommodated with individual or shared
garages, carports, or parking structures on the first floor or street
level.
11 1 3t1r1i1T'tT,,L��LYMNOMM
Additinnol flnnr nr rocide deyelnnment � is exiS tinn Addifinnml
deRSity to be nnncidered nnhi i nn � o nmmprehonciio
rorloVolnnmon+ of eac nrejeGt To encourage redevelopment and to
maintain the existing character of the neighborhood, the Vail Village
Townhouse (WT) District was established to grant additional gross
residential floor area over what was allowed under High Density
Multiple Family (HDMF) District zoning. A key factor in the
redevelopment of these properties will be to relocate required parking in
underground structures or a single unified structure serving all
adjacent properties. This will allow for increased landscaping and overall
improvements to pedestrian ways to create a park -like setting on the
surface in this area. Redevelopment shall maintain the existing
character of the neighborhood, with the appearance of two to three
story buildings along the street elevation. In all cases, the mature
pines along Gore Creek shall be maintained. Stream impact must be
considered. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 5.1, 6.2.
#6 -2 Manor Vail
Possible residential infill on portions of existing surface parking area and
additional floor to the two northern most buildings adjacent to Gore Creek.
Infill project must include addition of greenspace adjacent to East Mill
Creek and other adjoining pedestrian areas. Height of structure shall be
limited to prevent impacts on view to the Gore Range from Village core
and Vail Valley Drive. Present and future parking demand to be met on
site. Traffic considerations must be addressed. Special emphasis on 1.2,
2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1
#6 -3 Vail Row Houses
To encourage redevelopment, the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)
District was established to grant additional gross residential floor
area over what was allowed under High Density Multiple Family
(HDMF) District zoning. Where possible, driveway widths shall be
minimized and areas for landscaping increased. Surface parking
shall be improved when redevelopment occurs using high quality
landscape paver treatments and the current post and chain parking
delineation shall be replaced with other methods to identify private
parking. Redevelopment shall maintain the existing character of the
neighborhood, with the appearance of two to three story buildings
6
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
2/21 /2012
8 -3 -6
along the street elevation. Improvements to the Gore Creek stream
corridor, consistent with Town policies, shall be considered with
redevelopment applications. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1,
5.1, 6.2.
.. 6 -3-- —
_
* • 1
IL
P•` , ,. — EAST CCOF
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 21 day of February, 2012.
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
2/21/2012
8 -3 -7
From: B.A. Bridgewater, Jr.: Barbara P. Bridgewater
To: Members of the Vail Town Council
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Vail Town Code and Master Plan
We are the owners of Row House #11, 303 E. Gore Creek Drive in Vail. We have
received copies of a November 14, 2011 Memorandum from the TOV Community
Development Department to the PEC presenting proposed Regulation
Amendments to the Vail Town Code and to the Vail Village Master Plan, which
would establish and regulate construction within a "Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)
District." We understand that these have been forwarded to the Council for first
reading at your meeting on February 7th. We have concerns about certain
provisions in the regulation amendment which I discussed with Kevin Foley; he
suggested that I share these with you prior to your retreat meetings, hence this
email.
These proposed regulation amendments have a history dating back to 2008. This
history is well summarized in the BACKGROUND section of the November 14
memorandum: in summary the Town of Vail spent more than a year considering
several SDDs which would have allowed the building of much larger structures on
the Vail Row House lots, all of which failed. Then from late 2009 until the present,
essentially the same proposals have been submitted, "packaged" within more
extensive requests to establish a Vail Village Townhouse District (which would
include several useful changes to current zoning). These have been considered
by the PEC many times, revised and reconsidered, considered by the Council
and returned for further study; the original Applicant has withdrawn and they have
now been resubmitted by the TOV Staff.
The essential objectionable part within all of the proposals, including the pending
rezoning request, is this: They would all encourage the construction of much
larger structures in the Row House area East of Gore Creek Drive on the North
Side. This would allow the original SDD Applicant to build the 7200 sq. ft. four
story house on Row House lots #9 and #10 that he has sought, and would also
provide incentives for others to build very large structures in that area. We
believe that this should not be allowed to happen. The Vail Row Houses - along
with the Covered Bridge and the Clock Tower building - form an important part of
Vail's "Historic District, the core reminder of Vail's special place among ski
resorts in the world, and symbol of its Brand. We strongly believe that the two -
story representative look of the Row Houses along Gore Creek Drive should be
preserved intact. We strongly believe that the heart of Vail should not be allowed
to go the way of Lions Head and Beaver Creek.
The key provision for controlling the size of Row Houses, buried in 29 pages of
material included in the November 14 Staff Memorandum, is contained in
2/21/2012
8 -4 -1
Paragraph 12 -6J -8 on page 4 of the Ordinance. This GROSS RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA section would allow "Not more than one hundred twenty -five (135)
<sic> sq. ft. of gross residential floor area (GRFA)... for each one hundred (100)
sq. ft. of total site area." We note that this issue was studied in depth by the Town
Staff and PEC in preparation for the August 9, 2010 PEC meeting, and a 1.0 ratio
was recommended by the Town Staff with the observation that this was the ratio
that had been chosen by the Staff and PEC in 2004 when extensive rezoning
was studied and implemented. This presumably was the product of a process not
influenced by the advocacy of a private applicant with private interests. We have
observed that higher ratios... 135/100 for example... are subject to manipulation
so that larger structures can be built (for example excluding a portion of the
below -grade level or building unfinished space). A 1.0 or 1.15 ratio would appear
to allow ample space to permit the building of Row Houses of similar size as
those now standing, and that is what we recommend.
In the Agenda for the Town Council work session on October 18, 2011, the Town
Staff cited a Vail Village Master Plan goal of "preserving the existing character of
Vail Village," and requested direction to pursue a public process aimed at
addressing the issue of "historic preservation..." Staff never reported back to the
Council, and we are not aware of any efforts by Staff to solicit the input of
residents and property owners regarding these important objectives. We believe
that you - the new Council - ought to confirm the importance of historic zoning,
and we urge that the Row House area be identified as worthy of preservation as
an essential part of an Historic District .
In closing, we would like to thank you once again for considering our perspective
on this very important Zoning Policy issue.
.6 04 &+(-&"A-
Barbara P. Bridgewater
B. A. Bridgewater, Jr.
2/21/2012
8 -4 -2
February 13, 2012 Mauriello
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
0
Planning Group
Re: Ordinance No. 2 and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
Dear Town Council Members:
Below is a detailed response to the letter sent to you by the Bridgewaters in an attempt to clarify the
record. The format below is the language directly from the Bridgewater letter, followed by our
response on behalf of Chris Galvin who pioneered this new Vail Village Townhouse zoning concept and
which is being completed by the Town staff and the Town Council.
Historical Perspective:
From: B.A. Bridgewater, Jr.: Barbara P. Bridgewater
To: Members of the Vail Town Council
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Vail Town Code and Master Plan
We are the owners of Row House #11, 303 E. Gore Creek Drive in Vail. We have
received copies of a November 14, 2011 Memorandum from the TOV Community
Development Department to the PEC presenting proposed Regulation
Amendments to the Vail Town Code and to the Vail Village Master Plan, which
would establish and regulate construction within a "Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)
District." We understand that these have been forwarded to the Council for first
reading at your meeting on February 7th. We have concerns about certain
provisions in the regulation amendment which I discussed with Kevin Foley; he
suggested that I share these with you prior to your retreat meetings, hence this
email.
These proposed regulation amendments have a history dating back to 2008. This
history is well summarized in the BACKGROUND section of the November 14
memorandum: in summary the Town of Vail spent more than a year considering
several SDDs which would have allowed the building of much larger structures on
the Vail Row House lots, all of which failed. Then from late 2009 until the present,
essentially the same proposals have been submitted. "packaged" within more
extensive requests to establish a Vail Village Townhouse District (which would
include several useful changes to current zoning). These have been considered
by the PEC many times, revised and reconsidered, considered by the Council
and returned for further study: the original Applicant has withdrawn and they have
now been resubmitted by the TOV Staff.
2/21/2012
8 -5-
Response:
The history on this project actually goes back significantly further than identified by the Bridgewaters.
When originally developed in the 1960s, the Vail Row Houses were allowed a GRFA ratio of 1.5. When
the standards of the HDMF zone district were subsequently amended, the entire project was rendered
non - conforming. As a result, there is a history of 40 years of variances on this project as owners have
looked to do improvements to their units. In fact, in 1984, setback and density control variances were
granted to Unit 11, the Bridgewaters' Unit.
When Chris Galvin approached the town to remodel /rebuild, the TOV invited Mr. Galvin to submit the
original Special Development District proposal for Vail Village Townhouses in 2009. The goal was to
eliminate the need for numerous variances on every application for improvements and to provide a
guide or role model for future Vail Townhouse development. This original application included all
owners of Vail Row Houses 7 -13, including the Bridgewaters. At that time, the Bridgewaters were 100%
onboard with the proposal. The Town Council failed to approve the application on second reading,
based primarily on issues with right -of -way use and not because of any objection to size /bulk /mass or
GRFA of 1.5 included in the SDD Town House proposal in 2009
Because of some remorse that the Town House SDD did not pass, Mr. Galvin was invited to re- submit an
essentially identical SDD application in September of 2009 after following proper town protocols.
Subsequently, the Bridgewaters changed their minds withdrew their support of the Townhouse SDD.
When the Bridgewater's unit was removed from the application, the Town felt that the application
would be difficult to support with a "hole" for Unit 11. With the support and direction of the Planning
and Environmental Commission, the process to modernize the zoning of Vail's Townhouses was
redirected away from the use of a SDD and towards a zoning code text amendment to apply more
broadly. The applicant withdrew the SDD application.
Throughout the use of a zoning text amendment process, the adjacent and affected properties in similar
non - conforming situations (owners within Vail Townhouse units 1 -6, Vail trails Chalets, Vail Trails East,
and Texas Townhomes) expressed support for the Vail Village Townhouse District. The applicant
submitted an application to create this new zone district in early 2010. As is common with an
application to create a new zone district, the process has taken a significant period of time to allow for
appropriate review including the Town of Vail hiring Jeff Winston to help strengthen the design and
facade regulations for future Townhouse remodeling /rebuilding to better assure maintaining the look
and feel of Vail as well as impose height, width and length limits on Townhouses' overall size to control
bulk and mass growth using the outside dimensions /measurements of Vail's future Townhouses.
Eventually the Townhouse text amendment application became a proposal from the Town.
Throughout the Townhouse zoning evaluation process the only opposition for the effort in the five
affected townhouse projects has come from just one of the 50 or so homeowners, the Bridgewaters. All
of the input that we and the Town has received in the process has been extremely supportive and at this
point the only issue with the proposed regulations is the GRFA which all input has been to increase the
GRFA to a minimum 1.5 or exclude 100% of the basement level.
2
2/21/2012
8 -5 -2
The essential objectionable part within all of the proposals, including the pending
rezoning request, is this: They would all encourage the construction of much
larger structures in the Row House area East of Gore Creek Drive on the North
Side. This would allow the original SDD Applicant to build the 7200 sq. ft. four
story house on Row House lots #9 and #10 that he has sought, and would also
provide incentives for others to build very large structures in that area. We
believe that this should not be allowed to happen. The Vail Row Houses - along
with the Covered Bridge and the Clock Tower building - form an important part of
Vail's "Historic District, the core reminder of Vail's special place among ski
resorts in the world, and symbol of its Brand. We strongly believe that the two -
story representative look of the Row Houses along Gore Creek Drive should be
preserved intact. We strongly believe that the heart of Vail should not be allowed
to go the way of Lions Head and Beaver Creek.
The key provision for controlling the size of Row Houses, buried in 29 pages of
material included in the November 14 Staff Memorandum, is contained in
Character of Vail:
Response:
The Bridgewaters suggest that the Galvins would be able to build a four -story house. This is not correct.
Mr. Galvin's original SDD proposal proposed to ELIMINATE the future possibility to construct 4 story
townhouses in Vail (measured from the street side) by recommending then that the overall height
allowanced for future Town Houses be lowered to 43: In 2009 and today the current HDMF zoning
would /does allow a four -story building with a height of 48' and without any facade and step -back
standards when reconstructing Vail townhouses. The new proposed standards contained in the Vail
Village Townhouse district Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 along with Resolution No. 7 also reduce the
height to 43' and cause structures to be limited to no more than three stories along Gore Creek Drive.
The third floor is required to step -back an additional 6' to 10' to give the appearance of a 2.5 story
facade.
Most of the Vail Row House Units, which have been redeveloped to -date, are 2 or 3 stories currently,
including the Bridgewater unit, which is currently 2.5 stories along Gore Creek Drive, while others have
redeveloped at 3 stories. Most units are currently 4 stories on the creek -side.
The development standards and strict design controls developed by the Town staff in Ordinance No. 2
and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012 and with the assistance of its design consultant cause these
properties to exhibit exactly the character and quality sought by the Town and in a manner that helps
Vail maintain its character and brand for the next 50 years. There is no boogie -man here and the
references to Beaver Creek and Lionshead are completely unfounded. The Bridgewaters do not
appreciate the innovation developed by the Town staff with respect to the extensive architectural
design, facade and outside - exterior building size dimension controls for future Vail Townhouse remodel/
rebuilding that is contained and imposed in Ordinance No. 2 and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012.
3
2/21 /2012
8 -5 -3
Paragraph 12 -6J -8 on page 4 of the Ordinance. This GROSS RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA section would allow "Not more than one hundred twenty -five (135)
<sic> sq. ft. of gross residential floor area (GRFA)... for each one hundred (100)
sq. ft. of total site area." We note that this issue was studied in depth by the Town
Staff and PEC in preparation for the August 9, 2010 PEC meeting, and a 1.0 ratio
was recommended by the Town Staff with the observation that this was the ratio
that had been chosen by the Staff and PEC in 2004 when extensive rezoning
was studied and implemented. This presumably was the product of a process not
influenced by the advocacy of a private applicant with private interests. We have
observed that higher ratios... 135/100 for example... are subject to manipulation
so that larger structures can be built (for example excluding a portion of the
below -grade level or building unfinished space). A 1.0 or 1.15 ratio would appear
to allow ample space to permit the building of Row Houses of similar size as
those now standing, and that is what we recommend.
GRFA Ratio:
Response:
The Bridgewaters are referencing recommendations made by the Town staff at an early stage of
brainstorming absent the extensive study and input from the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Town's design consultant with regard to these specific townhouse properties. A new way of
thinking about how to better control the future growth in size of Vail Townhouses was introduced.
Because of the extensive design controls and facade rules that now focus on controlling bulk and mass
using strict outside - exterior facade or outside -skins measurements, the reliance on GRFA ratios or
internal floors plates or internal square footage (which is invisible to the look and feel of Vail Village) to
control bulk and mass have become unnecessary. The changes in recommendations over time are the
direct result of education, research, and the study of these properties.
Interesting to note that the Bridgewaters' property today, based on the way the 250 ordinance has been
applied over time, enjoys a current developed GRFA ratio of 1.11 and the potential of GRFA ratio of 1.33
without the new Vail Village Townhouse district being adopted. The Bridgewaters' neighbors are
befuddled as to why the Bridgewaters are recommending a downzoning to 1.0 -1.15 GRFA for
themselves personally versus their own currently existing potential of 1.33 under today's 250's
allowances. Worse, the Bridgewaters are recommending the some take -away (from what currently
exists) or downzoning be imposed upon the 50 plus Townhouse owners who also have currently allowed
expansion rights today under the 250's ranging from 1.15 GRFA to 1.4 GRFA if the Bridgewater
recommendation of 1.0 -1.15 GRFA was considered.
The intent of creating this new zone district, Ordinance No. 2 and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, is to
eliminate the need for variances and to create equality and fairness across all properties to be included
in the new zone district. A GRFA ratio of 1.5 or at 1.35 with the full basement credit captures all units
and avoids the potential for downzoning for all 50+ Vail Townhouse owners in the redevelopment of
structures that are in need of improvements.
4
2/21/2012
8 -5 -4
With the extensive and comprehensive development and design standards contained within Ordinance
No. 2 and Resolution No. 7, there is no perceived difference in the bulk and mass between a ratio of 1.0
or 1.6 for example.
In the Agenda for the Town Council work session on October 18, 2011, the Town
Staff cited a Vail Village Master Plan goal of "preserving the existing character of
Vail Village," and requested direction to pursue a public process aimed at
addressing the issue of "historic preservation..." Staff never reported back to the
Council, and we are not aware of any efforts by Staff to solicit the input of
residents and property owners regarding these important objectives. We believe
that you - the new Council - ought to confirm the importance of historic zoning,
and we urge that the Row House area be identified as worthy of preservation as
an essential part of an Historic District .
In closing, we would like to thank you once again for considering our perspective
on this very important Zoning Policy issue.
�►P,P�:�
Barbara P. Bridgewater
3 -,A ..3,. ,�.�'
B. A. Bridgewater, Jr.
Character and Historic Preservation:
Response:
The town staff had a series of sessions with the Town Council on the concept of historic preservation
and so the statement that staff never reported back to the Town Council is incorrect. In fact I believe
the findings of the town staff and the Town Council was that given the extensive design guidelines and
review process of the Town a historic designation was unnecessary or duplicative. In fact the extensive
work done to -date on the Vail Village Townhouse district and the creation of new, state of the art design
measures proposed for that district will help the town preserve the character of the Vail Village and
ensure quality redevelopment for the next 50 years.
We encourage the Town Council to move forward with the proposed Ordinance No. 2 and Resolution
No. 7, with one change to the GRFA ratio upwards or eliminate it entirely for just the Townhouse
complexes in Vail Village as recommended by us and the owners within the other affected townhouse
properties ... and not allow one townhouse owner to derail a code amendment that benefits the other
50 plus Vail Townhouse owners.
2/21/2012
8 -5 -5
Sincerely,
1 l�
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Principal
2/21/2012
8 -5 -(
Lorelei Donaldson
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello Town Council Members:
Dominic Mauriello <dominic @mpgvail.com>
Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:11 PM
Council Dist List
Bill Gibson; Warren Campbell
Vail Village Townhouse District - Additional handout
Vail Townhouse Zoning Handout 2- 17- 12.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Attached is a handout we would like you to take a look at in connection with the discussion that is scheduled for
Tuesday.
As we have presented in the past, we are in full support of the staff s proposal and the PEC's recommendation,
except for one provision: the GRFA Limitation.
The attached document provides four alternatives to the proposed GRFA provision that we believe are
reasonable and warrant some discussion.
Thanks again for all of your time and the staff s time spent on these important and meaningful
regulations. These efforts will certainly result in making Vail a better place to live and recreate.
Thanks,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 4777
2205 Eagle Ranch Road
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970- 376 -3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
2/21/2612
s -c -1
Ordinance No, 6, Series of 2012
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2+012
Vail Village Townhouse District
Situation: Last year, at the direction of the Town Council to find a solution to
modernize Vail's Townhouse zoning while maintaining the traditional ski village
character of Vail, the Town staff creatively sought input from numerous planning
professionals and architects to bring forth the idea of exterior - building fagade "bulk
and mass" regulations (meaning specifying new detailed dimensional -
characteristics and sizing - controls defined by the outside skins of the complexes)
for Vail Village Townhouse District. Fagade controls ensure that the outside look
and feel of Gore Creek Drive would not be compromised. Detailing the outside -skin
measurements allows for some growth, but not too much.
For example, Ordinance No. 6 reduces a total allowable maximum height under
existing High Density Multiple Family zoning applicable to these townhouse
properties from 48 feet to 43 feet. This reduction there -by restricts the maximum
future growth in height allowable in Vail Village Townhouses to just 4 feet taller
than what was constructed in 2006 at Row House Unit /Lot #8 which stands now
(February 2012) at 37 feet tall,
The Town staff achieved a new and balanced set of Vail Village Townhouse zoning
rules focused on exterior- outside definitions (what Vail residents and guests see
walking by from Gore Creek Drive) that include detailed fagade designations,
setbacks, height restrictions, and architectural guidelines that modernize these
aspects of building or remodeling rules for the five Vail Village Townhouse projects.
Historically, Vail used small GRFA ratios to shrink or control the bulk, mass, and size
of Vail's Townhouses. The Town's Ordinance No. 6, which applies the innovation of
outside - exterior dimension controls to shrink or control bulk and mass, essentially
obsoletes, or renders less applicable, the additional or redundant use of GRFA that
reduces inside floor space in Townhouses.
We, along with other Townhouse owners believe the groyosed Ordinance No.
6 and Resolution No. 7 are very good tools for achieving the goal of
maintaining the character of Vail's five Townhouse complexes_... with one
major exception. the QvCrlry rrestrigtivC fiRFA limit of 1,35.
GRFA should be at least 1.5 or more... doing so causes Vail Townhouse owners to
be in -line with other like kind buildings/ residential properties in Vail. Modifying
the currently suggested 1.35 GRFA in Ordinance No. 6 upwards will accomplish that
no Townhouse owner would need to request variances or exceptions of the PEC or
Town Council for the next 50 years.
2/21/2012
8 -6 -2
What are alterailtus to make one last belt important modification to the New Valk
Mau Townhouse Distric -and Ordinance No. 6?
Option #1: Eliminate GRFA for just the Gee complexes the Vail Village
Townhouse District along Gore Creek
Det
s'
The state of art bulk and mass and fagade controls have been
developed make GRFA obsolete and unnecessary
❑ Heavy design controls have modernized Vail Village
Townhouse zoning to a degree not witnessed elsewhere in Vail
Cl Could be the new model marring forward - a cutting edge Town
Council
Code Language:
12 -6j -9: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
Thee is no ]j Cation on gross resi enAia floor area in this district
given the level of demelopment standards contain-herein and the
design guidelines and standards within the Vail Viiiage Master Plan.
Option #2: Employee Housing Mitigation Fee Increase over 1.35 GRFA
Detai
❑ Allow up to a ceiling of 1.6 GRFA
Offsets or exchanges what could have been EHU GRFA Credit
(-500 sq. ft.)
❑ Require additional Inclusionary Zoning percentage for GRFA
over 1.35 (Mitigation could be doubled from 10% to 20 %)
Code Language [new section]:
12-61 INCLUSIONARY W REQUIREMENT
For any gross residential floor area (GRFA] _in excess of one hundred
thirty five (135) square E=ffor each one hundred ( )square feet of
total site area, the inclusionarv_zgniag requirements of SQCI:I 12- 4-
mnloyee Housing Requirement5_ahall be at twice the mitigation
rate. Additionally, there shall be no onsite reQuirementu-specified inn
5 n 2- 4- • of Mitigation and the mitigation meth
shall be by 12a3Ements of foes in lieu only,
Option U. Allow Full Basement Credit
D etails:
Allow full basement exclusion from calculation of GRFA (today
approximately 50% would be excluded based on topography)
❑ Allowed for the Vail Village Townhouse district only
2
2/21/2012
8 -6 -3
❑ Not uncommon to have differing GRFA credits based on zone
district
❑ Basement level is "invisible" to the general public and those
walking by
Code Language:
12- 15- 3B(7): Basements (amend as follows):
Basements:. On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of
exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade,
whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the
horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA
calculations except in thhp, Vail Village Townhapse di.Ntrict where
100 °[a of the horizontal area Qf the lowest level shall be deducted
frgM the 6RFA calculations The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior
wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation
of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the
floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations,
retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the
lowest level's exterior walls.
Option #4: Designate GRFA at 1.5
Details
• Follows precedent with other structures across the street and
in the neighborhood that have 1.5 GRFA
• TOV moved .S to 1,5 GRFA for mixed condo /hotel etc. projects
years ago
• A matter of `better business'
• PEC was too conservative at 1.35 GRFA
Code Language:
12 -6] -9: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA;
Not more than one hundred thirty fi=° r fifty [150) square feet
of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one
hundred (100) square feet of total site area. Attached or row
dwellings in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional gross
residential floor area under section 12 -15 -5: Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), or section 12 -15 -4: Interior
Conversions of this title. There shall be no exclusion to gross
residential floor area granted for enclosed garage space within
individual dwelling units as referenced in Chapter 15 Gross
Residential Floor Area.
2/21/2012
8 -6 -4
x N
C� N
O
a
N
V.Zz
X77
Far�al
E)UH, 6 Mass
I � i � Rastnclions
Cause
1.25 or1.35
M or 1. 55
LOT 8 LOT 9 OR LOT 9 GRFA to be
GRF 1.35 GRFA 1.55 GRFA QENTiCAL
For Lot
1f4' 1'-0' 03.24.11
fQM TOVOO$ONSE ZONING PROPOSAL 2.0 ; � ,
"Facade
Articulations"
(Outsides)
t
Lot #9 _
1,55 a re
GRFA fits Invisi
!Heide
Proposed _ � � I
New
Facades
Rules
P Tn-.
n qiwq 1
Lot 8
114' - 1 0 03,4 11
omw MOP0 3 0'
rp
a
o,
�� 11�
t. i --j
caeA q
GRFAAlternative #1.
VC ) O NOAZIDLI
Toy VOWN MOM I;L� mww 2 0
rc, rill
Lai
r �
-.1 cm m
Mi
�i�
LOT 9 GRrA CDMPARISONS
oil
all
r
WFISTSICTMWILWAYM
�� 11�
t. i --j
caeA q
GRFAAlternative #1.
VC ) O NOAZIDLI
Toy VOWN MOM I;L� mww 2 0
rc, rill
Lai
r �
-.1 cm m
Mi
�i�
K �
TOWN OF VAI!%
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2012
ITEM /TOPIC: Ever Vail - The Community Development Department requests that the
following Ever Vail applications be tabled to March 6, 2012.
Major Subdivision
A request for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3,
Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment
of the properties known as Ever Vail (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, 1000
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.
(PEC080062)
Rezoning (Ordinance No. 7, Series of 20111
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary
amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a establish
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning on Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision located
generally at 862, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road, and the South
Frontage Road 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. (PEC080061)
Special Development District Amendment (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2011)
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 South
Frontage Road West /Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivison, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC090036)
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment ( Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2011)
A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation
amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-
10-19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to amend the core area parking maps to include
"Ever Vail" (West Lionshead) within the "Commercial Core" designation, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC080065)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department
requests that the major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011 be
continued to the March 6, 2012 public hearing.
2/21/2012
BACKGROUND: Major Subdivision: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with conditions, on the preliminary plan
for the major subdivision to establish Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail Subdivision, by a vote of
5 -0 -2 (Viele and Cartin recused).
Rezoning: On January 10, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a zone district boundary amendment to
establish Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District zoning on Parcels 1 and 2 of the Ever Vail
Subdivision, by a vote of 5 -0 -2 (Viele and Cartin recused).
Special Development District Amendment: On January 24, 2011, the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for a
major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village, to remove
the Glen Lyon Office Building from the SDD in order for it to be incorporated into the Ever Vail
Subdivision, by a vote of 4 -0 -2 (Viele and Cartin recused).
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Amendment: On January 11, 2010,
the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with
conditions, for a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 12- 10 -19, Core Areas
Identified, Vail Town Code, by a vote of 4 -0 -2 (Viele and Cartin recused).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department requests that
the major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011 be continued to
the March 6, 2012 public hearing.
2/21/2012