HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-21 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
6:00 P.M., AUGUST 21, 2012
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot
be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider
an item.
1.
ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation (15 min. )
PRESENTER(S): Public
2.
ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Approval of July 3 and 17, 2012 meeting minutes;
2) Bridge Railing Rehabilitation Award - Chad Sali
(5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Various
3.
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
(5 min)
4.
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Golf and Nordic Clubhouse Project Update (45 min)
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall Stan Zemler
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review, take input and provide
comments on the list of issues which the project team is working on to
provide responses for all to discuss at the September Town
Council meetings.
BACKGROUND: The Town Council at the July 17th Council meeting the
council directed staff to
1) move forward with the re-design of the 18th hole,
2) to proceed with building design (including a parking solution that does not
locate parking on the 18th green), and
3) formally withdraw the proposed re-zoning application.
In addition, a neighborhood meeting was hosted on July 24th at the
clubhouse. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an update on the
Golf Course Clubhouse Renovation Project and to review the issues to date
and next steps. This includes the following topics: Progress since last Town
Council hearingSummary of neighborhood issuesCommunications
outreachNext steps
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take input, provide comments and direction
to staff as necessary
8/21/2012
5.
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Valley Medical Center Master Planning Process Update
(15 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Doris Kirchner, Vail Valley Medical Center
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No Action Required
BACKGROUND: On January 17, 2012, the Town of Vail, Vail Valley Medical
Center, Steadman Clinic and the Steadman Philippon Research Institute all
signed a memorandum of understanding for the redevelopment of the Town
of Vail municipal site, located at 75 South Frontage Road. A key component
of the MOU was the need for the Vail Valley Medical Center to master plan
the future of the medical center campus. As a result, Vail Valley Medical
Center has initiated the master planning process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is no staff recommendation at this
time. Staff will provide a recommendation once a draft master plan is
formulated. However, at a minimum, staff suggests the plan addresses the
following topics:
*Growth and expansion potential
* Proposed future land uses
* Redevelopment of the US Bank Building
* Vehicle and pedestrian traffic circulation
* Loading and delivery vehicle access (including air ambulances)
* Traffic system impacts and improvements
6.
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 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Bill Gibson, Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The applicant requests that the Vail
Town Council approves Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, on second
reading. The applicant also requests that the Vail Town Council approves
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012.
BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2011, the 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 purpose of the proposed ordinance is to establish a
new zone district, the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District; and the purpose
of the proposed resolution is to establish related design guidelines as part of
the Vail Village Master Plan. The policy objectives of the new zone district
and related design guidelines are as follows: - Streamlining the development
review process by establishing a new zone district to specifically address
townhouse properties.- Create incentives for redevelopment of existing
8/21/2012
townhouse properties. - Preserve the existing residential character of the
townhouse properties and the neighborhood. On May 1, 2012, the Vail Town
Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, by a
vote of 6-0-1 (Foley opposed), with the modifications that Section 12-6J-9
allows not more than one hundred twenty five square feet of GRFA for each
one hundred square feet of total site area (i.e. 1.25 GRFA ratio). The Vail
Town Council tabled Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, to correspond with the
second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012. The Vail Town Council
held a subsequent public hearing on May 15th and a work session on July
17th to further deliberate the proposed new zone district. On August 7, 2012,
the Vail Town Council tabled the proposed ordinance and resolution, and
directed Staff to prepare amendments to the proposed new zone district to
allow an unlimited amount of GRFA, a lower building height limit of 38 feet,
maintain the current 30% landscape area requirements, and to add additional
front yard landscaping guidelines in the new zone district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental
Commission recommends the Vail Town Council approves the second
reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012. The Planning and
Environmental Commission also recommends the Vail Town
Council approves Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012.
7.
ITEM/TOPIC: Main Vail Fire Station 2 bid award discussion. (30 min)
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall and Mark Miller
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff is asking that Council review
the information presented regarding the construction bids for the renovation
of the Main Vail Fire Station 2, and award/amend the project budget.
BACKGROUND: The renovation of Fire Station 2 has been discussed
and/or deferred for many years. Station 2 is significantly beyond its useful life
in regards to basic infrastructure/systems and in need of substantial
repairs/maintenance. There is $1.75 million in the 2013 budget as part of the
five year capital plan for renovation of Fire Station 2. Council approved
$150,000 in 2012 for design and engineering, etc. Due to several significant
projects including; municipal building construction, golf course clubhouse
renovation, library renovation, etc., it has become apparent that moving the
station renovation to 2012 would be prudent and advantageous for the TOV
(see memo).
In June, Council gave direction to move forward with final design and
construction drawings and proceed with the bid process. Plans and approvals
were completed and, staff solicited bids for construction, receiving six
competitive bids (see memo). All of the bids exceeded the initial “pre-
construction” estimates of approximately $1,400,000. Staff determined the
lowest qualifying bidder was GE Johnson Construction Company. GE
Johnson provided value engineering (VE) proposals for the TOV to consider
and staff carefully reviewed areas that could lower costs without reducing
quality and longevity of the structure. The bid from GE Johnson was
$1,619,505. Approximately $35,000 was cut through the VE process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: TOV staff is recommending that Council
direct the Town Manager to enter into a contract with GE Johnson for the
renovation of Fire Station 2 for the amount of $1,584,505 based on accepted
value engineering items. Staff is asking that the $1,750,000 budget in 2013
8/21/2012
be moved to 2012, bringing the total project budget to $1,900,000. Pending
approval, construction will start in September with approximate completion
date of March 2013 (prior to the start of the municipal building).
As of this date, a decision has not been made as to the “white box” space
being needed as office space during the muni-building construction. If it is
determined that it will not be used for office space, it could be converted for
use as EHU’s. As a matter of note, funds were not included in this budget for
EHU’s, although the space will have electrical and plumbing pre-engineered
to reduce costs at a later date.
8.
ITEM/TOPIC: Update to the Town Council on the Status of the Ford Park
Budget Phase 1 bid results and request toward the Ford park Phase 1
construction contract to RA Nelson Inc. (20 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Town Council to
award the Ford Park Phase 1 construction contract to RA Nelson in the
amount of $4,737,338 and to supplement the 2013 and 2014 RETT budgets
in the amount of $2.1 M.
BACKGROUND: Please see attached memorandum.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Town Council award the
Ford Park Phase 1 construction contract to RA Nelson in the amount of
$4,737,338 and supplement the 2013 and 2014 RETT budgets in the amount
of $2.1 M.
9.
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 25, Series of 2012, A Resolution Calling a
Special Election for November 6, 2012, to be Coordinated with Eagle County,
and Submitting Ballot Questions to the Registered Electors of the Town at the
November 6, 2012 Special Election. (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny Resolution
No.25, Series of 2012.
BACKGROUND: The Vail Town Council has determined that several
changes to the Vail Town Charter are warranted. All amendments to the Vail
Town Charter must be approved by the registered electors of the Town at a
regular or special election.
10. ITEM/TOPIC: Ever Vail - The Community Development Department
requests that the major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8 and 9, Series of
2011 be continued to the September 18, 2012, public hearing.
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
8/21/2012
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 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) (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 September 18, 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
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
8/21/2012
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 September 18, 2012 public hearing.
11. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (9:00 p.m.)
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Approval of July 3 and 17, 2012 meeting minutes;
2) Bridge Railing Rehabilitation Award - Chad Sali
PRESENTER(S): Various
ATTACHMENTS:
July 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Bridge Railing Rehabilitation Award Memorandum
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 1
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 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 Andy Daly.
Members present: Andy 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
_________________________________________________________________
Daly welcomed community members to the meeting. As there were quite a few audience
members in attendance for the Vail Golf Course issues, he set forth ground rules stating
everyone should turn off cell phones, go out in the hallway if they have outside conversations or
needed to take a call. He encouraged good dialogue, asked that everyone be respectful, be
constructive and the Council will do the same. He asked that all comments per person be
limited to two minutes. He also asked that folks not repeat what others said but state they agree
to what was said previously.
The first item on the agenda was Citizen's Participation. Cannon O’Brien, a 19-year old, born
and raised in the valley said he had a proposal for the Council to consider. He said he
understands there are is temporary vending allowed in Vail but would like to propose setting up
a temporary kiosk from November 1 through December 1, 2012, when seven thousand athletes
come to Vail to train. He wants permission to have a kiosk to serve food, snacks, beverages,
protein shakes and coffee at Golden Peak, from November 1, 2012, to December 1, 2012. He
said he would not be competing with Larkspur. Mayor Daly directed O’Brien to contact George
Ruther in the Community Development Department to speak with him and guide him through
the town’s process.
Art Abplanalp, representing George Hilliard, a property owner adjacent to the 18th fairway, said
his statements are in regard to the Vail Golf Course proceedings. He said there were two
separate issues: 1) moving the 18th hole and 2) the rezoning issues. He said a number of
people attended tonight’s meeting to speak on both issues. He heard the Council would be
continuing the re-zoning issue to the July 17th meeting. Because the two issues are intertwined,
he asked that the comments and correspondence from tonight’s evening meeting be attached
and made part of the record at the July 17th meeting when it is considered. Mire said this is not
a problem. He said the correspondence and emails from the July 3rd meeting will be made part
of the July 17th record.
2 - 1 - 1
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 2
The second item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. Two items were discussed.
The first was the Fire Department Wild land Fire Update. Fire Chief Mark Miller gave an update
on the Ready Set Go program which informed citizens on what to do if there is a wild land fire in
the area. This program was held at the West Vail Fire Station last week. He said 150 people
attended and there was great feedback and the community was grateful for the program. There
were handouts on evacuation plans and kits for those in attendance. Miller said the fire
departments across Eagle County were participating in hosting five more Ready Set Go events
throughout Eagle County. He said all community fireworks in Eagle County have been
cancelled. He said they are taking a very proactive stance on issues that may arise out of use
of illegal fireworks. Miller also said the National Guard is now participating in the Eagle County
fire system and it’s a great resource. He met with Vail Resorts Inc. (VRI) personnel and they
have agreed to allow the fire department to use their snowmaking equipment for wild fires if
necessary. VRI’s snowmaking equipment on the upper half of Vail Mountain is down for repairs.
However, the lower half of the mountain snowmaking equipment may be used. VRI staff will
also be participating in the First Response team process. He said smoking outdoors within
Forest Service and BLM land is restricted to inside a building, a vehicle or a tent. The Town of
Vail restrictions allow smoking in urbanized areas, which is defined as an area in public ways as
long as you are fifteen feet away from any vegetation and discard the cigarette properly. The
state regulations regarding smoking out-of-doors still apply as well. They are working with the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to be able to access their website program that tracks all
lightning strikes in the area. He said there were 7,000 positive and negative lightning strikes in
northern Colorado in the last 24 hours. They are hyper-vigilant. He will be on the website to
monitor the lightning strikes.
Rogers asked if cloud seeding is a possibility. Miller said the cloud seeding process can be
hazardous. Daly said between the Vail Fire Department and the Vail Police Department, they
are doing as much as possible to make this a safe and uneventful holiday season.
The second item on the town manager’s report was a discussion by Linn Brooks from the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD). She said the forecast looked good for rain next
week. However, she said weather patterns are very erratic and following them is difficult.
Currently, the stream flows are well above levels to be concerned with stream habitat. There is
still flexibility in monitoring the stream flows. The water regulations are still normal; however,
other communities are restricting water usage. This only gets those communities up to Vail’s
normal regulations which have been in place for 10 years. They are continuing to communicate
with excessive users and reminding them their water usage impacts water flows and water
storage. She looked into cloud seeding, a method to get snow crystals to form from storms, but
for rain it doesn’t work well.
She said Black Lakes is full and Eagle Park Reservoir is about 95% full and has enough water
for all decreed water use release augmentation. Normally, they have Homestake Reservoir in
the system but it would limit flexibility. Repairs to the Homestake system are ahead of schedule
and the reservoir will begin to be filled at the end of this year and will be half full by next
summer.
The third item on the agenda was Resolution No. 24, Series of 2012, a resolution authorizing
the Town Manager to execute a pre-construction and construction services agreement on behalf
of the Town of Vail with G. E. Johnson Construction Company for certain pre-construction and
2 - 1 - 2
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 3
construction services related to the Town of Vail municipal site redevelopment, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
George Ruther, Community Development Director, said there was a summary table used during
the general contractor selection process. He reviewed the steps taken by the selection
committee to recommend the town retain G.E. Johnson Construction Co. as the contractor to
complete certain pre-construction and construction services related to the Town of Vail
municipal site redevelopment. He reviewed the memorandum with the Council. There were five
proposals received from the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The proposals were
narrowed down to three teams of contractors. There were approximately fifteen people on the
selection committee on behalf of the Town, Vail Valley Medical Center and the Steadman-
Philippon Institute. On-site interviews were held with PCL, R.A. Nelson/Haselton and G.E.
Johnson Construction Co. The selection committee asked the general contractors to complete
pre-construction and construction services questionnaires as part of the redevelopment
process. G.E. Johnson Construction Company successfully competed in an RFP process. In
the end, the general contractor selection committee recommended G.E. Johnson Construction
Company out of the five respondents to the RFP. The selection committee found that G.E.
Johnson most closely met the eight adopted selection and evaluation criteria. Project
scheduling and approach were asked of each contractor and the selection committee reviewed
each.
The general contractor selection committee recommends the Council approve Resolution No.
24, Series of 2012, authorizing the Town Manager to execute a pre-construction and
construction services agreement on behalf of the Town of Vail with G. E. Johnson Construction
Company. There were representatives from G.E. Johnson if the Council had questions of them.
Rogers said she feels strongly about hiring locally and she felt local contractor R.A. Nelson was
a strong contender. She said based on everything she read in the packet, she wants a good
reason not to hire locally. She asked if R.A. Nelson teamed with other entities for projects in the
past and how that has worked out.
Ruther said due to the complexity of the project, the selection committee felt G.E. Johnson was
the best choice. He said that particular question did not come up in the selection process.
Ruther said there were questions asked about how they would work together and how they
would organize it. In the R.A. Nelson bid, Haselton was 51% of the partnership and R.A. Nelson
was 49%. Ruther said the contractor chosen will be working together with the medical office
building contractor. Having one general contractor puts the responsibility on one entity. Zemler
said a follow-up question was asked of all the firms regarding hiring local subcontractors. 70-
80% of work completed on the project would be by local subcontractors.
Jim Johnson, President of G.E. Johnson, said he recognized this was a unique project. He
stated several of his employees including managers, superintendent, construction executives,
craftsman, several employees and subcontractors live in the Eagle County area. They have
had an office in the valley for four years. Further discussion ensued.
Daly said the selection committee including Kurz, reviewed the criteria, requirements and needs
during this process. The committee made a decision to have one contractor on site as it served
the project best. One of the key concerns they had was to hire locally. He said Haselton was
based in Denver and R.A. Nelson in Eagle County. G.E. Johnson has been in this area doing
projects continuously for many years.
2 - 1 - 3
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 4
Foley made a motion to approve Resolution No. 24, Series of 2012, and the motion was
seconded by Kurz. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2012, an
ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map to rezone the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse (VGCC)
Parcel from the Outdoor Recreation District to the General Use District, located at 1778
Sunburst Drive/Vail Golf Course Clubhouse (VGCC) Parcel, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Moffet made a motion to table second reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2012, to the July
17, 2012, public hearing. Rogers asked why it was being tabled. Moffet said it was because
they needed to address the 18th hole being moved first, which was the next agenda item, before
hearing about the rezoning item.
Mire said it was decided that the public in attendance would be allowed to make comments of
record on the rezoning item. Then the rezoning can be tabled at that point and staff can
address design issues. The comments on both the rezoning item and the relocation of the 18th
hole agenda items need to be kept separate as they are separate issues and don’t necessarily
go hand in hand together. Before tabling to another date, this will give the people in attendance
a chance to express their thoughts and opinions on both agenda items. Then the Council can
make a decision or motion to table after hearing public comment and to allow staff and
consultants to clear up design issues. Moffet withdrew his motion at this time.
Ruther said staff recommended tabling to the July 17 public meeting allowing for the
conversation and comments from the public, as they need to be incorporated into the record.
This will also allow staff to prepare to come back with a Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) recommendation and proposals on the rezoning. Zemler said the reason for
putting this in alignment where it is now was because they need direction from Council on how
the Council and Vail Recreation District (VRD) are interested in proceeding with the whole
realignment or not, as it affects how the proposed rezoning moves forward.
Moffet said the public should be aware that their comments should be limited to the rezoning at
this time and not anything else.
Mire stated the relocation of the 18th hole does not require a rezoning change.
Daly said relative to rezoning, this item came up on the June 19 work session and it was agreed
staff needed to provide significantly more information before Council could consider the item.
Daly said they also have been getting information from adjacent property owners and wanted to
give them the opportunity of being heard at a public meeting. Daly stated for clarification
purposes, the June 19 meeting was the first time the Council saw the site plan of the
redevelopment of the golf course club house and adjacent areas. They were concerned about
parking on the 18th green and directed staff to come back with alternative solutions. During
today’s site visit, staff shared a new plan with Council which made possible a size in reduction
of the VGCC without any expansion of the parking lot and keeping it within the existing parking
lot space, except for parameter expansions of landscaping.
Daly said staff proposed a rezoning. Due to the design of the VGCC and in order to create a
first class clubhouse, this would require an increase in roof height for the VGCC. The best way
to address it is through a rezoning. It is clear to Council in conversation from the public there is
2 - 1 - 4
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 5
a serious concern about any rezoning that may impact the adjacent areas. Council intends to
address concerns as they go through the process.
Tom Braun, with Braun and Associates, said the current areas at the VGCC are zoned two
different zone districts, Outdoor Recreation and General Use (part of the parking lot). If the
zoning isn’t changed, they could bring in the project under Outdoor Recreation which only
allows for the building height of 21 feet. This would require a variance and possible conditional
use. If it is re-zoned General Use, it allows the PEC to set the zoning standards. The PEC
could set the building height to more than 20 feet without a variance. He said this is a
procedural step only.
Tjossem stated the rezoning is for only for the VGCC and parking lot. Braun said the line is
from the 18th green to the parking lot. Hall said they would have to go back to PEC to create a
new plan if the line is modified.
Art Abplanalp said he wanted to keep everything consolidated in order that a single record for
both matters could be heard together. He said the problem is that this proceeding is driven by a
plat which included the clubhouse, 18th green and fairway. Because of this plat, which included
moving the 18th green and adding parking where the 18th green is now, was the red flag that
caught people’s attention. He said the real issue is that the public notice that went out on the
rezoning and the delayed reaction to it was because it was about the rezoning and not the
moving of the 18th green. There was no separate notice regarding the 18th green being moved
in the rezoning notice. The Council needs to go back and get a proper description of what
needs to be allowed in the General Use zone district.
Steven Chotin, an adjacent property owner, said he is in opposition to the rezoning and the
renovation of the 18th green. He said he reviewed the video of June 5 when this was discussed,
where this was described as a housekeeping issue. He said his property values and right to
quiet enjoyment would be highly diminished. Another concern is that any future redevelopment
would not need to be presented to the community. The neighbors also want to know what types
of events will be at the new facility. They should be limited to type and number of uses. He said
the General Use zone district uses will devalue properties adjacent to the VGCC. He knows the
VGCC needs to be renovated. He wants the project to benefit everyone involved.
Daly said Council realized this was more than a housekeeping matter and asked staff to go
back and provide more details.
Deborah Webster spoke for several neighbors and said with the rezoning being tabled, the
neighbors want facts, decisions and criteria of how the rezoning may impact the property
owners. They also want to know how special events will be defined, what criteria will be used
and how the multi-use community space is used. She wants stringent parameters in place.
Eustachio Cortina, a real estate broker, said he represents five to six families on Sunburst Drive.
He said changes within the zoning are acceptable and they need to live with it. However, he
said his owners do not feel they were properly notified.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association (VHA), said the frustration
that is building around projects that may be zoned General Use district as a catch and is
showing a defect. There are expectations and there are standards, setbacks and heights that
2 - 1 - 5
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 6
are put in place. This needs to occur in General Use zoning. They need commitments and
givens on the part of Council prior to the approval. After approval, standards could be changed.
The public needs long term commitments and knowing what they are guaranteed in the future.
Dale Bugby said his concern is that the zoning is being taken way too lightly. This is a
recreation site, not a convention center site, and the current zoning needs to be kept. He said
the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) funds were used to purchase some of the property and he
wants to know if this changes the requirements for use of RETT funds. He said if they need a
variance for the building, they should ask for it and not change the zoning.
Donovan asked staff to address the RETT issue for the next meeting.
Darlena Montana, representing owners on the Fairway, stated they are opposed to the rezoning
as it will change the area adjacent to their residence.
Glenn Hilliard, owner, said he wanted to include that they have invested a substantial amount
into their property and don’t want the values to diminish. He thanked the Council for hearing
their comments and rethinking this issue.
Moffet made a motion to table second reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2012, to the July
17th public meeting and the motion was seconded by Foley.
Zemler asked for Council direction on the hole realignment and asked to change to the date of
the hearing to two meetings from today.
Moffet amended his motion to table second reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2012 to the
August 7th public meeting and Foley amended his second to reflect the date change as well.
Donovan asked about second reading notification to interested parties. Mire said tabling the
item to a specific date allows for that notification.
Zemler said a sign up sheet will be at back of the room asking for emails and addresses of
interested parties. Staff will make every effort to include those on the list.
A vote was taken and the vote passed, unanimously, 7-0.
The fifth item on the agenda was a Vail Golf and Nordic Clubhouse Project update including the
relocation of the 18th green with participation from the Vail Recreation District (VRD) Board.
Daly asked the VRD board members to come to the table for this item. He thanked the VRD
members and those members who put in the time on a joint subcommittee made up of two VRD
board members and two Council members, for their time and energy put into this project as well
as the rest of the VRD board members and staff for their time and energy put in to the fine
recreation amenities that Vail has enjoyed through the years.
VRD board members Bill Suarez, Ken Wilson, Jeff Wiles, Joe Hanlon and Rick Sackbauer and
Mike Ortiz, VRD Director, introduced themselves to the public.
Zemler said Council was clear at the last meeting to remove the parking lot. There are still
items like trash pickup and loading and delivery to address and they are confident they can work
through those issues. Zemler said there was a rumor that a tent was proposed in the back area
2 - 1 - 6
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 7
due to an old drawing that showed a pad-like area that looked like a possible tent. This proposal
includes the same 200 person facility they have been discussing. No tent is involved.
Zemler stated Pedro Campos and Dave Kaslak from Zehren and Associates were there to
discuss the two proposed options. Kevin Atkins, a golf design consultant for VRD, addressed
the 18th hole realignment. There are two options: 1) move the 18th hole 150 yards to the east;
and 2) leave the 18th hole where it is. Also discussed was the creation of an indoor/outdoor
event center that serves multiple uses. Staff is asking Council, as the property owner, to give
permission to the VRD to realign the 18th hole if the information given is deemed adequate.
Campos explained Zehren is a local architectural firm. This is a very important project to them.
Their firm is invested in the success of this facility regardless of the 18th hole project. He
reviewed the 115 parking space requirements, the proposed footprint of the clubhouse and a
viable event space. There are impacts to the existing landscaping by eight to ten feet but most
can be replanted. He reviewed the power point submitted, including entrance and exits, bus
turnaround and bus stop. He reviewed the options presented and discussed safety zones for the
golf area at the 18th green and near the clubhouse area.
Kevin Atkinson, with Phelps-Atkinson Golf Design, said his firm has been working with the VRD
since 2009. His firm has designed and renovated many golf courses around the U.S., Canada
and Mexico. He said his firm has won national awards and several awards for their design and
renovations of golf courses. They were hired in January of 2009 to do a master plan for the Vail
golf course and this was presented at a VRD public meeting in October of 2010. During the
development of the master plan process, they spent nine months discussing multiple options as
to where the clubhouse should be located. They determined the clubhouse is in the best spot
now. He said the clubhouse area is very tight, including the 18th green and the circulation of the
clubhouse and parking are all very tight. They wanted to create more space for safety and
flexibility. The master plan and 18th green placement were approved in October 2010. Golf
courses are growing, living things, so during the process, the option to relocate the 18th green
and the safety zone issue was discussed. The concepts were all presented in public meetings.
He said developing a new golf green needs to take into account a variety of issues. It needs to
have variety, be fun, be memorable, be aesthetically pleasing and have playability.
His firm hired Dave Tanner, a specialist on determining the height on how high a golf ball can
fly, how far, etc., and that gave scientific data on this location and what the safety concerns are
for this hole. He had to design this hole to create a safe scenario in this area and they needed
to look at netting. Everything comes down to budget. They have to work within budget
constraints given. The various costs are determined by netting which is expensive and that is
how budget came into play. He went through the various concepts presented and the cost of
each. These concepts were studied extensively in 2009 and given budget and time. The
flexible par 4 (long or short par 4) can be a new push in the golf industry to create fun and
variety. This creates a good golf hole.
Campos continued to review the various options.
Rick Sackbauer, VRD board member, said Ben Krueger had been his mentor for 25 years and
taught him a lot about the Vail golf course, clubhouse and maintenance of the golf course,
including how he designed and maintained it. He gave a review of the history of the Vail golf
course through the years. He said Krueger wrote a book called “Ben Here.” He said the Vail
2 - 1 - 7
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 8
Golf Club has a history of compromise. He went through all the changes that the golf course
has gone through over the years. He said life safety is the staff and board member’s number
one concern. Vail cannot afford to miss building the event center and not using the views at the
golf course. He said the fund balance was $1.25 million a few years ago and now it is $3.3
million. The property taxes and management have helped to increase it. The district has lost
$500,000 the past 2 years due to lower property taxes and will lose $225,000 per year starting
in 2013. They are looking for a new way to offset those losses. They are investing $1 million
and feel this is an outstanding investment. They need to grow and not stagnate. They can’t
afford to tread water. Building a competitive event center is what it’s about.
Ken Wilson, VRD board member, stated this is his 4th term and 15th year on the VRD board. He
stated this has been the most gut wrenching decision for the VRD board. The relocation of the
18th hole does not require a rezoning change. He said the objectives were to stay within budget,
add an event center for 200 people and having an outdoor component was necessary, but there
needed to be enough parking for golf and the event center. Given the objectives and two years
of scrutiny, making the 18th green a par 4 was necessary. As there has been no increase in
taxes or user fees, this made it a necessity. He has been consistent in saying the 18th green
stays the same. However, the decision was made with due diligence and will be beneficial to all
members of the community.
Rogers asked Atkinson about the safety issues when designing the hole. She was surprised to
find that the current alignment of the 18th hole has safety concerns. She asked what has
changed. Atkinson said golf courses are living, breathing, changing entities. When the golf
course was originally built, there were no safety guidelines, there were no setbacks. After more
and more people realized the dangers, there became a need to have safety guidelines. He said
equipment changes have made the golf ball go farther. This is part of the evolution of the sport.
Michelle Hall stated she had recently finished her second term on the VRD board. She read her
email/letter into the record. She said the voters made it clear on how to use the conference
center funds. She said there were multiple public notices during the process on this issue. She
doesn’t think any of the board members, Atkinson or the Council deserve the negativity of the
community.
Stephen Connolly said the last three weeks have been incredible and commended the VRD and
staff on working to try not moving the 18th hole. He asked Council to remove the roadblocks for
getting this done right. If the VRD needs to build a multi-use facility, then they need Council to
fund them. The club house needs to be rebuilt, not remodeled. There needs to be a fully
functioning restaurant, parking utilizing a valet service and release of the VRD from the August
6 start date.
Gretchen Busse, an adjacent property owner, said she lives on Sunburst Drive. Her big
concern is the parking lot and cutting in a berm between Sunburst Drive and the parking lot for a
bus turnaround. She said the curve is on a downhill slope and bikers use this area. It would be
very dangerous. She said the bus exit is a big concern.
Stephen Chotin said remodeling the clubhouse would be a problem. They need tear down and
build a new club house and they need more money. He said to fundraise if they do not have
enough revenue. He said the house values have gone down. If they continue down this road, it
will devalue the property values even more.
2 - 1 - 8
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 9
Daly said the golf course is on a small piece of property as it is. Atkinson said bubble diagrams
studied show relocation and moving several pieces of the golf course is costly. The cost to
redevelop would be around $1.5 million.
Beth Slifer said the decision to add the multi-use facility has been popular for many people in
town. She is the Chairman of the Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council (VLMDAC) and
said his is fully supported by most of the VLMDAC members, with a couple of abstentions. The
improvements will contribute to the economic vitality of the town.
Rahl Hammond stated it seems like business interests are overcoming the recreation interest.
He said to save the money from moving the 18th green and put it in getting a better clubhouse.
He didn’t think moving the 18th green now is the right time to do so.
Gene Henry stated he spends three months in Vail. He plays the Vail golf course every day. If
he hadn’t known Ken Wilson, he said he wouldn’t have known about these changes. He said
they need to focus on the range problem and keep the focus on the golfers.
Glen Hilliard said he supports the golfers and neighbors. He believes at this location, the VRD
is in the business of golf, not events. He said when you take a business into another arena, it’s
likely not to be successful. He said take the money and build a world class golf club house.
That’s an appropriate use, not an events center.
Colleen McCarthy, a thirty-four year resident, business owner and former VRD board member,
said the billion dollar renaissance is the direction of the golf course. She is offended to have a
former elected official reprimand the public for not being involved and not following the process.
She doesn’t believe the VRD needs to be in the special event business. They are in the
recreation business. She agrees they need a new clubhouse and a restaurant as the food is
currently non-existent. We need to get back to what VRD is all about which is recreation. She
asked the rezoning issue be eliminated.
Dale Bugby, a resident of Vail since 1980 and business owner, stated virtually no one got the
notice on what was being planned for changes of the 18th hole. Golf should be priority at the
clubhouse and designed for golf first. Designing to accommodate weddings and other events
should be second. He said compromise is not a design standard. He said to save hole number
18 is all it takes to avoid legal fees.
Art Abplanalp, representing all the owners in the safety zone issue area, said none of the
owners living in that area care if they are in the safety zone. They are there to live on the golf
course, and have been living there for years. The resolution to golf balls going over the fences
is to use lower compression balls. Other issues are restrictive covenants and the ballot
question issue. The question wasn’t to spend the conference center funds to realign the golf
course 18th green but to use as a multi-use event center. There is no reason to go through the
exercise the Council is considering.
Peter Woods asked if the Atkinson firm was involved with redesign of hole number 7. Atkinson
said no. If the 18th hole is redesigned to play inside a safety zone, will it be safe in 10 years.
Atkinson said he couldn’t say as the golf industry is trying to address these issues all the time.
He asked Campos if the parking will help sustain the events planned. Campos said yes.
2 - 1 - 9
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 10
Hermann Staufer said one thing everyone can agree on is to get a new clubhouse. He was on
the VRD for twelve years. The conference center funds should be dedicated to just the
clubhouse. He said government should not compete with free enterprise. He asked why the
town and VRD should compete with people collecting sales tax for the town and the VRD. He
said the restaurant piece of the club house has not been successful over the years. Why would
the VRD be in the convention business? There is no need for it as there are plenty of other
places in town to fill that need.
Michael Schwartz said he is an avid golfer and plays at the Vail golf course regularly. One of
the special things at the Vail Golf Course is finishing the 18th hole and watching and being
watched. Moving the green does not improve the golf course or enhance anyone’s golf
experience. He wants a full season of golf season to enjoy the golf course before tearing it up
for the renovation. It is a great golf course; don’t detract from the golf experience. He
appreciated everyone’s work on this project.
Allen Tolk said he hasn’t an opinion on whether it should be a par 4 or 5 hole. He has spent
most of his life taking care of people being hit by golf balls. He is concerned about reducing the
chance of someone being hit from the chest by a ball coming over the fence but increasing the
chance of someone being hit in the head from hole 17th is worrisome.
Atkinson said that particular concern has been considered and trees have been added to the
17th tee and along the creek to alleviate that concern.
Daly thanked everyone for their participation.
Tjossem said a lot of people have pointed out many things she has been asking herself. She
said the driving range is the culprit of many of the issues. She wants to know why it is a sacred
cow. The driving range is where the focus should be at this time.
Atkinson said low compression golf balls were discussed at length and will continue to be
discussed. As far as keeping the 18th green sitting where it is now will not be a safe setting if
the club house is rebuilt where it is now. The 18th green needs to be relocated. Safety should
be considered. He has heard that people do not care but he has been involved in court cases
where the decision was different. It cannot stay where it is as it is a significant safety issue as it
exists right now.
Moffet thanked Sackbauer for the history of the Vail golf course. He said it was important to
know the 18th is not an iconic hole. He was not on Council when a lot of this discussed in the
beginning. He said in April 2011 there were some renderings of a clubhouse in winter and
interior drawings of the event space. When it came time to discuss conference center funds,
this was what was in his mind. When the time came to discuss conference center funds, what
was compelling is the public was told there would be a facility to accommodate modest events,
including family reunions, weddings and bar mitzvahs. A facility is needed as there is excess
demand now. He fought for this ballot initiative for the reason that this was a multi-use facility to
increase the Vail economy plus provide a great golf experience. Moffet said he is comfortable
with the change of the 18th hole as the town is on notice that there is a safety issue from the
consultant and the needs to be addressed. We fail the voters if there is not an event space
2 - 1 - 10
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 11
included. This seems like a bait and switch to the voters if we don’t follow through with an
events center.
Donovan said she is concerned with the process. She was on the conference committee and
there was specific ballot language. The voters voted to make the golf course a world class
experience and make it an effective community space. She is frustrated with starting out with a
narrow focus on the golf course item and Ford Park, too. They have added more and more onto
this project and it has spiraled a bit out of the original intent. There is a need to take a step back
and look at what the intention was of where the conference center funds are being used. She
appreciates the comments, the emails and conversations as there are many diverse reasons to
keep the 18th hole where it is and it’s just not how it finishes. At this time, she can’t support
moving the 18th hole. She said they need to gauge down the event center to work with the
Nordic center and improved clubhouse.
Rogers said she can’t speak to the finishing hole but she is a retired litigator and when the town
has been put on notice that there is a safety problem and we do nothing, the town can take out
the checkbook. She is very concerned about the safety issue and can’t take it lightly. She said
when Timber Ridge was studied, it was in a high rockfall hazard area. The town had potential
legal liability because of the project being in a hazard zone. So the town was forced to do
mitigation on the project to protect the town from liability. If the experts are telling Council they
can’t build a clubhouse, even on the existing site, without moving the 18th hole, she has to be in
favor of moving the 18th hole. The clubhouse and the 18th hole are intertwined together when
they weren’t necessarily intertwined before. Moving this hole has been on the books for three
years. She hates that this is making one dependent on the other. She agrees with Slifer that
this is in the best interest to create a multi-use facility so many people can use. The event
facility will serve many more community members. W hen she walked into the clubhouse fifteen
years ago, the view was the best view in Vail Valley. This is a unique location, a facility is
needed and this is an economic driver for the town which is important. She is in favor of moving
the 18th hole.
Foley said he is on the recreation subcommittee. He apologized that the word didn’t get out by
not giving enough notice to interested parties to move the 18th hole. They need to answer many
more questions of what needs to be done out at the clubhouse and what will be the actual cost.
He said they need to step back, leave things alone for this season and get more input from
everyone, including the VRD, consultants, public, staff and Council and make this the best
possible project for the town.
Tjossem said she is in favor of the event center. She said a lot of voters were not golfers and
we sometimes over engineer. If you look at Donovan Pavilion, the patio works well at their
location. The event lawn at the golf course may need to be looked at more closely.
Kurz said he appreciated the tone of civility during this discussion. He said this was quite
different from what had been printed in the newspaper of late, as it had been inflammatory and
misleading information. He agrees with having an event center that can be used more than
once or twice. He said with new rules from the Forest Service, some events that we might have
in town may use Vail Mountain. Eagle’s Nest will draw events away from town. No events on
the mountain give revenues to the town. Economic vitality is important and if that is connected
to the clubhouse, that is something he supports. He thinks stepping back and taking a closer
look will help.
2 - 1 - 11
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 12
Daly has been on the subcommittee and been part of the entire process. The process has been
an extensive and extraordinary process. He applauds the VRD for their efforts and alternatives
as some ideas that have come up need to be looked at. This should be continued to the July 17
meeting to explore other options that may have been overlooked. The town doesn’t have $20
million to put into a major move. Fiscal responsibility is a concern for the public and is also the
Council’s concern.
Tjossem asked if the budget is something that can provide wiggle room for the consultants to
come up with something. Daly said could they use another million to throw at this.
Zemler asked Council for clearer direction. He said staff doesn’t have two weeks to move this
back if they want to move forward with the start date. It will depend on how far they want to go
with the initial analysis. The VRD can look at low compression balls which helps with that one
zone outside of the netting. This doesn’t change the circumstance of moving the 18th hole. He
say they can come back and throw more money at it but they are a bit boxed in as the
discussion to move the range has already been discussed and reviewed. They are back to
some aspect of keeping the hole but using low compression balls and figuring out a different
design at that location. Moving the hole around it doesn’t solve the other issues like parking.
Daly said the way the clubhouse is designed still leaves safety issues. Zemler said there may
be a compromise to figure out how not to have balls go over the range and on to that particular
portion. The hole can be moved back a bit farther. But the hole still needs to move. There
needs to be compromise. He said short of abandoning the renovation project and not building a
new clubhouse is an option. The choices are running out.
Rogers asked if there was a deadline. Mike Ortiz said the deadline in order to build the 18th
green to be used next year means the construction would need to be started by August 6th.
This will allow turf in the ground by October 6th for the following year.
Daly said it comes down to using the existing turf of the 18th green. Kurz said they should only
use low compression balls on the driving range. He asked how the golfers feel about that. Ken
Wilson said it would be a warm up range but not a practice range.
Atkinson said it would depend on the type of low compression ball used. Other golf ranges use
very, very low compression balls, but golfers are not happy using these balls.
Zemler asked if there will be another public discussion. Daly said yes it will be another public
meeting so the public can participate. Zemler said they will make another attempt at this
agenda item and see if they can make the July 17 meeting.
Moffet thanked the VRD board for attending the meeting and invited them back to the July 17th
meeting.
Daly thanked everyone for participating in the discussion.
A three minute break was taken at 9:00 p.m.
The sixth item on the agenda was the Matterhorn Bridge Replacement Award.
2 - 1 - 12
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012 Page 13
Chad Salli, Project Manager, said the bid came in higher than anticipated and said the $100,000
overrun was due to the federal process.
Moffet made a motion to approve supplementing the 2012 budget in the amount of $100,000 to
cover design and construction costs, and to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a
contract, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, with Colorado Constructors Inc. in the
amount of $970,068.30 in order to complete the work. The motion was seconded by Foley. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The seventh item on the agenda was second Reading of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2012, an
ordinance repealing and reenacting the approved development plan for Phase IV of Special
Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Article 12-9A-10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of one existing fractional fee club unit
to one dwelling unit, located at 16 Vail Road (The Sebastian) / a portion of lots M, N, and O,
Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Rogers made a motion to approve on second reading Ordinance No. 7 with conditions, as
follows: 1) The applicant shall amend all applicable condominium maps to reflect the change in
use and cause said maps to be recorded in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder
within 90 days of approval of the major amendment to the special development district
application; and 2) The applicant shall ensure that loading and delivery doors be closed at all
times when not in use, pursuant to 14-10-10E, Vail Town Code. The motion was seconded by
Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed, unanimously, 7-0.
The eighth item on the agenda was adjournment.
As there was no further business, Moffet made a motion to adjourn and the motion was
seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting
adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
2 - 1 - 13
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 1
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 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 Andy Daly.
Members present: Andy Daly, Mayor
Kerry Donovan
Kevin Foley
Ludwig Kurz
Greg Moffet
Margaret Rogers
Susie Tjossem
Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
_________________________________________________________________
The first item on the agenda was Proclamation No. 4, Series of 2012, honoring Pepi
Gramshammer. Daly thanked Tjossem for reminding the Council of this special event.
Each Councilmember read sections of the proclamation into the record. This proclamation
declared the Council was making August 6, 2012, Pepi Gramshammer Day in Vail on his 80th
Birthday.
Moffet made a motion to adopt the proclamation and Tjossem seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Michael Cacioppo stated he sent an
open records request via email to Police Chief Dwight Henninger on July 5, 2012, and then
again on July 12, 2012. He said he had not received a response to his request to date. He said
he also spoke with Town Attorney Matt Mire. He didn’t like Mire’s answers or attitude and felt
disrespected by both Henninger and Mire. He said that is why the town gets regularly sued.
Daly asked if the town has met the statutory requirement. Mire said the town has met the
statutory requirement and they don’t get regularly sued.
Pat Paris said she has been a resident in and out of Vail for 30 years. She said there had been
several markets in Vail village in the 1980’s and now there are none. She asked the Council to
look into having a market in Vail Village.
Daly said there will be a grocery store in Ever Vail when it’s built, which will be on the bus route.
He asked her to contact Ruther in the Community Development Department and he could take
her through the history and challenges of why this has happened in downtown Vail. She said a
village should always have a grocery market available in the village. The town and Vail Resorts
have always catered to the needs of the community and guests. She is frustrated that this is one
2 - 2 - 1
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 2
need that is not being met. She said Ever Vail will still not meet the needs of having a market in
Vail Village.
Mike Mathias stated he lives in East Vail and is on the board of the Eagle County Fair and
Rodeo. He invited the Council and community to the Eagle County Fair & Rodeo from July 25th
through July 28th. He said statistics they have show that only 6% of the people who go to the
Eagle County Fair & Rodeo come from Vail. He said it was disturbing that the number is so low.
He encouraged everyone from Vail to attend. He said it is a great fair and rodeo that everyone
could have a good time attending.
Jonathan Levine apologized to the Council and others in the room for offending them in the
past. He said he had only wanted to be an advocate and the whistleblower. He said there were
several people stranded again in Vail over the past few weeks due to no taxi service. He said
High Mountain Taxi is not doing their job well. He found out High Mountain Taxi’s telephones
were not working. He called the police department dispatch and asked if his limousine company
could respond in an emergency to a woman and her child stranded at the hospital. He was told
not to respond as they didn’t have reservations with the limousine service. The police
department stated they couldn’t assist in helping him break the state laws regarding limousine
regulations. He reiterated several scenarios he witnessed of people being stranded. He said
one taxi company is not enough for Vail. He said Vail needs to be customer friendly and needs
to allow various types of transportation services to respond to the needs of Vail clients. He said
this is a safety issue. He said two years ago Commander Wright banned limousines from the
village. Henninger then came back and said he would make things right. He said it wasn’t
done. He wants the rules removed immediately.
Daly said the discussion regarding the limousine and taxi services will be done in the fall of
2012.
Matt Krause stated he works for Levine at Hummers of Vail, and asked why the Cadillac
Escalades used by some of the local hotels have out of state license plates on them. They are
speeding through town and are getting away with it. If the Hummers of Vail drivers speed five
miles over the limit, the Vail police pull them over. He wants this investigated and stopped. He
said he wants to pick up their guests at the bottom of Lionshead and not at the top.
Daril Cinquanta, a private detective for 21 years and a veteran of the Denver police department,
said he was the investigator regarding Levine’s charges in 2004. Daly asked him not to discuss
at this time as it did not belong in public participation.
The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. On the consent agenda was the
approval of the 2013 Budget Timetable and Philosophy and the approval of the meeting minutes
for June 5 and 19, 2012.
Moffet made a motion to approve the June 5, 2012, meeting minutes and the motion was
seconded by Kurz. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Foley stated on the June 19th meeting minutes there was a misspelling of a name on page
three. He said it should be Gorman, not Mormon. Donaldson will correct on final meeting
minutes.
2 - 2 - 2
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 3
Moffet made a motion to approve the June 19th minutes as amended and the motion was
seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. There were two items under the
town manager report: a Fire Department Restriction Update and an Eagle River Water &
Sanitation District Water Supply and Drought Update.
Fire Chief Mark Miller gave a brief update on the wild land fire restrictions. He said the rain has
helped but the BLM and Forest Service will meet tomorrow to discuss changing the fire
restrictions back to Stage 1. This is good news. The bad news is the live fuels are so dry they
won’t recover this summer. If the typical “monsoon season” ends in August, this area will be
back to Stage 2 fire restrictions. The Ready Set Go program meetings are going great. The
wild land mitigation crew is working hard and is being very vigilant.
Diane Johnson with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) stated rain brings a
respite but that we are not out of the woods. ERWSD provides water from Vail to Edwards. The
stream flows are 40% of historic averages and Eagle River is 50% below average. The rain has
bought a week to 10 days of respite. The swiftness of the stream flows are what they look at to
gauge where they are. The Vail Daily has a drought watch section on the front page and fire
information in there as well. The entire state of Colorado is in severe or worse conditions for
drought. Eagle County is in extreme conditions. More than 70% is in exceptional or extreme
drought conditions. There will be no recovery but the district is hoping to get through to Labor
Day. The nation has experienced the warmest weather from last July to this June that has ever
recorded since 1895. June in Colorado was the warmest on record and the second driest on
record. The community role is the other half of the equation. To that end they are asking
people to prioritize water use at homes and cut back just as the Vail Golf Course has done.
They are targeting people using water excessively through technology. 20,000 gallons per
month or less is what they are asking people to use. If it’s over that amount, they are asking
people to cut back their use. She said to call the ERWSD or look at the bill to see what you are
using.
The fifth item on the agenda was the Vail Golf and Nordic Center Clubhouse Project regarding
the 18th hole.
Daly asked people to limit their time to two minutes per person, be constructive and respectful,
turn off cell phones, and go out of the room if you have to answer a call or have side
conversations to lessen the disruptions to the meeting.
Daly said on June 19th the Council was first shown site plans for the golf course and that parking
was not an appropriate use of the property on the 18th green. The rezoning change has been
sent back to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to look at reducing the parcel
or changing operating guidelines for the club house and remodel. Daly welcomed the Vail
Recreation District (VRD) board back to the Council meeting. The VRD board Joe Hanlon, Ken
Wilson, Jeff Wiles and Bill Suarez introduced themselves as well as Mike Ortiz, Executive
Director of the VRD. Ortiz stated VRD board member Rick Sackbauer could not be at the
meeting.
Stan Zemler, Town Manager, said they have three things to cover and get direction from
Council and the VRD board. They were: 1) get general acceptance to the plan as previously
2 - 2 - 3
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 4
submitted as it relates to the club house; 2) get the approval by Council to allow the VRD to
proceed with an application for the realignment of the 18th hole; and 3) the town is withdrawing
the current application for rezoning. He said it was likely that staff would be resubmitting a
request for rezoning that has conditions attached to it. Before that, they want to hear from all
interested neighbors and other parties to make it as friendly to the community and neighborhood
as they can. Council directed them to see if an alternative could be produced to address
concerns from the last meeting.
Kevin Atkinson, an owner with Phelps-Atkinson Golf Course Design, introduced himself and
said it was good to be back. He reviewed Concepts A and B, which included netting and is
expensive; as well as Concepts C & D, which did not include netting. He reviewed how they
reached the decision that Concept F was now the best plan. He reviewed the power point. He
stated after the June 19th meeting, they heard the concerns, comments and passion from the
public. They came up with Concept F as the best solution as submitted. He reviewed the
changes which would recommend the 18th hole to be a par 4, keep the patio views from the club
house, protect the area with netting, add some berms and trees for landscaping, keep the
variety within hole 18, and still be a great par 4 hole.
Pedro Campos, landscape architect with Zehren and Associates, stated he has been working
hand-in-hand with Atkinson in responding to the impact of the club house facility and the
relocation of the 18th green. He reminded everyone of the goal which was to remodel the facility
that needed much improvement. He reviewed the power point presentation from Zehren and
Associates which included Concept F. He said the circulation with regard to buses and parking
concerns meet the requirements of the town with limited impact to some landscaping around the
parking lot which will need to be removed. He said shifting the hole and supplementing with
netting, there can be a nice relationship between the interior of the building as well as exterior
decks with the 18th green. They believe this is a balanced solution to the concerns expressed at
the last meeting.
Rogers asked about the concern about the bus stop issue and the safety of the bicyclists
coming down the road. Campos said the bus stop is not fundamentally changing and has asked
the transit folks to review it. The transportation folks are the experts and they said this concept
was attainable. The bus stop is not moving.
Suarez asked if the outside patio is moving. Campos said it is moving a little bit. He said there
are trade offs and this concept captures southeastern views. Zemler asked if someone was
going to address the net to allow this possibility.
Atkinson said they know the height needed based on a study that can be achieved with a baffle
concept instead of a straight line net. They are still in an evaluation of which to use. There is
enough conversation to get a cost estimate and recognize the challenges with the netting. They
recognize the challenges of the netting as it had not been in the conversation to date. Atkinson
said it would be an additional 50 feet higher than what is there now.
Donovan asked about the memo on page six regarding the loss of range ball fees and
instructional fees versus a practice range. She asked if the loss would be very significant. Ortiz
said if they use a low enough compression ball so the balls don’t go over the net, it is tough to
teach. The driving range revenue is $70,000 to $90,000 year which is significant. There would
need to be a combination of both the net and balls.
2 - 2 - 4
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 5
Wilson said they ordered 600 low compression balls. Many individuals of different abilities use
them. When used the low compression balls still got over the net and do not solve the problem
of balls over the net on the right hand side. Daly asked what the feedback from guests was
using these balls. Wilson said it was very poor. This would clearly be a warm up range if they
are used. Suarez clarified that Concept F is to go higher with the net in certain places and not
change the balls. Atkinson said yes. His experience is that going to low compression balls is
not a great resolution. Daly asked how much the netting would cost.
Atkinson said changing the net could be $800,000.
Tjossem asked for an explanation on baffles and the step system. Ortiz said the first net would
be around 100 feet and then step up to 120 and then 130 feet.
Suarez said they have taken a lot of input and this is the fourth reiteration of the plans. He said
it was important to solve the safety issues and still have outside seating on the patio. It’s
important for the whole project to get the 18th hole the way they want it and then look more
closely at the club house remodel.
Daly said the safety issue is really an excuse and concern to increase outdoor utilization for the
club house. He said it was the redesign including the community function that leads to safety
issues.
Atkinson stated two weeks ago they had addressed the safety issue with a net. If the 18th green
is kept there is another dangerous situation with the club house and the 18th green move, as
there is a significant issue on the right hand side of the club house. Professionally, he would
never recommend keeping the 18th hole where it is as this is a tight spot.
Kurz said after the last meeting he asked for a site visit to see how much work had been done to
the 18th hole and golf course improvements in other areas. He said it was obvious this project
was not done overnight. He thanked the VRD board for their foresight and improvements on the
golf course. He said low compression balls don’t seem to solve anything as people play to see
how far they can hit the ball at high altitude. This is counterproductive of what they are trying to
accomplish.
Wilson said this option became available when Council said they may have to put more money
into it. The proposal was not presented earlier as it would be in the path of the golf course. The
moving of the 18th hole was in a 2010 master plan.
Daly asked for public comment.
Bob Armour stated he worked at the Vail golf course and commended all the hard work and
compromises he has seen. He is concerned with baffling and would not want to lose the driving
range. He prefers looking into going up higher with the nets and not losing the driving range.
Atkinson said it does narrow the driving range but they are still looking at this part.
Rob Levine said he is an avid golfer and when conference center funds with alternatives were
approved by voters, it was meant to attract new business. He encouraged everyone not
2 - 2 - 5
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 6
sacrifice improvement of the golf course club house and expanded possibilities and to keep the
economy in mind.
Gretchen Busse, who lives on Sunburst, had a question about the site plan on rezoning and if it
included a cut in a berm.
Campos said it did but the rezoning is being withdrawn. Hall said on the site plan, a cut was for
the bus and bus exit only as this was for professional bus drivers. Daly asked if there is a gate
or something to make others not use this area. Hall said that is a possibility.
Busse said her concern was about the downhill curve, buses, pedestrians and bicyclists in the
same area. She said it would also require five big trees to be removed that her homeowner’s
association planted. She wants the exit lane for buses to be reconsidered.
Stephen Connolly echoed Armour about the changes that have been made. He asked about
the low compression balls and the cost about practice versus warm up fees.
Atkinson said he can’t give a concrete number as it’s fiscally hard to determine. When he is
warming up, he still wants to find out how far he can hit the ball as well as other things.
Connolly asked if they were testing low compression balls. Ortiz said they tried six different
types and had a good sampling. Additional discussion ensued about various types of golf balls.
Brett Schoenfeld, with the Vail Cascade, said he ran a golf resort in Virginia that was host of
nine U.S.G.A. golf events. He is a 5 handicap golfer and said he would not use low
compression balls and would not take lessons with low compression balls. He said moving the
green forward would make it better for playability, and making it a par 4 versus a par 5 is not a
big deal. Golfers play the golf courses to whatever the course is laid out. One of the goals
approving the ballot question was to spend money redoing the VGCC and to have a multi-use
facility for more events and weddings. He said Vail has a deficiency of sites for having
weddings and other events. He believes there are ways to make this work harmoniously.
Gene Henry was impressed by the amount of work done so far. He appreciated everybody’s
efforts and time they have put into this project.
Dale Bugby said he manages the Sunburst Condominiums and is a 10 handicap. He said when
the parking lot was moved from the 18th hole site, he thought moving the 18th hole was not an
issue anymore. He said VRD promised him they wouldn’t change the 18th hole, but it is still
being moved. He said the only safety hazard is around the clubhouse. A simple solution would
be to move the weddings and other events indoors or put them on the roof. He listed several
items on why to keep the 18th hole where it is including: getting the clubhouse built this decade
before the town gets sued; golfers want the 18th hole to stay where it is; the neighbor’s won’t
sue the town; the voters only wanted a new clubhouse; the zoning is for recreational use not for
general use; the deed restriction on the golf course specifically prohibits other uses; the safety
debate doesn’t’ hold water as only one guy has been hit on the 18th hole; the VRD board never
wanted change to 18th hole; and the hoteliers don’t support the event center. He spoke with five
hotel representatives and they did not support the event center and felt it would directly compete
with their business. He also said if the 18th hole is kept where it is, he would not come to any
more Council meetings.
2 - 2 - 6
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 7
Deborah Webster said the Pulis deed restriction should have put up red flags to Council with
regard to having a multi-use facility there. She also said no one reached out to the neighbors
for their input on the changes to the VGCC prior to May 2012. She asked if tents would be
allowed on this site. Zemler stated there are no tents shown on the drawings but it could
happen at different events if there was a request. She was also concerned about the noise from
events.
Steven Blanchard read a letter by Stephen Chotin into the record which referenced his previous
emails to Council.
Glen Hilliard thanked the Council and VRD for working to continue to resolve issues. He said
there is a perceived need to have an events center. He said the hotels wouldn’t put there funds
into something like this. The community does want to remodel the VGCC and preserve the 18th
hole. He doesn’t want an events center in his neighborhood. He said this has been a poor
process. We should back up and be thoughtful about what we are trying to accomplish.
Art Abplanalp said he represented multiple property owners adjacent to the golf course. He
presented a packet of information to Council with a copy of the golf course deed, Council
minutes of August 2 and 16, 2011, and an email from Warren Pulis. He said the neighbors were
not properly notified and this project isn’t fully developed or clearly thought out. The current
time constraint doesn’t allow for more input. He asked to defer activity on this project for a year
to allow property owners and the town to work together on a mutually agreeable outcome for
this project and the process to work.
Michael Cacioppo stated there have been weddings and parties at the golf course for 30 years.
He is not a NIMBY (not in my back yard) person. He doesn’t buy the theory that adjacent
property owners were losing the property values of their homes by these changes. He said
most places he has lived the property values were increased. He respectfully disagrees with
the opponents. They all pay taxes and everyone understands the need to be considerate of the
neighborhood. If there is sound after 10 p.m. at night, they can get the problem solved.
Windows can be added to help with sound. He said as far as the foot print of the building, this
language wasn’t in the ballot. When his newspaper endorsed this ballot question, they thought
they were improving the space to include a multi-use facility to allow wedding and party facilities
to help bring in guests as the hotels are booked in the summer. That is what the conference
center funds were to be used for.
Lee Chapman said we do need a clubhouse and it’s important to everyone. He doesn’t feel the
multi-use facility is needed and a golf course should be a golf course. He said the whole venue
won’t work financially.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, said they need to move
beyond the grand standing. He said all sides have valid points of view but they need to move
forward to leave the neighborhood in tact. He suggested having a management agreement to
address neighborhood issues and have it on paper. He wants staff, Council members and the
VRD board members to sit down in a meeting with the adjacent homeowners and arrive at
harmonious language so substance is there on what compromise is attained. There also should
be money spent to support and resolve these issues in a harmonious way.
2 - 2 - 7
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 8
Daly thanked everyone for commenting.
Tjossem said she is disappointed to hear the neighborhood was not brought into the process
sooner. She said it’s not too much to ask to speak with the neighbors as dialogue is important.
She said we do live in a resort community and the town and VRD are not changing the uses of
this building but bringing it up to Vail standards.
Donovan asked what steps Council is trying to accomplish this evening.
Moffet stated the staff recommendations per the memorandum which were to make a decision
on proceeding with the building design as previously presented to the Council; provide parking
as presented in the revised design on July 3; relocate the 18th hole as per concept F and with
final design reviewed by the VRD and Design Review Board; amend the budget as necessary to
address the recommended changes and direct staff to withdraw the rezoning application at this
time and to be modified for future zoning applications.
Moffet said he grew up on the 16th green of the golf course. They have events and weddings at
the club house all the time. He asked that the public lay off the inflammatory statements. He
got married at the golf course clubhouse. He said Cacioppo’s statements were spot on. Rob
Levine had salient points with the conference center funds to be used to bring heads in beds,
including a club house that accommodates weddings as that was on the ballot. The ballot
language expands and renovates the golf course clubhouse. That is abundantly clear. He was
disappointed that Warren Pulis was told that an event center was going to be added on the site
and it was misdirected information. He is prepared to adopt staff recommendations.
Kurz said he agrees with most comments Moffet made. He agrees the homeowners in that area
need more attention with some type of management agreement. Golf will not be impacted to
the degree they have heard. He supports the motion to continuing this with a caveat that the
homeowners have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.
Moffet made a motion to approve the staff recommendations and the motion was seconded by
Kurz.
Rogers is in favor except for the amended budget as necessary for changes. She wants to know
the cost, what funds should be paying for what things. She wants to make sure conference
center funds are spent on the appropriate building. She said they should amend the budget as
necessary. She is in favor of the motion.
Moffet amended his motion to adopt staff recommendations on pages 7and 8 with the addition
that the staff and boards work with the neighbors more closely and any amendments to the
budget must have the prior approval of Council. Kurz seconded the amended motion.
Donovan asked if this moves the project forward.
Mire said the VRD will file an application and go through the process. The PEC has final say on
what gets approved. He also stated the town if definitely withdrawing its rezoning application.
Zemler said it takes 30 days to engage neighbors before submitting to PEC. So he requested
the timeframe be moved to give some level of comfort to the neighbors.
2 - 2 - 8
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 9
Rogers said this is a clear message to give VRD approval to move forward on moving the 18th
green, with approval of Concept F, with final design review by VRD and DRB. Joe Hanlon said
it went through their VRD board meeting and a majority of the board members approved
Concept F.
Further discussion ensued. Donovan is supporting the motion as they can call it up in the future
and it’s important to get this to an application level to address concerns.
Daly agreed with Zemler’s suggestion to slow down the process for 30 days and give property
owners and other interested parties to add their input into the process and come back to Council
at a later date. The 4th bullet point from staff’s recommendation was deleted at this time.
Moffet amended his motion to add a delay with building design for 30 days and the 18th hole will
still be there for the rest of the golf season. Kurz seconded the amended motion. A vote was
taken and it was passed unanimously, 7-0.
Zemler said the meeting with the adjacent neighbors will be at the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse
next Tuesday, July 24, 2012, at 1:00 p.m.
The sixth item on the agenda was a discussion regarding the Vail Shuttle and Courtesy Car
Alternatives.
Tom Kassmel, Staff Engineer, said the Town of Vail has seen a significant increase in the
volume and frequency of shuttles and hotel courtesy vehicles in the past few years as a result of
the successful Vail Billion Dollar Redevelopment. Many convenient areas that are within close
proximity to Vail Mountain and to both the Lionshead and Vail Villages are now being overused
for the drop-off and pick-up of guests. Currently the town does not have any policies or
regulations specific to these services. The increase of these services has become problematic
for critical portal areas to the mountain and the Villages and other congested neighborhood
areas, causing safety issues and congestion. On March 6th, Council directed staff to develop
alternatives for solving these issues. The town staff held a public meeting on April 16th to
discuss these issues and to receive feedback from the public. As a result of this meeting, input
from Council on March 6th, and internal staff discussions, staff presented three draft alternative
solutions to the shuttle/courtesy car operators. The alternates were emailed to the operators on
June 6th, with an open meeting to discuss the alternates on June 13th.
There were three alternates discussed. Alternate 1, which is the staff’s preferred alternative,
includes a combination of shuttle and courtesy car registration, shuttle scheduling, location
restrictions and capital improvements. In general this alternative restricts the number of shuttles
arriving at any one location to scheduled times, and to a maximum of three or four at any one
time, including the Lionshead Welcome Center (LHWC), Lionshead Transit Center (LHTC), the
Vail Transportation Center (VTRC) and Golden Peak. It requires all courtesy cars to use signed
skier drop off locations and 15 minute parking zones only, restricts shuttles from the Hansen
Ranch Road area and restricts all shuttle and courtesy car activity from the Mountain Haus
area. Suggested capital improvements include: modifications to the Lionshead skier drop to
allow for a safer and more efficient one way loop with designated courtesy car spaces; extend
LHWC shuttle drop-off area by one shuttle length; provide additional signage and RFI readers
installed at drop off locations to track usage and mitigate abuse. Shuttles and courtesy cars
2 - 2 - 9
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 10
would be required to register and comply with designated policies. It would be expected that the
shuttle and courtesy car drivers/operators would assist in policing activities and report issues
and abuse.
The second alternative and the most restrictive, with no shuttles at LHWC, is the same as
Alternate I with the following exceptions: 1) shuttles would not be allowed to use the area in
front of the LHWC; 2) all shuttle activity in the east Lionshead area would be required to use the
LHTC on a scheduled basis. This Frontage Road drop-off location is 400’ longer walk and
requires the use of stairs or elevator. This would be almost identical to the walk distance at the
VTRC; and 3) the LHWC would be used for In-Town buses only and the current shuttle area
would be removed and signed for courier loading and delivery only (FedEx, UPS, USPS).
The third alternative is least restrictive and accommodated more shuttles at LHWC and is the
same as Alternate I with the following exceptions: 1) shuttles would be restricted to LHWC,
VTRC and Golden Peak with no scheduled times; however, scheduling would be implemented
on an as needed basis; 2) in addition to the capital improvements noted in Alternate I, this
alternate would extend the LHWC shuttle drop-off area by five shuttle lengths as previously
presented in earlier Council meetings.
He said the majority of user feedback was not favorable to any scheduling. The hotels wait for a
full shuttle and don’t always go to specific sites. For the courtesy cars in Lionshead, the skier
drop-off area can’t accommodate the larger SUV’s with cargo boxes as they don’t fit.
Rogers asked where they put guest skis and snowboards. Kassmel said it varies with the
vehicles. Rogers asked how many vehicles are affected that can’t get into the Lionshead
Welcome Center area drop-off. Kassmel said probably 1/3 of the vehicles used wouldn’t fit.
Further discussion ensued on the Lionshead Welcome Center drop-off and area usage. He
also discussed the cost for the alternatives. He said staff preferred Alternative 1 as it allows for
scheduling of the shuttles and courtesy cars to alleviate congestion.
Rogers said on a powder day this could be a problem as certain lodges will be at a
disadvantage if they are scheduled later. Kassmel said they looked at that and said with the
shuttles they could provide each operator three slots within an hour.
Rogers asked why they didn’t figure this out when the Welcome Center was built and how did it
fall through cracks. Kassmel said it didn’t fall through the cracks. They had always looked at
putting the shuttles and courtesy cars on the top deck and in the bus lanes. But everyone says
it feels like the drop-off is ten miles away. In 2009, they were regularly seeing 3-5 shuttles.
Today they have seen a huge jump in the numbers. There is a big conflict with pedestrians,
deliveries and drop-offs at the bus stops.
Donovan said Alternative 1 seems like spending a few hundred thousand dollars still doesn’t
alleviate shuttles going down the chute and in front of the Welcome Center. Kassmel said the
shuttle buses would still go down to same location but not the courtesy cars. The current
specific task is to alleviate the number of shuttles at one time. They need to maintain two lanes
of traffic. Work now is to eliminate loading and delivery at the drop-off zone and move them to
the Arrabelle loading and delivery area. Only personal vehicles would be allowed at the drop-
off.
2 - 2 - 10
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 11
Roger asked why the shuttle buses couldn’t be at the top of the parking structure. Kassmel said
the structural capacity on the top deck of Lionshead is an issue. Every structural engineer staff
has spoken to has said no to more weight. Rogers asked if reinforcements could be added.
Kassmel said yes, but at a significant expense.
Foley said it’s a nice problem to have, getting people on Vail Mountain. He said he agrees with
shuttles being down behind the bus stop area but courtesy cars need to be marked and not let
down in this area. He said the town has a coming ski season to work out a plan, get it figured
out, and the cost to reinforce the southwest corner of structure. The town needs some type of
registration and regulations in place. He said work with the hotels and lodges to get this worked
out. He said when lodges are down there five times in one hour; the question should be asked
is it a necessity or just a courtesy. Will readers help figure out how to make a plan work.
Moffet said instead of spending $150,000 for equipment, use human resources, not mechanical
resources, for this ski season. Man the gate and take a season to work it out rather than force a
solution.
Tjossem said when remodeling, the shuttles were lining up to the east of the bus stop so they
wouldn’t be able to come all way to the front door. Kassmel said there is enough room for three
to four shuttles but when there are ten to twelve, it creates chaos. There is also a problem when
people cross the street wherever the shuttle stops and not at the crosswalk.
Jonathan Levine said scheduling is unacceptable. He said if they take into account the flow of
the traffic and staging, it does create a problem. He said that staging vehicles should go away.
You load when there are guests and then you leave. If you don’t have guests, you leave. Flow
is very important. There is only one way out of Lionshead currently. He wants the town to
consider opening up access in front of the Dobson Ice Arena and allow them to go east and
keep everyone moving. No one is sitting or speeding. He said some of the things that work are
to mark the vehicles, keep track of the flow, keep the vehicles moving, and track the offenders
this way. He said doing a one way loop down into this area, move the cars east and then loop
back from the Frontage Road will work. There needs to be enforcement of this process to make
it work.
Levine said making a loop through Meadow Drive would allow them to come back, no stopping,
no oversize vehicles and keep everything moving. He said offenders would not be allowed to
come back. There would need to be enforcement and everyone would need to be held
accountable.
Michael Cacioppo stated that solution would make all the vehicles go all the way to First Bank
on Vail Road. He asked if there was a possibility to have vehicles leave on the other side of the
Lionshead Parking Structure instead of going all the way to Vail Road. He said another obvious
solution is get Ever Vail going. Another idea is to park at Ford Park and add a Blue Sky Basin
gondola started at Ford Park.
Rogers said the town would be removing gates.
Jeff Miller, Director of Rooms and Residences at the Four Seasons, has worked with Kassmel
on this project and he supports permits and a trial basis of a loop schedule. Define what a
courtesy car, van and shuttle are and try this plan out. Also make sure staff is moving people
2 - 2 - 11
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 12
along. He offered his time to help Kassmel come up with improvements that can work for
everybody.
Daly asked Miller about an opportunity to use electric carts on some of the streets.
Miller said this limits the lodges and hotels on the capacity of what they can carry and would fill
up the streets with golf carts. A shuttle van fits twelve people and regular vans seat six. This
would impact and limit where you could go. Rogers asked if the courtesy cars fit in the drop-off
area. Miller said yes.
John Sentinel, with the Ritz Carlton Club and Residences, said scheduling time slots does not
work after the review of the alternatives. He said the flow and ease of getting customers around
requires speedy service for guests and he would like to see Alternative 3 adopted. He likes the
human component. It will take all of them to educate guests and clients on how this would work
and is the responsibility of everyone.
Tom Massa, Assistant General Manager of the Wren, said some guests are on a budget but the
guests still expect good service. The Wren prefers Alterative 3. He said scheduling doesn’t
work. Who would be figuring out who gets priority of the best time slots and sees this will be an
issue. The service aspect of their business is important and taking away potential revenues is
terrible. The Wren’s guests mainly want to be dropped off at Golden Peak but if guests want to
go to Lionshead or Vail Village, they will take them there.
Bob Lazier, owner of the Tivoli Lodge, said the recommendation for Hanson Ranch Road was
for courtesy vehicles only but that is still a problem. They have had a lot of problems with
parking in that area. Hanson Ranch Road is becoming more and more a pedestrian area. It is a
dangerous spot and it’s growing. He would like to see Hanson Ranch Road be a pedestrian
area. Just courtesy cars in the area are positive.
Rogers asked about not allowing any shuttles near the Christiania area. She said this would
eliminate the general public going there as well. She said there was a 10 minute parking sign
there that encouraged people to leave their cars. Greg Hall said that was for after 6 p.m.
Rogers was not in favor of scheduling as it was not a fair process. She encouraged staff to
work with the lodging community to make it work and to use the coming season to see what
works. She doesn’t want to pay $150,000 and thinks Alternative 3 is the best solution at this
time. Donovan said she is leaning toward alternative 3 but with restrictions on Hanson Ranch
Road. She said requiring registration of the vehicles may solve more issues and is a great first
step.
Moffet said there needs to be restrictions on Hanson Ranch Road as it was not designed for a
skier drop-off. Foley said registering the vehicles and being able to identify offenders will help.
They can also ask them why they are abusing the system. The town has a ski season to work it
out. He said requiring visible identification on each vehicle is needed and adding a gate in the
Lionshead structure is a good idea. Tjossem said this gives the town an opportunity to look at
other alternatives. She said in Zermatt, Switzerland, they require hotels to use electric carts that
hold 12 people to move folks around town. Moffet said anything that congests the traffic near
the buses is problematic. Kurz said he would rather spend money on people than infrastructure
to make it work at this time. Daly said he also supports using the next season to work this out.
2 - 2 - 12
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 13
Daly said he has seen the courtesy cars stop at Meadow Drive and Vail Road and this needs to
stop.
Kassmel reiterated Council’s direction on this matter: Alternative 3, with no scheduling of
courtesy cars, vans and shuttles at this time; registration of the vehicles, no transponders; and
look into a one way loop in the Lionshead parking structure by adding a gate. Kassmel said the
addition of a gate may cost approximately $25,000 to $30,000 to implement. The last item was
to spend resources on man power versus equipment.
Daly said staff should come back to Council with a budget with the cost of using people versus
equipment.
Bob Lazier asked if this included removing vehicles on Hanson Ranch Road. Daly said no
shuttles will be on Hanson Ranch Road and to add signage in this area.
Further discussion ensued. Kassmel will bring back this item to Council with more details on
budget costs.
The seventh item on the agenda was an update on the Vail’s 50th Anniversary.
Adam Sutner, with Vail Resorts, said he sits on this committee and they are working on great
plans. He said the information presented is representative of the best possible thinking out
there. He discussed the details in the memorandum and the power point presentation which
included details for the anniversary opening, film premier, concerts and other aspects of the
anniversary celebration that occurs throughout this winter season. They will also be launching a
new website on August 1st with all the information on the 50th Anniversary on it.
Daly asked about the request for additional funds for $100,000 in the budget supplemental, as
the town has already allocated $450,000 to this event. Sutner said this is to get a better A-list
musical talent and the additional $100,000 would go for a higher quality of bands. He said
normally the talent budget for Snow Daze is $250,000 and for this concert it would be around
$600,000 to $700,000. It would give relevance to the 50th Anniversary and come back strong
and enticing. It would send a loud signal that Vail is Vail. This is a modest offset to a vast cost
for the headliner.
Sutner said the opening of the Gondola Ribbon Cutting will be on December 14th and the
gondola will be open to the public on the 15th of December.
The eighth item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 9 Series 2012, and
ordinance making budget adjustments to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund,
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Dispatch Services Fund and Heavy Equipment Fund. This item
also includes discussion of off-cycle contribution funding requests.
Kathleen Halloran, Budget Manager reviewed the memorandum with Council. She said the off-
cycle request did not include $100,000 for Vail 50th Anniversary.
Further discussion regarding various aspects of the budget memorandum and the 50th
Anniversary ensued.
2 - 2 - 13
8/21/2012
Town Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012 Page 14
Foley Made a motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series 2012, with the addition
of $100,000 for the Vail 50th Anniversary and the motion was seconded by Moffet. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The ninth item on the agenda was 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.
Moffet made a motion to continue Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, and the second reading of
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, to its August 7, 2012, public hearing with the condition that this
is the last continuance and the motion was seconded by Donovan. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The tenth item on the agenda was a request to continue the Ever Vail major subdivision and
Ordinance Nos. 7, 8 and 9, Series of 2011, to the August 21, 2012, public hearing.
Moffet made a motion to continue the Ever Vail major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8 and
9, Series of 2011, to the August 21, 2012, public hearing and the motion was seconded by
Kurz/Tjossem. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Zemler said staff has had a couple of meetings with Vail Resorts and they are waiting for a
response from last letter sent to them.
The eleventh item on the agenda was adjournment.
As there was no further business, Moffet made a motion to adjourn and the motion was
seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting
adjourned at 10: 20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attest: __________________________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
________________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
2 - 2 - 14
8/21/2012
To: Town Council
From: Public Works
Date: August 14, 2012
Subject: Bridge Railing Rehabilitation Project
I. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Staff requests Town Council to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with
Mueller Construction Services, Inc. to complete the Bridge Railing Rehabilitation Project in the
amount of $64,664.00.
II. BACKGROUND
The existing bridge railing on the Meadow Dr bridge over the Gore Creek in East Vail has been
damaged and it proposed to be replaced with a new railing meeting current crash rating
standards. The Town received bids on August 14, 2012 from two contractors with Mueller
Construction Services, Inc the low bidder.
The project is budgeted and scheduled to be completed by November 15, 2012.
III. Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends authorizing the Town Manager to enter into a contract, in a form approved by
the Town Attorney, with Mueller Construction Services, Inc. in the amount of $64,664.00 in
order to complete the work.
2 - 3 - 1
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Golf and Nordic Clubhouse Project Update
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall Stan Zemler
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review, take input and provide comments on
the list of issues which the project team is working on to provide responses for all to discuss at
the September Town Council meetings.
BACKGROUND: The Town Council at the July 17th Council meeting the council directed
staff to
1) move forward with the re-design of the 18th hole,
2) to proceed with building design (including a parking solution that does not locate parking on
the 18th green), and
3) formally withdraw the proposed re-zoning application.
In addition, a neighborhood meeting was hosted on July 24th at the clubhouse. The purpose of
this agenda item is to provide an update on the Golf Course Clubhouse Renovation Project
and to review the issues to date and next steps. This includes the following topics: Progress
since last Town Council hearingSummary of neighborhood issuesCommunications
outreachNext steps
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take input, provide comments and direction to staff as
necessary
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Memo
8/21/2012
To: Town Council
From: Public Works
Date: August 21, 2012
Subject: Golf Course Clubhouse Project Update
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an update on the Golf Course Clubhouse
Renovation Project and to review the issues to date and next steps. This includes the
following topics:
• Progress since last Town Council hearing
• Summary of neighborhood issues
• Communications outreach
• Next steps
II. BACKGROUND
The Town Council last discussed the club house project at its evening meeting on July
17th. At that time the Council directed staff to 1) move forward with the re-design of the
18th hole, 2) to proceed with building design (including a parking solution that does not
locate parking on the 18th green), and 3) formally withdraw the proposed re-zoning
application. Since that time:
1. A neighborhood meeting was hosted at the clubhouse on July 24th. This meeting
was well-attended by neighbors and interested citizens. A brief presentation was
made by staff and project consultants, after which the floor was opened to the
public. During this discussion a number of neighborhood issues and
clarifications to previously raised issues were identified. Staff generally provided
no formal responses or potential solutions to issues raised. Staff did, however,
commit to evaluating each issue and providing responses at future meetings.
2. The project team has continued efforts to further the project. To date these initial
design steps have primarily involved efforts such as preparing “base” CAD
(computer assisted design) information. Efforts have also been made to begin
defining potential responses to issues raised by the neighborhood.
3. On a related note, a conceptual Design Review Board application for the
temporary golf and Nordic facilities has been made. This informal review took
place August 14, 2012. An open house was also scheduled from 10 a.m. to noon
4 - 1 - 1
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 2
on August 16, 2012 for those interested to review conceptual locations for the
temporary structures.
4. Formal PEC Conditional Use applications and DRB applications for the
temporary facilities are forthcoming.
5. Options for the driving range netting are being studied and DRB applications for
the netting are forthcoming.
III. SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES
The following summarizes the comments and questions recorded to date from
interested parties (based on letters received, comments at PEC and Town Council
meetings and comments from the July 27th neighborhood meeting.) Discussions have
centered on the following topics and questions:
Purpose and Scale
• “There is no market for this kind of building; the project is flawed, not viable.”
• “The facility will compete with private facilities in town and that is wrong,
unnecessary.”
• “Events for up to 200 people are too large, too much impact, inappropriate for
neighborhood, etc.”
• “Don’t understand how building will be used, how it will be marketed, etc.”
Long-term Use Assurances
• “Neighbors need more ‘permanence’ with what the future holds for the clubhouse
and surrounding area.”
• “Deed restriction and/or covenant controls are needed to provide neighborhood
with assurances, i.e. as done at Golden Peak.”
Rezoning Process
• “Confusion over what comes first, re-zoning or development plan.”
• “Don’t want to re-zone until we see the development plan, they need to be done
together.”
General Use Zone District
• “Uncomfortable with long list of uses in the GU district.”
• “Uncomfortable with lack of assurance of what might happen in the future (relates
back to long list of Conditional Uses in GU).”
Bus Access/Bikes/General Traffic Implications
• “Moving parking lot access +/-70’ to the south creates a significant safety hazard
for westbound bikes (because of diminished site distance).”
• “Situation is already dangerous, moving access will make it that much more of a
problem.”
Noise
4 - 1 - 2
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 3
• “Noise, music, crowds, traffic, etc. from activity at facility and how it will impact
surrounding homes?”
• “How are drunk/obnoxious people controlled?”
Tent/Temporary Facilities
• “What is the visual impact of large tents?”
• “What is the length of time facilities could be up?”
• “Concerned about noise, related impacts of outdoor use.”
Parking
• “Parking lot is already under-sized when special events take place.”
• “Existing parking is insufficient in size to accommodate new facility.”
Overall Project Design
• “What is the size of patio, location of patio?”
• “What about lighting.”
• “Floor plan, potentially locate assembly space on north side of building.”
• “Concerned about landscaping screening and loss of landscaping along the
exterior of the site.”
• What is the architecture of building?”
Building Operations/Controls
• “Who manages facility, who is responsible for ensuring all mitigating
measures/management plan are implemented?”
• “How is impact from increased intensity of use dealt with – i.e. 10-30 events
today, will there be 50-80 in the future?”
Communication
• “Town is not listening; neighbor concerns are not being heard.”
• “There has been insufficient notice of meetings.”
Driving Range
• “Concerned about aesthetic impact of taller net.”
What happens to existing 18th Green
• “Uncertainty over how this space will be used/programmed is a concern.”
• “Concern that this space could accommodate a tent in the future.”
• “Any re-use of 18th green area should remain golf oriented, i.e. putting green.”
Staff and the project team are currently working on potential responses to these
issues/concerns.
This memo is being shared with the interested party email list upon inclusion in the
Town Council agenda packet.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS OUTREACH
4 - 1 - 3
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 4
Notifications, updates and additional project outreach efforts will include the following:
1. Continue U.S. Postal Service notification as per Town Code for all Planning
Commission hearings.
2. Continue to update a comprehensive email notification list to include all
individuals who have provided email contact to staff at recent town meetings.
3. Email notification will be provided for all DRB, PEC, Town Council and
community meetings as agendas are finalized.
4. Press releases on the project and links to any project information (such as info
that might be posted on the town web page) will be emailed to all parties on the
notification list.
5. As project design or other aspects of the project progress, all new information will
be posted to the town web page.
6. Meeting notices and project information will be included in the Town’s weekly ad
in the Vail Daily, as appropriate.
7. VRD to take similar approach with posting information on their web page and
sending information out via email notification.
8. Reach out to individual property owners as the project design progresses to
discuss potential issues, etc.
9. Host additional meetings for community input when appropriate. These meetings
could be held as a part of a Town Council meeting or as a “neighborhood
meeting” (similar to last month’s meeting)
V. NEXT STEPS
Over the course of the next few weeks, the design team will continue to move forward
on the project design. As mentioned above, one element of this work will be to include
design elements in the project that address issues and concerns raised by the
neighborhood.
It is anticipated that open work sessions with the Town Council encouraging
neighborhood input will be held on September 4 and 18. This approach is suggested in
order to provide a forum for the open exchange of ideas between the Council, the VRD,
the community, neighbors and the project team. While agendas and a format for these
meetings has not been established, the purpose of these meetings will be for the team
to present the basic elements of the project and the steps that have been taken to
address issues and concerns that have been raised, thus far. This may involve design
features of the project as well as management aspects of how the new facility will be
run. If deemed necessary a “project specific” meeting with the neighborhood could also
be held.
Depending upon the progress made at the September meetings, formal applications to
the PEC could be submitted as early as late September or early October.
August 21
• Town Council work session to review the neighborhood issues list.
September 4th and 18th
4 - 1 - 4
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 5
• Open work sessions with the Town Council providing the project team responses
to the neighborhood issues in preparation for formal PEC applications. Public
comment from the community would be encouraged during the discussion.
Late September
• PEC applications are made for the project (Conditional Use Permit and zoning).
October-December
• Review and approval by the various town boards.
• Construction begins on temporary clubhouse facilities.
November- January
• Construction plans and documents for the project are prepared.
February
• Project is bid to contractors.
March
• Contract Awarded.
April
• Construction begins on the clubhouse project.
4 - 1 - 5
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Valley Medical Center Master Planning Process Update
PRESENTER(S): Doris Kirchner, Vail Valley Medical Center
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No Action Required
BACKGROUND: On January 17, 2012, the Town of Vail, Vail Valley Medical Center,
Steadman Clinic and the Steadman Philippon Research Institute all signed a memorandum of
understanding for the redevelopment of the Town of Vail municipal site, located at 75 South
Frontage Road. A key component of the MOU was the need for the Vail Valley Medical
Center to master plan the future of the medical center campus. As a result, Vail Valley
Medical Center has initiated the master planning process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is no staff recommendation at this time. Staff will
provide a recommendation once a draft master plan is formulated. However, at a minimum,
staff suggests the plan addresses the following topics:
*Growth and expansion potential
* Proposed future land uses
* Redevelopment of the US Bank Building
* Vehicle and pedestrian traffic circulation
* Loading and delivery vehicle access (including air ambulances)
* Traffic system impacts and improvements
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 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 applicant requests that the Vail Town Council
approves Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, on second reading. The applicant also requests
that the Vail Town Council approves Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012.
BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2011, the 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 purpose of the proposed ordinance is to
establish a new zone district, the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District; and the purpose of
the proposed resolution is to establish related design guidelines as part of the Vail Village
Master Plan. The policy objectives of the new zone district and related design guidelines are
as follows: - Streamlining the development review process by establishing a new zone district
to specifically address townhouse properties.- Create incentives for redevelopment of existing
townhouse properties. - Preserve the existing residential character of the townhouse
properties and the neighborhood. On May 1, 2012, the Vail Town Council approved the first
reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, by a vote of 6-0-1 (Foley opposed), with the
modifications that Section 12-6J-9 allows not more than one hundred twenty five square feet of
GRFA for each one hundred square feet of total site area (i.e. 1.25 GRFA ratio). The Vail
Town Council tabled Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, to correspond with the second reading
of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012. The Vail Town Council held a subsequent public hearing
on May 15th and a work session on July 17th to further deliberate the proposed new zone
district. On August 7, 2012, the Vail Town Council tabled the proposed ordinance and
resolution, and directed Staff to prepare amendments to the proposed new zone district to
allow an unlimited amount of GRFA, a lower building height limit of 38 feet, maintain the
current 30% landscape area requirements, and to add additional front yard landscaping
guidelines in the new zone district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends
the Vail Town Council approves the second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012. The
Planning and Environmental Commission also recommends the Vail Town Council approves
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012.
8/21/2012
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum
Attachment A Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
Attachment B Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
8/21/2012
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 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 (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)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
I. SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, establishes a new zone district, the Vail Village
Townhouse District. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, amends the Vail Village Master
Plan related to the new zone district and includes new design guidelines specifically
tailored for the townhouse properties in the proposed zone district. The proposed
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, (Attachment A) and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012,
(Attachment B) have been attached for review. The proposed new zone district and
associated master plan amendments are anticipated to be applied to the existing
townhouse properties located within Vail Village.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On August 7, 2012, the Vail Town Council tabled the proposed ordinance and
resolution, and directed Staff to prepare amendments to the proposed new zone district
to allow an unlimited amount of GRFA, a lower building height limit of 38 feet, maintain
the current 30% landscape area requirements, and to add additional front yard
landscaping guidelines in the new zone district.
6 - 1 - 1
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 2
The Community Development Department recommends the following amendments to
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 (text deleted is in strikethrough and text added is bold
red):
12-6J-1: PURPOSE:
The Vail Village Townhouse District is intended to provide sites for, and maintain the
unique residential character of, existing townhouse properties in the East Gore Creek
Sub-Area of 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 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 park ing design requirements. More
restrictive design considerations have been applied to these properties in accordance
with the Vail Village Master Plan to maintain the unique residential character of existing
townhouse developments in Vail Village.
12-6J-7: HEIGHT:
For a flat roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty feet (40) thirty feet (35). For
a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty three feet (43) thirty eight
feet (38).
12-6J-9: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA:
Not more than one hundred twenty five (125) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of total site area.
Dwelling units 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. An unlimited amount of
gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site.
12-6J-11: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least twenty percent (20%) thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be
landscaped.
The Community Development Department recommends the following amendments to
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012 (text deleted is in strikethrough and text added is bold
red):
6 - 1 - 2
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 3
K. Landscaping: Landscaping Trees, shrubs, and other plant materials shall be
located in the front portion of the site should be used to create privacy and to soften
the visual transition from roadways and parking areas to the building façades.
III. DISCUSSION ITEMS
HOW DOES ALLOWING UNLIMITED GRFA IN THE VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE
DISTRICT ACHIEVE THE ADOPTED POLICY OBJECTIVES?
Allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) has been a primary point of
deliberation and debate associated with the proposed new Vail Village Townhouse
District. Proponents of redevelopment have argued that the new zone district should
allow more GRFA than the current High Density Multiple-Family District zoning to
achieve the adopted policy object of encouraging redevelopment. Meanwhile,
advocates for preservation have argued that the proposed new zone district should
allow no more GRFA than is currently allowed under High Density Multiple-Family
District zoning to achieve the adopted policy object of maintaining the residential
character of the neighborhood.
As discussed in past Town Council hearings, quantif ying how much GRFA is
currently allowed under High Density Multiple-Family District zoning is also a subject
of debate. The Town’s adopted zoning regulations include numerous GRFA
deductions which do not result in a simple floor-area-ratio calculation for residential
buildings. Additionally, the Town’s adopted zoning regulations also includes the 250
Ordinance GRFA bonus which grants additional GRFA to some, not all, existing
dwelling units regardless of existing non-conformities. The Town’s adopted zoning
regulations also include the Interior Conversion GRFA bonus with grants unlimited
additional GRFA to some, not all, dwelling units to capture existing building volume
such as crawlspaces and attics for additional floor area, again regardless on existing
non-conformities. Any consolidation of these policies to establish an “existing
allowed GRFA ratio” involves a variety of approximations and assumptions. The
various combinations of approximations and assumptions used to quantify the
existing allowable GRFA limits yield various results. Allowing an unlimited amount of
GRFA in the proposed Vail Village Townhouse District will eliminate the need, and
debate over how, to quantify the various GRFA policies into a single ratio for the new
district.
Allowing an unlimited amount of GRFA in the proposed Vail Village Townhouse
District will streamline the development review process in that applicants will no
longer need to demonstrate, and Staff will no longer need to verify, compliance with
a floor area limit in this zone district. However, concerns have been expressed that
allowing unlimited GRFA in only one zone district, without a comprehensive review
of all the Town’s adopted GRFA policies, creates a unique condition in one specific
area of town that further confuses and complicates the Town’s development review
process.
6 - 1 - 3
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 4
Allowing an unlimited amount of GRFA in the proposed new zone district does not
streamline the development review process by eliminating an applicant’s
requirement to provide GRFA calculations for the Town’s review with every
proposed addition and new construction development application. The Town’s
adopted parking regulations utilize GRFA to quantif y the parking requirements for
residential dwellings outside the designated commercial core parking areas. Today,
the Vail Townhouse Condominiums and the Vail Row Houses are within the core
area designation and are required 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit. However,
Vail Trails Chalets, Vail Trails East, and the Texas Townhomes are outside the core
area designation and their required parking is based upon how much GRFA is
constructed (<500 sq.ft. = 1.5 parking spaces, 500 to <2,000 sq.ft. = 2 parking
spaces, 2,000 and greater = 2.5 parking spaces).
Today properties located within the High Density Multiple-Family District are subject
to the employee housing mitigation requirements of the Town’s adopted Inclusionary
Zoning regulations. The Vail Village Townhouse District is proposed to be subject to
these same requirements. The employee housing mitigation requirements of the
Town’s adopted Inclusionary Zoning regulations are based upon GRFA. Every
residential addition and new construction project under the current and proposed
zone districts must mitigate the direct and secondary employee housing impacts on
the community by mitigating 10% of the total new GRFA associated with that project.
GRFA calculations will be required to quantify this mitigation requirement.
Allowing an unlimited amount of GRFA in the proposed Vail Village Townhouse
District will achieve the adopted policy objective of creating an incentive for
redevelopment. However, the other development standards of the proposed district
(height, setbacks, site coverage, landscape area, etc.) and the proposed design
guidelines associated with the new district will be more heavily relied upon to
achieve the adopted policy objective of maintaining the existing residential character
of the neighborhood.
HOW DOES LOWERING THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT FROM 43 FEET
TO 38 FEET ACHIEVE THE ADOPTED POLICY OBJECTIVES?
Amending the allowable building height limits from one height to another height has
no impact on streamlining the development review process.
The building height limit in the High Density Multiple-Family District is 48 feet;
however, none of the existing properties anticipated to be rezoned to the new Vail
Village Townhouse District are currently built to that height. The tallest existing
dwelling unit anticipated to be rezoned to the new district is Vail Row House #7,
which is approximately 38.5 feet in height based upon the interpolated natural grade
of the site. Therefore, only one existing property may be rendered legally non-
conforming by this amended height limit regulation.
On first reading of the proposed new Vail Village Townhouse District, the building
height limit was approved to be 43 feet to match the maximum building height limit of
6 - 1 - 4
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 5
the adjacent Commercial Core 1 District zoned properties in Vail Village. A height
limit of 43 feet or 38 feet still allows most of the subject properties the ability to
expand upward from their current built conditions which accomplishes the adopted
policy objective of creating incentives for redevelopment. However, this incentive is
less than the incentive provided by the current zoning.
Lowering the allowable building height in the new zone district from 43 feet to 38 feet
to more closely match the maximum height of the existing built conditions better
achieves the adopted policy objective of preserving the existing residential character
of the neighborhood.
HOW IS LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF THE TOWNHOUSE BUILDINGS
ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSED NEW ZONE DISTRICT?
The High Density Multiple-Family District requires a minimum of 30% of a site to be
landscape area. On first reading, the proposed Vail Village Townhouse District was
approved with a landscape area requirement of 20% to address the various existing
non-conforming properties. Based upon the Vail Town Council’s August 7, 2012,
deliberations, the attached ordinance has been amended to require 30% landscape
area as required by the current zoning.
This amendment will have a negative effect on the adopted policy objective of
streamlining the development review process since more properties will be non-
conforming related to landscape area with a 30% requirement than a 20%
requirement. Additionally, a 30% landscape area requirement is less of an incentive
for redevelopment than a 20% requirement. However, the amended 30% landscape
area requirement will better achieve the adopted policy objective of preserving the
existing residential character of the neighborhood.
The proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan reviewed at the Council’s
previous hearings included a design guideline for landscaping to create privacy and
to soften the transition from parking areas and streets to the building façade. As
defined by the adopted Vail Town Code, hardscape areas such as patios, sidewalks,
etc. are defined as landscape area. Based upon the Town Council’s August 7th
deliberations, Staff recommends modification to the proposed guideline that more
clearly identify the need for landscape plantings, not only hardscape, at the front of
townhouse buildings. Under both the current and proposed zoning, townhouse
properties are subject to the adopted, general landscaping design guidelines of Title
14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code.
WHY IS STAFF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE PURPOPSE SECTION OF
THE NEW ZONE DISTRICT?
Throughout the review of the proposed Vail Village Townhouse District all
discussions and deliberations have been grounded in the understanding that the
proposed district is intended to address specific existing townhouse properties in
Vail Village: Vail Townhouse Condominiums, Vail Row Houses, Vail Trails Chalet,
6 - 1 - 5
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 6
Vail Trails East and Texas Townhomes. The proposed new district is not intended
to be applied to other existing or proposed townhouse properties located within or
outside of Vail Village. The proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan
recommend the proposed new zone district and associated design guidelines be
applied to the discussed specific properties which are located within the East Gore
Creek sub-area of the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff recommends amending the
purpose statement of the Vail Village Townhouse District to further clarify which
specific properties this district is intended to be applied.
IV. BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2011, the 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).
On February 21, 2012, the Vail Town Council held a work session to discuss the
proposed ordinance and resolution establishing the Vail Village Townhouse District and
the associated Vail Village Master Plan amendments. At that hearing the Council asked
questions concerning the heights of nearby buildings, how the existing GRFA
development potential was calculated, and how changes to the GRFA ratios could affect
the massing of the subject townhouse buildings.
On April 3, 2012, the Vail Town Council held a public hearing to discuss the proposed
ordinance and resolution. The Vail Town Council tabled these items to its May 1, 2012,
hearing to provide the former applicants, Mauriello Planning Group and KH Webb
Architects, an opportunity to construct additional visual models illustrating the various
considered GRFA ratios (1.25, 1.35, 1.50, etc.)
On May 1, 2012, the Vail Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 2012, by a vote of 6-0-1 (Foley opposed), with the modification that Section
12-6J-9 allows not more than one hundred twenty five square feet of GRFA for each
one hundred square feet of total site area (i.e. 1.25 GRFA ratio).
On May 15, 2012, the Vail Town Council held another public hearing on the proposed
new zone district. The Council tabled the application for further deliberation.
On July 17, 2012, the Vail Town Council held a work session to discuss the proposed
new zone district. A majority of the Vail Town Council re-affirmed:
• the problems associated with existing townhouse properties being zoned High
Density Multiple-Family District
• a new zone district should be established to address the problems associated
with the current zoning of townhouse properties
• one policy objective of the new district is to streamline the development review
process
6 - 1 - 6
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 7
• one policy objective of the new district is to create incentives for redevelopment
of existing townhouse properties
• another policy objective of the new district is to preserve the existing residential
character of the townhouse properties and the neighborhood
The Council’s work session included a general discussion about the Town’s adopted
gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulations and a discussion about the appropriate
GRFA limits in the proposed new zone district including the options of a GRFA ratio of
1.25, a ratio of 1.50, and eliminating GRFA in this new district.
On August 7, 2012, the Vail Town Council tabled the proposed ordinance and
resolution, and directed Staff to prepare amendments to the proposed new zone district
to allow an unlimited amount of GRFA, a lower building height limit of 38 feet, maintain
the current 30% landscape area requirements, and to add additional front yard
landscaping guidelines in the new zone district.
V. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNCIL
The applicant requests that the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 2, Series of
2012, on second reading. The applicant also requests that the Vail Town Council
approves Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
On November 14, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with modifications, to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed ordinance. Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No.
2, Series of 2012; the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the
Council pass the following motion:
“The Vail Town Council approves, on second reading, 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.”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve this ordinance, the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommends the Vail Town Council makes the following
findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of Staff’s November
14, 2011, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the
evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds:
6 - 1 - 7
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 8
1. 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
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations; and
3. That the amendment 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.”
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
On November 14, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval, with modifications, to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed resolution. Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Resolution No.
7, Series of 2012; the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the
Council pass the following motion:
“The Vail Town Council approves 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, 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.”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve this resolution, the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommends the Vail Town Council makes the following
findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of Staff’s November
14, 2011, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the
evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds:
1. 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
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations; and
3. That the amendment 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
6 - 1 - 8
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 9
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality.”
VII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012
B. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
6 - 1 - 9
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 1
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:
6 - 2 - 1
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 2
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 strikethrough, 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 strikethrough, 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 strikethrough, 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 (VVT) DISTRICT
12-6J-1: PURPOSE:
The Vail Village Townhouse District is intended to provide sites for, and
maintain the unique residential character of, existing townhouse
properties in the East Gore Creek Sub-Area of the Vail Village Master
Plan area. 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.
6 - 2 - 2
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 3
This zone district was established to regulate existing townhome
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), 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 residential 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.
12-6J-4: 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
6 - 2 - 3
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 4
this title.
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 thirty feet (35).
For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight
feet (38).
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:
An unlimited amount of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be
permitted on each site.
12-6J-10: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five (55%) of the total site area.
12-6J-11: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least thirty percent (30%) 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
6 - 2 - 4
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 5
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-B, Lease Qualifications, Vail Town Code, is hereby
amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in strikethrough, 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.
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
strikethrough, text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not
amended have been omitted):
Type
III
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
Ski base/recreation
Ski base/recreation 2
Special development district
Parking district
General use
The EHU
may be
sold or
transferred
separately.
The EHU
is
excluded
from the
calculatio
n of
GRFA.
n/a
n/a
Per
chapter
10 of
this title
as a
dwelling
unit.
A. Dwelling
unit: 300 sq.
ft. minimum
and 1,200
sq. ft.
maximum.
B. Dormitory
unit: 200 sq.
ft. minimum
for each
person
occupying
the EHU.
The EHU is
excluded
from the
calculation
of density.
SECTION 7. Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements By Zone District, Vail Town
6 - 2 - 5
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 6
Code, is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in strikethrough,
text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have
been omitted):
Zone Districts
GRFA Ratio
GRFA Credits
(Added To Results Of
Application Of Percentage)
VVT
Vail Village Townhouse
Unlimited None
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 strikethrough,
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), And 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 strikethrough,
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), And 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 strikethrough, 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), and two-family primary/secondary
residential (PS), and Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) districts, dwelling
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.
6 - 2 - 6
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 7
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 strikethrough, 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), and 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 strikethrough, 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 strikethrough, text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not
amended have been omitted):
6 - 2 - 7
8/21/2012
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
o
.
2
,
S
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
2
0
1
2
8
Zo
n
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
Ma
x
.
De
n
s
i
t
y
EH
U
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
Mi
n
.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Se
t
b
a
c
k
s
Mi
n
.
D
e
c
k
(G
r
o
u
n
d
Le
v
e
l
)
Se
t
b
a
c
k
Mi
n
.
D
e
c
k
(N
o
t
G
r
o
u
n
d
Le
v
e
l
)
Se
t
b
a
c
k
Ma
x
.
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
In
t
o
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Ma
x
.
S
i
t
e
Co
v
e
r
a
g
e
Mi
n
.
La
n
d
-
sc
a
p
e
Ar
e
a
Mi
n
.
L
o
t
S
i
z
e
(B
u
i
l
d
a
b
l
e
A
r
e
a
I
n
Sq
.
F
t
.
)
Mi
n
.
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
Mi
n
.
Sq
u
a
r
e
Ar
e
a
Ma
x
.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
He
i
g
h
t
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
A
n
d
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
VV
T
V
a
i
l
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
To
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
le
g
a
l
l
y
es
t
a
b
l
i
sh
e
d
un
i
t
s
o
r
2
5
pe
r
a
c
r
e
o
f
to
t
a
l
s
i
t
e
ar
e
a
.
Ty
p
e
I
I
I
an
d
T
y
p
e
IV
,
T
y
p
e
I
V
-
IZ
,
T
y
p
e
VI
I
-
I
Z
20
’
f
r
o
n
t
20
’
r
e
a
r
20
’
s
i
d
e
s
0’
be
t
w
e
e
n
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
Ma
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
no
t
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
t
h
e
le
s
s
e
r
o
f
10
'
o
r
1/2
th
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
Ma
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
no
t
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
t
h
e
le
s
s
e
r
o
f
5
'
or
1/2 t
h
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
4’
5
5
%
3
0
%
1
0
,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
f
o
r
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
;
2,
0
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
f
o
r
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
p
l
a
t
t
e
d
to
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
l
o
t
s
20
’
n
/
a
4
0
'
f
l
a
t
ro
o
f
43
'
sl
o
p
i
n
g
ro
o
f
Se
e
t
i
t
l
e
1
2
,
ch
a
p
t
e
r
1
0
o
f
th
i
s
c
o
d
e
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
st
r
e
e
t
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
wa
y
m
a
y
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
a
re
v
o
c
a
b
l
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
of
-
w
a
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
6 - 2 - 8
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 9
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 1st day of May, 2012 and a
public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 21st day of August,
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
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND
ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 21st day of August, 2012.
6 - 2 - 9
8/21/2012
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012 10
__________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
6 - 2 - 10
8/21/2012
1
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
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 (VVT)
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 (VVT) 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.
6 - 3 - 1
8/21/2012
2
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
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 strikethrough, 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 very limited amount of
support commercial. Surface parking is found at each site, which creates a
very 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
This 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 only 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 development as
well as design considerations relative to redevelopment proposals. The
opportunity to introduce below grade structured parking will greatly
improve pedestrianization and landscape features in this area. This should
be considered a goal of any redevelopment proposal in this sub-area.
6 - 3 - 2
8/21/2012
3
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
Development or redevelopment of this sub-area may will 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
6 - 3 - 3
8/21/2012
4
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
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 façade
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 façade 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 façade of the third floor and any floors above shall step back 6
to 10 feet from the façade of the second floor below.
E. Street Edge: Front façade shall be generally parallel to the street
and form a strong, but irregular edge to the street. Front façades
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. Façade: To reduce the appearance of building height and mass,
and to create a residential scale and character, all façades shall
incorporate vertical and horizontal articulation to reduce the
appearance of building height and mass and to foster the
6 - 3 - 4
8/21/2012
5
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
appearance of a residential neighborhood. Façades should
incorporate doors, decks, porches, balconies, fenestration, recesses,
bay windows, ornamentation, and other traditional residential
architectural elements. No façade 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 façade.
G. Cantilevers: On the front façade, 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
façade 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: Trees, shrubs, and other plant materials shall be
located in the front portion of the site to create privacy and to soften
the visual transition from roadways and parking areas to the building
façades.
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.
6 - 3 - 5
8/21/2012
6
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
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.
#6-1 Residential Infill Texas Townhomes/Vail Trails
Additional floor or residential development over what is existing. Additional
density to be considered only in conjunction with a comprehensive
redevelopment of each project. To encourage redevelopment and to
maintain the existing character of the neighborhood, 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. 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
6 - 3 - 6
8/21/2012
7
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012
neighborhood, with the appearance of two to three story buildings
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.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 21st day of August, 2012.
__________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
6-3
6 - 3 - 7
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Main Vail Fire Station 2 bid award discussion.
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall and Mark Miller
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff is asking that Council review the information
presented regarding the construction bids for the renovation of the Main Vail Fire Station 2,
and award/amend the project budget.
BACKGROUND: The renovation of Fire Station 2 has been discussed and/or deferred for
many years. Station 2 is significantly beyond its useful life in regards to basic
infrastructure/systems and in need of substantial repairs/maintenance. There is $1.75 million
in the 2013 budget as part of the five year capital plan for renovation of Fire Station 2. Council
approved $150,000 in 2012 for design and engineering, etc. Due to several significant projects
including; municipal building construction, golf course clubhouse renovation, library renovation,
etc., it has become apparent that moving the station renovation to 2012 would be prudent and
advantageous for the TOV (see memo).
In June, Council gave direction to move forward with final design and construction drawings
and proceed with the bid process. Plans and approvals were completed and, staff solicited
bids for construction, receiving six competitive bids (see memo). All of the bids exceeded the
initial “pre-construction” estimates of approximately $1,400,000. Staff determined the lowest
qualifying bidder was GE Johnson Construction Company. GE Johnson provided value
engineering (VE) proposals for the TOV to consider and staff carefully reviewed areas that
could lower costs without reducing quality and longevity of the structure. The bid from GE
Johnson was $1,619,505. Approximately $35,000 was cut through the VE process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: TOV staff is recommending that Council direct the Town
Manager to enter into a contract with GE Johnson for the renovation of Fire Station 2 for the
amount of $1,584,505 based on accepted value engineering items. Staff is asking that the
$1,750,000 budget in 2013 be moved to 2012, bringing the total project budget to $1,900,000.
Pending approval, construction will start in September with approximate completion date of
March 2013 (prior to the start of the municipal building).
As of this date, a decision has not been made as to the “white box” space being needed as
office space during the muni-building construction. If it is determined that it will not be used for
office space, it could be converted for use as EHU’s. As a matter of note, funds were not
included in this budget for EHU’s, although the space will have electrical and plumbing pre-
engineered to reduce costs at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Fire Station 2 Bid Results Memorandum
Fire Station 2 Award Memorandum
Faire Station 2 Designs
8/21/2012
To: TOV Council
From: Mark Miller, Fire Chief; Greg Hall, PW Director
Date: 08-21-12
Subject: Fire Station 2 renovation bid results
__________________________________________________________________________
Per Council direction, bids were solicited for the renovation of Fire Station 2. A total of six
competitive bids were received, with the official bid opening on August 13, 2012. Below are
the base bids as received. Additionally, on the following pages there is information relative to
advantages/disadvantages of moving forward with this project in 2012 vs. 2013, as well as
timelines and operational procedures.
Fire Station Number 2
Bid Results - Bid Opening 08/13/12
Bidder Name Base Bid
• GE JOHNSON $1,619,505
• EVANS CHAFFEE $1,561,698 (disqualified)
• WHITE CONSTRUCTION GROUP $2,018,000
• FCI CONSTRUCTORS $1,635,799
• RA NELSON $1,625,000
• MW GOLDEN CONSTRUCTORS $1,735,000
As a matter of note, the apparent low bid submitted by Evans Chaffee was deemed
unresponsive or non-conforming to both the instructions to bidders and the bid
documents, therefore disqualifying their bid.
7 - 1 - 1
8/21/2012
To: TOV Council
From: Stan Zemler, Town Manager; Mark Miller, Fire Chief; Greg Hall, PW Director
Date: 08/21/12
Subject: Fire Station 2 (Main Vail) renovation/bid award discussion
__________________________________________________________________________
In June, staff brought a conceptual design/engineering drawings and construction
estimates before Council relative to the renovation of Fire Station 2. The renovation of
Fire Station 2 is within the 2013 capital budget. The first supplemental of this year
advanced funds to move the project forward through design development and
entitlements, and to explore the potential of up to 1400 SF of temporary office space (or
EHU’s) if needed by March 2013. As stated in June, there are substantial functional and
operational advantages to beginning this project in September.
Fire Station 2
Construction Timeline/Operational Response
All timelines approximate:
• If approved - Proposed construction of Fire Station 2 to begin early
September 2012 – (pending approval by TOV Council in August)
Library staff is currently in the space below La Bottega and will
move out in late September/early October 2012, when Library
construction is complete.
• Fire crews will move into the La Bottega space from September through
substantial construction completion – (February 2013). Crews will respond
from La Bottega space, and deploy fire apparatus from station 2 (bay will
remain functional during majority of construction phase).
• Upon completion of station 2 (March 2013) – fire crews will move back in –
TOV staff will then be moved into La Bottega space as necessary (during
construction of municipal building).
7 - 2 - 1
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 2
Advantages:
• Timing is ideal for this particular scenario – we have a 6-7 month “window of
opportunity” (September 2012 – March 2013) to occupy space below La Bottega
while construction is completed; and before TOV staff move in (due to muni-
building construction).
• No reduction or significant disruption in emergency response
• The La Bottega space will work nicely for fire crews during the renovation
(laundry, restrooms, office/meeting space, etc.). Fire apparatus will remain
parked in front (or inside as construction allows) of fire station 2.
• Does not conflict with golf course clubhouse renovation or municipal building
construction.
• Significant guest improvements, i.e., public restrooms Information kiosk
opportunity, improved aesthetic appearance.
• Allows TOV to string together four building projects in a logical format, with no
overlap.
• If station is deferred to 2013, the workload of the municipal building construction
and the golf course clubhouse construction could delay the fire station to 2014,
and likely not be completed prior to 2015.
• The potential delay may require significant capital maintenance expenditures as
the building and its systems are beyond their intended useful life (estimated at
$170,000 - $250,000).
• The budget request change is possible without any changes to other projects.
• Adjacent neighbors are elated.
Disadvantages:
• No substantial disadvantages other than; if we defer renovation until 2013 – none
of the above mentioned advantages will apply. Crews may not be able to take
advantage of the La Bottega space, and response times/work efficiency will be
negatively affected.
• A 2013 renovation will conflict with municipal building and golf course clubhouse
construction.
Action items completed:
• Bids elicited – low qualifying bidder identified.
• Value engineering items identified, and on-going
• PEC and DRB conditional approval complete
• Two options considered – “EHU” space and “white box” (office space in upstairs
area (formerly the Resident Firefighter dorms)
7 - 2 - 2
8/21/2012
VAIL FIRE STATION #2 RENOVATION
5 JUNE 2012
7 - 3 - 1
8/21/2012
(2) ASPEN
(3) SPRUCE
(2) ASPEN
(2) POTENTILLA
(4) ASPEN
(8) RED TWIG DOGWOOD
VAIL FIRE #2 - SITE PLAN
WEST
MEADOW DRI
VE
SNOW STORAGE
5 JUNE 2012
7 - 3 - 2
8/21/2012
2
3
4
1
B
B
A
A
C
C
5
POLE
ENGINE
BRUSH TRUCKTRAILER
BRUSH TRUCK
MEN WOMEN
TOILET
JAN
BIO DECON
OFFICEHALL
EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
AIR FILL STATION
WORK/TOOLS
BUNKER STORAGE
12 LOCKERS
VAIL FIRE #2 - LEVEL 1
PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
FIRE STATION
ENTRY
5 JUNE 2012
7 - 3 - 3
8/21/2012
2
3
4
1
B
B
A
A C
5
EXISTING
POLE
BEDROOMUTILITYTOILET
BEDROOMBEDROOM BEDROOM
HALL
TOILET
MECHANICAL
STORAGE
POLE
VAIL FIRE #2 - LEVEL 2 / EHU West Side
STUDIO: 480 SF
2 BR: 800 SF
STOR.
FIRE DUTY
QUARTERS
DECK
DECK
DECK
ROOF
5 JUNE 2012
7 - 3 - 4
8/21/2012
2
3
4
1
B
B
A
A C
5
EXISTING
POLE
BEDROOMUTILITYTOILET
BEDROOMBEDROOM BEDROOM
HALL
TOILET
MECHANICAL
STORAGE
POLE
VAIL FIRE #2 - LEVEL 2 / White Box West Side
STOR.
FIRE DUTY
QUARTERS
WHITE BOX SPACE
DECK
DECK
DECK
ROOF
5 JUNE 2012
7 - 3 - 5
8/21/2012
8183.4'
()
8198.0'
PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2.1
14' - 9 1/4"
EXISTING RIDGE
RIDGE
(8,153.5')
8183.4'
8198.0'
VAIL FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION 2
PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
13' - 4 3/4"
Level 2.1
14' - 9 1/4"
EXISTING RIDGE
RIDGE
(8,153.5')
8183.4'
8198.0'
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
13' - 4 3/4"
Level 2.1
14' - 9 1/4"
EXISTING RIDGE
RIDGE
(8,153.5')
8198.0'
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
13' - 4 3/4"
RIDGE
EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION (West Meadow Drive)
SOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATION
VAIL FIRE #2 ELEVATIONS
5 JUNE 2012
7 - 3 - 6
8/21/2012
VIEW FROM NORTHEAST VIEW FROM NORTHWEST
VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
VAIL FIRE #2
5 JUNE 2012
7 - 3 - 7
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Update to the Town Council on the Status of the Ford Park Budget Phase 1 bid
results and request toward the Ford park Phase 1 construction contract to RA Nelson Inc.
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Town Council to award the Ford
Park Phase 1 construction contract to RA Nelson in the amount of $4,737,338 and to
supplement the 2013 and 2014 RETT budgets in the amount of $2.1 M.
BACKGROUND: Please see attached memorandum.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Town Council award the Ford Park Phase
1 construction contract to RA Nelson in the amount of $4,737,338 and supplement the 2013
and 2014 RETT budgets in the amount of $2.1 M.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum to Town Council dated August 21, 2012
8/21/2012
To: Vail Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Date: August 21, 2012
Subject: Ford Park Budget Update and Request to Award
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this discussion is to update the Town Council on the status of the Ford
park budget including Phase 1 bid results and to request the Town Council award the
Phase 1 construction contract to RA Nelson Inc.
II. BACKGROUND
Staff last provided the Town Council with an update of the Ford Park project on June 5,
2012 following the approval of the Development Plan. The Conference Center Fund
project components of the Development Plan included new West
Restroom/Maintenance Building, Restroom/Concession Building, and the Sports Fields
and Outfield Retaining Wall. The 2012 Ford Park budget is $6,297,500 and is broken
down as follows:
Conference Center Fund project components $3.8 M
RETT Funded additional improvements $2.5 M
Total Budget $6.3 M
It was further outlined that there was a projected $1.2 M shortfall in the estimated costs
of the project at that time. Staff suggested that the Council consider the reallocation of
$429 K already included in the 2012 RETT Capital Budget for Ford Park upper bench
outbuilding replacement to offset a portion of the shortfall. Staff also recommended that
certain portions of the project be bid as Add Alternates to the base bid to allow some
degree of flexibility in awarding the contract. Add Alternates items were included in the
bid form including concrete unit pavers on East and West Betty Ford Way, advanced
lighting controls on the two primary lighting systems, and additional umbrella liability
insurance coverage.
At the June 5 Town Council update the estimate for the Phase 1 Ford Park
Improvements was $3.7 M. Phase 1 Ford Park Improvements include the West
Restroom/Maintenance Building, Restroom/Concession Building, utility improvements
8 - 1 - 1
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 2
associated with both buildings and the park electrical system, Outfield Retaining Wall,
and East Betty Ford Way improvements.
III. BID RESULTS
Bids for the Phase 1 Ford Park Improvements were accepted on August 10, 2012. Bids
were received from four qualified General Contracting firms. The bids received are
summarized in the following table:
CONTRACTOR BASE BID ADD ALTERNATES TOTAL
RA Nelson $4,737,338 $316,716 $5,054,054
ECI Site Mgmt. $5,177,000 $333,073 $5,510,073
Deisslin Structures $5,450,150 $531,392 $5,981,542
B&B Excavating $7,401,932 $552,120 $7,954,052
The base bid of $4,737,338 submitted by RA Nelson is a responsible bid and is over the
estimated cost by approximately $935 K. Given the amount of overage of the base bids
Staff is not considering any of the Add Alternate items for acceptance.
IV. FORD PARK BUDGET UPDATE
Staff has updated the overall Ford Park budget incorporating the bid information
received. Following is a revised break down of the overall project cost projections.
6/5/12 Estimate 8/21/12 Estimate
Phase 1 Improvements
Construction Costs $3,802,673 $4,737,338
Owner provided items $ 103,343 $ 103,343
Owner contingency $ 431,000 $ 431,000
Design fees $ 357,411 $ 357,411
Total Phase 1 $4,494,427 $5,629.092
Phase 2 Sports Fields
Construction Costs $1,634,139 $1,634,139
Owner provided items $ 53,000 $ 53,000
Owner contingency $ 163,414 $ 163,414
Total Phase 2 $1,850,553 $1,850,553
Phase 3 Parking and Drop-Off
Construction Costs $ 592,430 $ 592,430
Owner Provided items $ 245,000 $ 245,000
Owner contingency $ 83,743 $ 83,743
Total Phase 3 $ 921,173 $ 921,173
Total Estimated Project Costs $7.5 M $8.4 M
8 - 1 - 2
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 3
Phase 1 values are actual bid prices. Phase 2 and 3 values are estimated costs without
escalation. The overall projected project budget shortfall is $2.1 M. The current
available information indicates the shortfall can be attributed to the following items
within the overall project.
General bid price variances $ 378,000
Utilities $1,000,000
East Betty Ford Way $ 246,000
Sports Field – artificial turf $ 368,000
Sports Field – subdrainage system $ 108,000
$2,100,000
Time is of the essence in beginning construction on the Phase 1 Improvements. The
contractor is building into unfavorable weather conditions and should be allowed time to
secure subcontracts and begin the construction sequence. The following section
outlines 2 possible options to allow the improvements to proceed as scheduled this fall.
V. FORD PARK PHASE 1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS
Option 1 Award the contract for the base bid to RA Nelson as submitted for the full
scope of work as designed for the amount of $4,737,338.
Supplement the project budget to address shortfalls as outlined above
Option 2 Award the contract for the base bid without the East Betty Ford Way
improvements for a negotiated amount not to exceed $3.9 M. Direct staff
to value engineer and redesign the East Betty Ford Way improvements to
potentially lower the cost of that portion of the work. Bid the revised and
redesigned East Betty Ford Way Improvements as part of the Phase 2
improvements in 2013.
Potential additional funds have been identified which would have minimal impact to the
Town’s current 5 Year RETT Budget. These additional funds are as follows:
$ 429 K Currently budgeted for Ford Park in the 2012 RETT Budget.
$ 350 K Savings from the 2012 Frontage Road Bike Lane Project.
$1.340 M Postponement of the Both Creek Park Redevelopment Project
budgeted in 2016 and reallocating the funds to Ford Park in 2013-
2014.
$2.119 M Total
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council select Option 1 as outlined above and award the
Ford Park Phase I contract to RA Nelson in the amount of $4,737,338 to allow the
construction of the improvements as committed during the Conference Center Fund
election to be fully implemented and to meet the requirements and expectations of the
Vail Valley Foundation project and fund raising efforts.
8 - 1 - 3
8/21/2012
Town of Vail Page 4
Staff recommends additional funds in the amount of $2.1 M be allocated to fully fund the
Phase 2 and 3 Improvements of the project in 2013 and 2014. Besides the additional
funds, the staff, design team and contractor are committed to identify potential savings
in Phase 1, East Betty Ford Way, and Phases 2 and 3 project scopes to continue
moving the project forward in an efficient and cost effective manner.
8 - 1 - 4
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 25, Series of 2012, A Resolution Calling a Special Election for
November 6, 2012, to be Coordinated with Eagle County, and Submitting Ballot Questions to
the Registered Electors of the Town at the November 6, 2012 Special Election.
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny Resolution No.25, Series of
2012.
BACKGROUND: The Vail Town Council has determined that several changes to the Vail
Town Charter are warranted. All amendments to the Vail Town Charter must be approved by
the registered electors of the Town at a regular or special election.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 25, Series of 2012
8/21/2012
1
8/16/2012
C:\PROGRAM FILES\NEEVIA.COM\DOCUMENT
CONVERTER\TEMP\PDFCONVERT.3538.1.RESOLUTION_NO._25,_SERIES_OF_2012.DOCX
RESOLUTION NO. 25, SERIES OF 2012
A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2012, TO BE
COORDINATED WITH EAGLE COUNTY, AND SUBMITTING BALLOT QUESTIONS TO THE
REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE TOWN AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012 SPECIAL
ELECTION
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the “Town”), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado
is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Colorado and the Vail Town Charter;
WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council have been duly elected and qualified;
WHEREAS, the Town Council determines that several changes to the Vail Town Charter
are warranted;
WHEREAS, all amendments to the Vail Town Charter must be approved by the
registered electors of the Town at a regular or special election; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to submit ballot questions to the registered
electors of the Town regarding the proposed changes to the Vail Town Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
1. There shall be a special election for the Town on November 6, 2012. Such
election shall be coordinated with Eagle County and conducted under the Uniform Election
Code, C.R.S. § 1-1-101, et seq.
2. At the November 6, 2012 special election, the following ballot questions shall be
submitted to the registered electors of the Town:
Ballot Question No. 1
Shall all references to the masculine gender in the Vail Town Charter be
amended to be gender-neutral?
___ Yes ___ No
Ballot Question No. 2
Shall the words “following the first Monday” be deleted from Section 2.3 of the
Vail Town Charter, so that Town of Vail elections will fall on the first Tuesday in
November, consistent with other elections in the state?
___ Yes ___ No
9 - 1 - 1
8/21/2012
2
8/16/2012
C:\PROGRAM FILES\NEEVIA.COM\DOCUMENT
CONVERTER\TEMP\PDFCONVERT.3538.1.RESOLUTION_NO._25,_SERIES_OF_2012.DOCX
Ballot Question No. 3
Because federal and state election laws have changed so that an election
commission is no longer necessary or warranted, shall Section 2.5 of the Vail
Town Charter, requiring an election commission, be repealed in its entirety?
___ Yes ___ No
Ballot Question No. 4
Because state law provides adequate procedures for initiative and referendum,
shall the sections of the Vail Town Charter addressing those issues, Sections
5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, be repealed in their entirety, and shall Section 5.2 be
amended to read as follows:
“The procedures for initiative and referendum shall be as provided in state statute
governing municipal initiative and referendum.”?
___ Yes ___ No
Ballot Question No. 5
Because Section 8.4 of the Vail Town Charter currently refers to a separate
Planning Commission and a separate Environmental Commission, and because
the Town has a single, combined Planning and Environmental Commission, shall
Section 8.4 of the Town of Vail Town Charter be repealed in its entirety, and shall
Section 8.3 of the Vail Town Charter be amended to read as follows:
“There shall be established a seven (7) member planning and environmental
commission appointed by the council. Members of the planning and
environmental commission shall be residents of the Town of Vail and registered
electors. The terms of appointment to the planning commission shall be two (2)
years on an overlapping basis. The functions of the planning and environmental
commission shall be defined by ordinance and include but not be limited to
aesthetic, architectural, environmental and ecological coordination and planning
relating to the enhancement and the preservation of the quality of life.”?
___ Yes ___ No
9 - 1 - 2
8/21/2012
3
8/16/2012
C:\PROGRAM FILES\NEEVIA.COM\DOCUMENT
CONVERTER\TEMP\PDFCONVERT.3538.1.RESOLUTION_NO._25,_SERIES_OF_2012.DOCX
Ballot Question No. 6
Shall Section 9.4 of the Vail Town Charter be amended as follows
“9.4 Capital Program And Additional One Percent Sales Tax.
The manager shall prepare a long-range capital program and submit same to the
council no less than two (2) weeks prior to the submission of the budget. Such
program shall include a statement as to the application of the sales tax revenues
allocated by ordinance to the special revenue fund. Expenditure Each annual
budget shall include a long-range capital program. To ensure adequate funding
for the long-range capital program, at least fifty percent (50%) of all sales tax
these revenues received by the Town shall be used other than for capital
improvements, and/or open space acquisition, or open space improvements, or
for the payment of debt service on any obligations of the Town issued to finance
the same, unless otherwise approved by shall require not less than five (5)
affirmative votes of the council.”?
___ Yes ___ No
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Vail held this 21st day of August, 2012.
________________________________
Andy Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
9 - 1 - 3
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Ever Vail - The Community Development Department requests that the major
subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8 and 9, Series of 2011 be continued to the September 18,
2012, public hearing.
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 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 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
September 18, 2012 public hearing.
8/21/2012
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 September 18, 2012 public hearing.
8/21/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (9:00 p.m.)
8/21/2012