HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-18 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
11:00 A.M., SEPTEMBER 18, 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.
Public comments on work session item may be solicited by the Town
Council.
1.
ITEM/TOPIC: VAIL LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT (VLMD) -
SEPARATE MEETING
2013 VLMD Operating Plan Discussion (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): John Dawsey and Pete Hayda with the Vail Local Marketing
District Advisory Council and Kelli McDonald, Economic Development Manager for
the Town of Vail
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Vail Local Marketing District Advisory
Council (VLMDAC) members and staff request that the VLMD listen to the
presentation and provide feedback regarding the VLMD 2013 Operating Plan.
BACKGROUND: The mission of the VLMD is to market and promote Vail to
attract overnight guests primarily during the May-October time frame, creating
economic vitality by increasing both the visitor base and sales tax revenues.
The goal of the 2013 marketing campaign is to continue to position the Vail brand
as the clear leadership brand in the year-round resort business. This will be
accomplished by aligning with the brand positioning and marketing done in winter.
2.
ITEM/TOPIC: Site Visit to Potato Patch re: ERWSD easement (40 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
3. ITEM/TOPIC: Council Lunch Break (30 min.)
4.
ITEM/TOPIC: DRB/PEC Update (15 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
5.
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Resorts Metro District Service Plan discussion (90 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler
6. ITEM/TOPIC: The Coldstream Condominiums Homeowners Association,
9/18/2012
represented by Tom Braun, is requesting a work session with the Vail Town
Council to discuss a contemplated major amendment to the Cascade
Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Development Area B. The
contemplated SDD amendment would propose to redevelop an existing
parking structure with a tennis court located above. The redevelopment is
anticipated to include a new parking structure with five (5) dwelling units
and two (2) employee housing units located above. (20 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell Tom Braun
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department
cautions the Vail Town Council from commenting on the contemplated
redevelopment beyond the specific question posed by the applicant. If an
application to amend the SDD proceeds forward, the Vail town Council will be
acting in a quasi-judicial role and must maintain the integrity of the prescribed
process. The Vail Town Council does not need to take any action on this request.
BACKGROUND: On February 28, 2011 the Planning and Environmental
Commission held a work session hearing to discuss the contemplated
redevelopment of a portion of the Coldstream Condominiums. At this hearing the
Commission provided feedback on the design and public benefit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Coldstream Condominium Homeowners
Association request that the Vail Town Council provides feedback on the question
presented in the memorandum.
7.
ITEM/TOPIC: Emergency notification system (Siren/Voice) (20 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Jerry Johnston - Cooper Notification; Mark Miller
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation and provide
feedback and direction.
BACKGROUND: Over the course of the last few years, there have been
discussions/questions relative to an emergency notification system in the TOV.
The notification system could prove extremely beneficial in regards to life safety
and early notification in the event of a catastrophic or life threatening emergency.
Many communities utilize such a system for various emergency notifications,
including; wildfires, severe weather, hazardous materials spills, lost children,
terrorist activities, special events, etc. Overall cost of the system depends on the
number of towers or sites and coverage area, but is estimated at $300,000 -
$500,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As an important tool for evacuation and
emergency notification in TOV, staff is recommending that Council approve moving
forward in pursuing a formal proposal/quote for an emergency notification system
in the TOV which could be included in the 5 year capital budget as appropriate.
8.
ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update and Attachments:
1) July 2012 Vail Business Review - Sally Lorton;
2) VEAC September 11, 2012 minutes - Kelli McDonald;
3) CSE meeting minutes - Sybill Navas; and
4) Municipal Site Redevelopment - George Ruther. (20 min.)
9/18/2012
PRESENTER(S): Various
9. ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor and Council (15 min. )
10.
ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e)
- to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine
positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: Ever Vail
Redevelopment Agreement and Ever Vail Metro District; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-
402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; Regarding:
Vail Golf Course. (60 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
11.
ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (4:40 p.m.)
NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW (ALL ARE
APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
--------------------
THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK
SESSION WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD),
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2012 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Ongoing agenda items TBD: DRB/PEC updates - Warren - WS - 15 min.;
Information Updates Attachments: WS - 15 min.; Executive Session items:
30 min.; Consent Agenda: 5 min.; Town Manager Report: Fire and ERWSD
updates - 5 min.
Vail Group Sales update - Kelli - WS - 30 min. - 10/2
Employee Housing Strategic Plan - Nina - ES - 30 min. - 10/2
UBC Sprinkler Requirements - Mark Miller - WS - 30 min. - 10/2
VLMD Resolution for VLMD Budget - SEPARATE Mtg. - Kathleen - 10 min.
-10/2
CDOT - I-70 Chain Up discussion - Greg Hall/Dwight Henninger/CDOT rep -
ES - 20 min. - 10/16
Site Visit - Library - Pam Brandmeyer - WS - 10/16
Capital Budget/Operating Budget discussion - Judy C/Kathleen H - ES - 60
min. - 10/16
TOV resolution for VLMD budget - Kathleen - ES - 15 min. - 10/16
Vail Reinvestment Authority budget Resolution - SEPARATE Mtg. -
Kathleen - 11/6
1st reading 2013 budget ordinance - Kathleen - ES - 30 min. - 11/6
2nd readin 2013 budget ordinance - Kathleen - ES - 15 min. - 11/20
Ever Vail - George - 30 min. - ES - on going
Buy-down program funding discussion - Nina - WS - 30 min. - TBD
Site Visit - Sundial Plaza - Gregg B. - WS - 30 min. - TBD
Strategic Parking Plan discussion - Greg H. - WS - 30 min. - TBD
ERWSD - Drought Wrapup Discussion - Diane Johnson/Linn Brooks - WS -
15 min. - TBD
ERWSD - Wastewater Master Plan - Linn Brooks/Siri Roman/Todd
Fessenden - WS - 30 min. - TBD
Wolcott Plan Discussion with Eagle County reps - WS - TBD
9/18/2012
Recycling discussion - Kristen B - 30 min. - WS - TBD
Housing Fee in Lieu Discussion – TBD
Ford Park discussion re: noise - Todd O./Greg Hall - WS - 30 min. - TBD
Outdoor Display Goods - George Ruther - TBD
Historic District - George Ruther - TBD
Sister City discussion - TBD
Open Space Discussion with Toby Sprunk, Eagle County Open Space
Director - TBD
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: VAIL LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT (VLMD) - SEPARATE MEETING
2013 VLMD Operating Plan Discussion
PRESENTER(S): John Dawsey and Pete Hayda with the Vail Local Marketing District
Advisory Council and Kelli McDonald, Economic Development Manager for the Town of Vail
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council
(VLMDAC) members and staff request that the VLMD listen to the presentation and provide
feedback regarding the VLMD 2013 Operating Plan.
BACKGROUND: The mission of the VLMD is to market and promote Vail to attract overnight
guests primarily during the May-October time frame, creating economic vitality by increasing
both the visitor base and sales tax revenues.
The goal of the 2013 marketing campaign is to continue to position the Vail brand as the clear
leadership brand in the year-round resort business. This will be accomplished by aligning with
the brand positioning and marketing done in winter.
ATTACHMENTS:
2013 VLMD Operating Plan
9/18/2012
To: Vail Local Marketing District
From: Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council
Date: September 18, 2012
Subject: 2013 Operating Plan and Budget
I. SUMMARY
A first look at the 2013 Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD) Operating Plan and Budget.
II. BACKGROUND
The mission of the Vail Local Marketing District is to market and promote Vail to attract
overnight destination guests primarily during the May ± October time frame, creating
economic vitality by increasing both the visitor base and sales tax revenues. Results to
date show an increase in sales tax collected, lodging occupancy and event attendance
over the summer of 2011.
The marketing objectives outlined in the VLMD operating plan are:
Continue the momentum and build on the powerful leadership position of the year-round
Vail brand in order to:
x Increase May ± October occupancy
x Increase sales tax revenue
x Increase group occupancy
x Optimize visitor mix
x Increase net promoter score
x Increase Vail brand awareness
III. BUDGET DETAIL
Revenue from lodging tax collections is estimated at $2,200,000 for 2013. The
DVVXPSWLRQVIRUWKLVSURMHFWLRQDUHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHWRZQ¶VH[SHFWHGWD[UHYHQXHIRU
2012. Regarding expenditures, the attached budget proposal includes $2,345,725 for
2013 programs in Plan A. The ending fund balance currently present for 2013 Plan A of
$777,146 is 35% of annual revenues. An additional proposal includes $2,571,725 for
2013 programs in Plan B. The ending fund balance currently present for 2013 Plan B of
1 - 1 - 1
9/18/2012
Town of Vail Page 2
$551,146 is 25% of annual revenues. &RXQFLO¶VGLUHFWLYHLVDPLQLPXPIXQGEDODQFHRI
25%).
The following shifts are recommended from the 2012 forecast to the 2013 Plan A
budget to address recent successes and opportunities and to achieve the outlined
marketing objectives:
x Destination budget remains flat (less $30,000 in 2012 for Hiking Map and Hiking
and Biking App) to provide continued emphasis in international marketing and
presence, specifically in Latin American countries as well as key markets
domestically
x Front Range budget stays intact to maintain presence and share of voice
x Groups and Meetings budget remains flat with emphasis on medical meetings,
corporate meetings and participatory sports tournaments
x PR budget stays intact to maintain a prominent presence regionally, nationally
and internationally
x Research budget increases $14,000 to conduct another Burke Brand Research
study as was done in 2011
x Web site budget decreases by $10,000 since Vail Mountain Marketing is
providing services without a 3rd party vendor
x Email marketing budget decreases by $21,000 since Vail Mountain Marketing is
providing services without a 3rd party vendor
x Professional Fees increase by $20,000 as a result of additional time spent
traveling domestically and internationally and hosting international guests and
media in Vail
x Event Marketing increases by $30,000 as a place holder for an iconic event in
2013 not yet identified
The 2013 Plan B budget would reflect the following additional shifts:
x Destination budget increases $153,500 from Plan A to include additional digital
media efforts, advertising and PR events in destination and international markets
x Groups and Meetings budget increases $110,000 to add staff to the sales team
The budgetary changes outlined above reflect the goal of shifting dollars to attract more
overnight destination guests to Vail through additional outreach and programs in 2013.
1 - 1 - 2
9/18/2012
Town of Vail Page 3
IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF VAIL LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council recommends that the Vail Local
Marketing District listen to the presentation, ask questions and provide direction for the
2013 Operating Plan and Budget. Staff will return October 16 with a resolution for
approval for VLMD expenditures in 2013.
ATTACHMENTS
VLMD Draft 2013 Operating Budget
VLMD 2013 Presentation
1 - 1 - 3
9/18/2012
Vail Local Marketing District
2013 Draft Operating Plan
20112012201220132013
ActualAmendedForecastPlan APlan B
Income
310 · Lodging Tax2,145,988 2,000,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
399 · Interest Income857 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Total Income2,146,845 2,001,200 2,201,200 2,201,200 2,201,200
Expense
6301 · Destination380,658 703,000 699,500 670,000 823,500
6302 · Front Range342,395 376,000 412,000 410,000 410,000
6303 · Groups and Meetings318,241 427,500 427,500 427,500 537,500
6304 · Public Relations Expenses79,453 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000
6306 · Photography / Video107,861 75,000 80,000 85,000 85,000
6307 · Research73,800 71,225 93,425 107,225 107,225
6308 · Web Site49,885 30,000 55,000 45,000 45,000
6310 · Admin Miscellaneous3,492 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
6315 · Email Marketing24,407 24,500 24,500 4,000 4,000
6320 · Branding44,600 75,000 30,000 25,000 25,000
6400 · Contingency- 49,500 34,800 37,500 -
7000 · Professional Fees
7001 · Legal and Accounting20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
7003 · Advertising Agent Fees50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
7007 · Marketing Coordination-VVP/TOV125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000
7008 · PR - Professional Fees90,000 90,000 90,000 110,000 110,000
7010 · Strategic Advisory Fees- -
7011 · Partnership Fees
7015 · Ft Range Promotion Fees40,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
7016 · Strategic Alliance Fees & Trvl82,221 -
Total 7011 · Partnership Fees122,221 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
7013 · Concierge Program-
Total 7000 · Professional Fees407,221 315,000 315,000 335,000 335,000
9000 · Special Event Funding
9000.01 · Pro-Cycling Challenge100,000 -
9000.02 · New Iconic Event Marketing8,500 95,000 70,000 100,000 100,000
Total 9000 · Special Events108,500 95,000 70,000 100,000 100,000
Total Expense1,940,512 2,341,225 2,341,225 2,345,725 2,571,725
Net Income206,333 (340,025) (140,025) (144,525) (370,525)
Beginning Fund Balance855,363 1,061,696 1,061,696 921,671 921,671
Ending Fund Balance1,061,696 721,671 921,671 777,146 551,146
%age Fund Balance (25% required)49%36%42%35%25%
1 - 1 - 4
9/18/2012
VAIL LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
2013 OPERATING PLAN
& BUDGET
September 18, 2012
1 - 1 - 5
9/18/2012
TOWN COUNCIL ECONOMIC GOALS
Improve economic vitality
Embrace an international focus in our destination strategy ±
flights, events, marketing
Improve the quality of group business
Be proactive in our event partnerships
Advance well-being
Improve the quality of the resort experience and ensure we
are on the cutting edge of technology
1 - 1 - 6
9/18/2012
1 - 1 - 7
9/18/2012
2013 OBJECTIVES
1 - 1 - 8
9/18/2012
2013 MARKETING OBJECTIVES
Continue the momentum and build on the powerful leadership
position of the year-round Vail brand
1.Increase May ± October Occupancy
2.Increase Sales & Lodging Tax Revenue
3.Increase Group Occupancy
4.Optimize Visitor Mix
5.Increase Net Promoter Score
6.Increase Vail Brand Awareness
1 - 1 - 9
9/18/2012
2013 STRATEGIES
1 - 1 - 10
9/18/2012
WHAT¶S NEW FOR SUMMER 2013
Gondola
50th Anniversary
Epic Discovery (Phase I)
New Retail & Restaurants
Welcome Center
Lionshead bus stop & plaza
1 - 1 - 11
9/18/2012
Refine key brand messages to support world-class outdoor
recreation, culture and well-being
Use Burke Brand Research findings to deliver communication
of the ³reasons to come´ ± outdoor recreation, friends &
family, events, lodging offers
Bring the brand to life in unexpected ways, including non-
traditional methods and alignment with events
Continuously deliver fresh content keeping the year-round Vail
brand dynamic
2013 STRATEGIES
1 - 1 - 12
9/18/2012
2013 STRATEGIES
Maximize high traffic periods (Fri ± Sun), optimize off peak
(Mon ± Thurs) periods with groups and events
Continue to leverage the loyal customer
Improve % of Destination and Mexico/Latin American guests
while retaining Front Range guests (optimize mix)
Improve the resort experience through guest service
initiatives and technology
Lay the foundation for Vail to be relevant to a younger
demographic
1 - 1 - 13
9/18/2012
MEASUREMENTS & METRIC
GOALS
1 - 1 - 14
9/18/2012
2013 Goal:
Increase YOY Occupancy 3%
LODGING OCCUPANCY
1 - 1 - 15
9/18/2012
1 - 1 - 16
9/18/2012
SALES TAX REVENUE
2013 Goal: Increase Sales Tax Revenue
Exceed annual inflation, as measured by the Consumer
Price Index (consistent with the Economic Council goals)
1 - 1 - 17
9/18/2012
SALES TAX REVENUE
(As Of: 7/31/12)
SALES
TAX
2011
ACTUAL
2012
ACTUAL
YOY
Change
YTD
INCREASE
MAY $473,292 $472,576 -.2%
JUNE $898,270 $959,431 6.8%
JULY $1,481,239 $1,559,274 5.3% 4.8%
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
MAYJUNEJULY
2011 ACTUAL
2012 ACTUAL-.2%
+5.3%
+6.8%
1 - 1 - 18
9/18/2012
TOV LODGING TAX REVENUE
(As Of: 7/31/12)
LODGING
TAX
2011
ACTUAL
2012
ACTUAL
YOY
Change
YTD
INCREASE
MAY $ 60,012 $ 61,075 1.7%
JUNE $210,859 $237,903 12.8%
JULY $386,954 $410,142 6.0% 7.8%
+1.7%
+6%
+12.8%
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
MAYJUNEJULY
2011 ACTUAL
2012 ACTUAL
1 - 1 - 19
9/18/2012
GROUP & MEETINGS OCCUPANCY
2013 Goal: 5% Overall YOY Increase
1 - 1 - 20
9/18/2012
1 - 1 - 21
9/18/2012
OPTIMIZE VISITOR MIX
2013 Goal:
Increase In-State Overnight,
Out of State and Int¶l
1 - 1 - 22
9/18/2012
1 - 1 - 23
9/18/2012
AWARENESS LEVEL
2013 Goal: Increase Vail¶s Awareness from 89% to 96%
2013 Goal: Increase Recent Visitation from 6% to 8%
1 - 1 - 24
9/18/2012
1 - 1 - 25
9/18/2012
2013 Goal: 86
NET PROMOTER SCORE
1 - 1 - 26
9/18/2012
NET PROMOTER SCORE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2007201020122013 GOAL
62
2013
Goal: 86 82
72
1 - 1 - 27
9/18/2012
1 - 1 - 28
9/18/2012
OVERVIEW OF BUDGET SHIFTS
1 - 1 - 29
9/18/2012
2013 BUDGET
Lodging Revenue Projections: $2.2 Million
VLMD Expenses:
Plan A: $2,345,725 (flat YOY)
Plan B: $2,571,725
1 - 1 - 30
9/18/2012
2012 VLMD Budget: $ 2,341,225
$509,000 , 22%
$190,500 , 8%
$412,000 , 18%
$427,500 , 18%
$92,000 , 4%
$80,000 , 3%
$93,425 , 4%
$55,000 ,
2%
$7,500 ,
0%
$24,500 ,
1%
$30,000 ,
1%
$34,800 ,
2%
$315,000 , 14%
$70,000 , 3%
Destination
International
Front Range
Groups and Meetings
Public Relations
Photography/Video
Research
Web Site
Admin Misc
Web & Email Marketing
Branding
Contingency
Professional Fees
Event Funding
1 - 1 - 31
9/18/2012
2013 VLMD Budget A: $2,345,725
$463,500 , 19.8%
$206,500 , 8.8%
$410,000 , 17.5%
$427,500 , 18.2%
$92,000 , 3.9%
$85,00
0 ,
3.6%
$107,225 , 4.6%
$45,00
0 ,
1.9%
$7,500
, 0.3%
$4,000 ,
0.2%
$25,00
0 ,
1.1%
$37,500 ,
1.6%
$335,000 , 14.3%
$100,000 , 4.3% Destination
International
Front Range
Groups and
Meetings
Public Relations
Photography/Video
Research
Web Site
Admin Misc
Email Marketing
Branding
Contingency
Professional Fees
Event Funding
1 - 1 - 32
9/18/2012
2013 VLMD Budget B: $2,571,725
$557,000 , 21.7%
$266,500 , 10.4%
$410,000 , 15.9% $537,500 , 20.9%
$92,00
0 ,
3.6%
$85,000 , 3.3%
$107,225 , 4.2%
$45,00
0 ,
1.7%
$7,500 , 0.3%
$4,000 , 0.2%
$25,000 , 1.0%
$335,000 , 13.0%
$100,000 , 3.9%
Destination
International
Front Range
Groups and Meetings
Public Relations
Photography/Video
Research
Web Site
Admin Misc
Email Marketing
Branding
Professional Fees
Event Funding
1 - 1 - 33
9/18/2012
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU!
1 - 1 - 34
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Site Visit to Potato Patch re: ERWSD easement
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Council Lunch Break
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: DRB/PEC Update
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ATTACHMENTS:
DRB results from September 5, 2012
PEC results from September 10, 2012
9/18/2012
Page 1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
PUBLIC MEETING
September 5, 2012
Council Chambers
75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado, 81657
**order and times of agenda items are subject to change**
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Tom DuBois Libby Maio
Andy Forstl
Brian Gillette
Rollie Kjesbo
PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:00pm
SITE VISITS
1. Vail Valley Medical Center - 181 West Meadow Drive
2. Schorpp Residence- 2633 Cortina Lane
3. Brownstein Residence- 1452 Buffehr Creek Road
4. Bridge Street Lodge 278 Hanson Ranch Road
MAIN AGENDA 3:00pm
1. Vail Valley Medical Center DRB120341 Bill
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (trash enclosure)
181 West Meadow Drive/Lot E, Vail Village Filing 2
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Ryan Magill
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4-0-0
CONDITION(S):
1. The applicant shall paint the trash enclosure doors brown to match the exterior walls of the
hospital building.
2. The applicant shall not pave the existing landscape area adjacent to the alley with asphalt as
shown on the submitted plans.
2. Fire Station No. 2 DRB120377 Bill
Final review of a change to approved plans (façade)
42 West Meadow Drive/Lot H, Vail Village Filing 2
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Michael McGee
ACTION: Tabled to September 19, 2012
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4-0-0
3. Ford Park DRB120407 Bill
Final review of changes to approved plans (retaining walls)
530 South Frontage Road East/ unplatted
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer
ACTION: Tabled to September 19, 2012
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4-0-0
This item was called back for discussion after the other items were completed.
ACTION: Denied
MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 4-0-0
4 - 1 - 1
9/18/2012
Page 2
4. Brownstein Residence DRB120369 Warren
Final review of an addition (ground vault)
1452 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 1, Cliffside
Applicant: Mr. Brownstein, represented by Harvey Robertson
ACTION: Tabled to September 19, 2012
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forstl VOTE: 4-0-0
5. Vista Bahn Ski Rentals and Alpine Eyewear DRB120402 Warren
Final review of a change to approved plans (doors)
278 Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot A&B, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Ron Riley, represented by Dan Barry
ACTION: Tabled to September 19, 2012
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4-0-0
6. Schorpp Residence DRB120375 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (reroof)
2633 Cortina Lane/Lot 3, Block A, Vail Ridge
Applicant: Herbert Schorpp, represented by Horn Brothers Roofing
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5-0-0
7. Sign Code Amendment Discussion Rachel
After discussion the Board asked that staff prepare a problem statement and an application to look at
amendments to the Sign Code to address clarity, streamlining, and desired outcomes.
STAFF APPROVALS
Kruszewski Residence DRB120252 Bill
Final review of an addition (residential)
1575 Aspen Ridge Road/Lot 4, Block 4, Lion’s Ridge Subdivision
Applicant: Ronald Kruszewski, represented by Brian Johnson, Contract One
Orlando Residence DRB120277 Bill
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
4650 Vail Racquet Club Drive, Building H, Unit 19/Unplatted
Applicant: Kevin Orlando
Snow Forest Chalet LLC DRB120291 Rachel
Final review of a change to approved plans (landscaping)
186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Snow Forest Chalet LLC-Garfield & Hecht, represented by Gies Architects
Schmidt Residence DRB120316 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
2596 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail Das Schone Filing 1
Applicant: Buzz Schmidt, represented by Hollywood Services
Marshall Residence DRB120326 Rachel
Final review of an addition (living room)
193 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 38, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Hines Marshall, represented by Shepherd Resources Inc/ AIA
4 - 1 - 2
9/18/2012
Page 3
Hadley Residence DRB120355 Rachel
Final review of changes to approved plans (landscaping)
1127 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 11, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 7
Applicant: Phil and Nicole Hadley, represented by Greg Sands
Braun Residence DRB120356 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (facade)
1175 Casolar Del Norte Unit A/Lot A, Block 1, Lion’s Ridge Filing 4
Applicant: Dan Braun, represented by Ross Dombrowski
Plzak Residence DRB120359 Warren
Final review of changes to approved plans (window, deck)
740 Sandy Lane/ Lot 4, Vail Potato Patch Filing 2
Applicant: Beth and Max Plzak
Donovan Residence DRB120361 Rachel
Final review of an addition (living room)
4253 Spruce Way Unit A/ Lot 15, Block 9, Bighorn Subdivision Filing 3
Applicant: Lawrence and Patricia Donovan, represented by K.H. Webb Architects
Peterson Residence DRB120362 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (site wall)
1687 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 2, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision
Applicant: Mark R. Peterson Trust, represented by Paul Heding
Mills Residence B12-0363 David
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (reroof)
1632 Matterhorn Circle/Lot 25, Matterhorn Village Filing 1
Applicant: Paul and Julia Mills, represented by George Sisneros
Schulman Residence DRB120365 Tom
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
1772 Alpine Drive/Lot 10, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: Dave and Tresa Schulman
Pitkin Creek Condominiums DRB120366 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (stairs)
3901 Bighorn Road (Pitkin Creek Park)/ Unplatted
Applicant: Pitkin Creek HOA, represented by Rob Steinke
Suszynski Residence DRB120368 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck, driveway)
1481 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 1, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing 4
Applicant: Kristina and Conrad Suszynski, represented by Martin Manley Architects
Snow Forest Chalet DRB120370 Rachel
Final review of an addition (master bedroom)
186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Snow Forest Chalet LLC, represented by Russell Gies
Triumph Development DRB120372 Bill
Final review of a sign application (business sign)
12 Vail Road/ Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Triumph Development LLC, represented by Mike Foster
4 - 1 - 3
9/18/2012
Page 4
Matterhorn Inn Condos DRB120373 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (reroof)
1552 Matterhorn Circle/Matterhorn Village
Applicant: Matterhorn Inn Condo Association, represented by Matt Hansen
White Residence DRB120374 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
133 Willow Place Unit 615/Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Tuleta White, represented by HMR Construction & Remodeling LLC
Montgomery Residence DRB120376 Bill
Final review of changes to approved plans (vent grilles)
385 Gore Creek Drive Units 301 & 302/Lots 14-18, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 5
Applicant: John Montgomery, represented by Bob Boymer
Sullivan Residence DRB120378 Rachel
Final review of changes to approved plans (deck/dormer)
2645 Larkspur Lane/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Intermountain Subdivision
Applicant: Sheila Sullivan
Pinos Del Norte Apartamento O Residence DRB120379 Warren
Final review of an addition (residential)
600 Vail Valley Drive Unit O/Unplatted
Applicant: Pinos Del Norte Apartamento O Inc, represented by Nedbo
Gudmundson Residence DRB120380 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (door/window)
1320 Westhaven Drive Unit 6C/Lot 6-9, Cascade Village
Applicant: Gudmundson 1999 Revocable Trust, represented by Kelli Holtz
Johnson Residence DRB120381
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) Tom
1106 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 7
Applicant: Sherry Johnson, represented by Greg Sands
Acevedo Residence DRB120383 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (window)
635 Lionshead Place, Unit 390/Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3
Applicant: Alfonso Acevedo, represented by Millie Aldrich
Field Residence DRB120384 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (A/C Unit, repaint, windows)
586 Forest Road Unit 1/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6
Applicant: Larry and Barbara Field, represented by Ryan Morrissey
Phelps Residence B12-0380 David
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (reroof)
1769 Alpine Drive/Lot 33, Vail Village West Filing 1
Applicant: John Phelps, represented by G&G Roofing
Bull/Morton Residence DRB120385 Rachel
Final review of changes to approved plans (window)
302 Hanson Ranch Road Unit 403/Lot I, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5
Applicant: Nicholas Bull, represented by Sid Schultz
4 - 1 - 4
9/18/2012
Page 5
Kinney Residence DRB120386 Bill
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (doors)
5164 Main Gore Drive South/Lot 13, Vail Meadows Filing 1
Applicant: Craig Kinney, represented by Kerry Kuntz
Kerr Residence DRB120387 Warren
Final review of changes to approved plans (windows, deck)
1415 Westhaven Circle Unit A/Lot 52, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Applicant: Tripp and Ann Kerr, represented by Karl Krueger
McAdam Residence DRB120388 Rachel
Final review of changes to approved plans (fire pit, lighting)
744 Sandy Lane/ Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 2
Applicant: Cynthia McAdam, represented by Inge Hill
Shedler Residence DRB120389 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (exterior gas line)
1522 Buffehr Creek Drive Unit A24/Valley Condos
Applicant: Jonathan Shedler, represented by Duncan Robinson
Red Sandstone Creek Club HOA DRB120392 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
955 Red Sandstone Road/Block D, Lion’s Ridge Filing 1
Applicant: Red Sandstone Creek Club HOA, represented by Sandra Cuccia
Perch DRB120393 Rachel
Final review of a sign application (business identification)
122 East Meadow Drive Unit D-4/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Laurie O’Connell
Thomas Residence DRB120398 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (repaint)
4027 Lupine Drive/Lot 6, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1
Applicant: Trudy Thomas, represented by Carl Cocchiarella
Sun Up Trust Residence DRB120399 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (skylight, repaint)
303 Gore Creek Drive Unit 10/Lot 10, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Sun Up Trust, represented by Kyle Webb
Gilmartin Residence DRB120400 Tom
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping)
788 Potato Patch Drive Unit B/Lot 13, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch
Applicant: Ann F. Gilmartin
Town of Vail DRB120401 Warren
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (stain/paint)
1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by John Gallegos
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office
hours in the project planner’s office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356,
4 - 1 - 5
9/18/2012
Page 6
Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
4 - 1 - 6
9/18/2012
Page 1
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 10, 2012
1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road W. - Vail, Colorado, 81657
**order and times of agenda items are subject to change**
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Susan Bird
Luke Cartin
Pam Hopkins
Michael Kurz
Bill Pierce
Henry Pratt
John Rediker
4 hours
1. A request for the review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional
Uses, Vail Town Code, for a healthcare facility and a public building and grounds, to allow for the
redevelopment of the Town of Vail municipal site with a medical research, rehabilitation, and
office building and a municipal office building located at 75 and 111 South Frontage Road West/
Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120012)
Applicant: Vail MOB, LLC, represented by Triumph Development and Town of Vail, represented
by Consilium Partners, Vail
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to September 24, 2012
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0
Warren Campbell made a presentation per the staff memorandum. He outlined the topics of
discussion for this work session and requested this item be tabled to a future hearing for further
deliberations.
Michael O’Conner, Triumph Development, identified the various elements of the proposal that
are still being studied (traffic, helipad, etc.) and will be discussed at future Planning and
Environmental Commission work sessions. He introduced the development team and
representatives from the medical center. He identified the economic development opportunity
and collective goal associated with this proposal. He then presented a general overview of the
medical office building and why the building elements were designed as presented.
Dr. Ralph Laprade, Steadman Clinic, described the deficiencies in their current clinical facilities
and the need for the proposed new building. He identified their desire to create a “legacy”
building to maintain and improve their operations and competitiveness with other similar clinics.
Lyon Steadman, CEO of the Steadman Clinic, spoke about the growth of the Steadman Clinic
over the past 15 years and reiterated the need for the new building. He noted the economic
impacts for the community and opportunities for expansion with this collaboration between the
medical center, the Town of Vail, and their clinic.
4 - 2 - 1
9/18/2012
Page 2
Coen Wijdicks, Director of Bio Mechanical Research for the Steadman-Phillipon research
Institute, identified the importance of close proximity between the clinic and the research
institute. He restated the importance of the proposed collaboration.
Tom Mars, COO of Vail Valley Medical Center, identified the site constraints of the current
medical center and the need for additional space which could be created by moving the clinic
and research institute. He noted the medical center’s support for the proposal and opportunity
for a pedestrian bridge linking across the South Frontage Road.
Mr. O’Conner, Triumph Development, summarized the reasons for the project. He
acknowledged the need for many uses on a relatively small development site.
Gary Lapera, Michael Graves Architects, identified the goals and intent of the design and then
presented the architectural plans for the proposed building. He described the desired
“institutional” massing for the building. He described how the proposed crystal form roof is
intended to create an iconic feature that connects the inside to the outside. He noted that the
proposed flag poles on the pedestrian overpass creates “markers” for the frontage road. The
front door of the new building and existing medical center are intended to be speaking to each
other.
Tim Losa, Zehren and Associates, described the surrounding properties and the associated
building scales, heights, setbacks, etc. He asked the Commission for input on the
Mr. Lapera noted that this project will be a “catalyst” to Vail and surrounding communities. He
believes this site will be an unusual site for employee housing and this project needs special
consideration with the commercial linkage requirements.
Mr. Losa noted that the surface parking design is being reconsidered and plans are not finalized;
however, the majority of the proposed landscaping will be proposed in the western corner of the
lot. He requested that the Commission also provide input on landscaping. He then described
the proposed loading and delivery locations and access points. He identified increases made to
the proposed loading capacities since the Commission’s last hearing. He identified constraints
to parking and delivery vehicle locations due to magnetism associated with certain medical
equipment. He described the proposed fire staging areas.
Will Hentzel, Oz Architecture, made himself available for questions. He noted that the municipal
building has been modified since the Commission’s last review, but the general design character
is the same.
Mr. O’Connor addressed the Commission concerning the employee housing requirements of the
project. He requested a waiver from the on-site mitigation requirements as outlined in the Town
Code. He described how this project meets three of the four waiver criteria and noted the
Commission only needs to find that the project meets one criterion to grant a waiver. He
identified how the project is in conformance with the purpose of the General Use District and is
compatible with the neighborhood. He identified the appropriateness of the location of this use
and how it achieves the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan. He noted that the Vail Land Use Plan
does not identify this site as a future location for housing. He also described conformance with
the Vail 20/20 Plan. He identified the exceptional circumstances associated with the site due to
its size and the sites configuration as an “island in a sea of CDOT right-of-way”. He identified
this site as Vail front door that needs a prominent building. He does not believe an additional
story of height for employee housing unit would be appropriate for this building.
4 - 2 - 2
9/18/2012
Page 3
Mike Foster, Triumph Development, answered questions from the Commission’s last hearing
related to employee and patient parking.
Rob McConnell, Carl Walker Inc., described the proposed parking demand analysis and the
related number of proposed parking spaces. He identified the parking requirements and
requirement reductions prescribed by the Vail Town Code.
Commissioner Pierce opened the hearing to public comment.
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, requested a break before the beginning of public
comment.
The Commission took a 7 minute recess.
Elaine Lapin, Meadow Drive homeowner, asked what engineering rating is the proposed medical
office building.
Mr.Losa noted that the building has a “B” occupancy.
Mrs. Lapin asked for clarification if patients will move between buildings after surgery for therapy.
Mr. mars stated that the described scenario is unlikely.
Mrs. Lapin noted that she was told a patient can not leave the hospital an move to an office
building unless that office building is constructed in the same manner as a medical type building.
Mr. O’Connor stated that they would look into specification of operation in more detail. His
understanding was that more procedures are a 23-hour stay and not a long term stay at the
hospital. He clarified that no surgery rooms are proposed in the new medical office building.
Merv Lapin, Meadow Drive homeowner, voiced his concerns about impacts to traffic. He is also
concerned about the helipad. He recommends it not be in that location due to its devastating
impact to neighbors. He noted that the helicopter will come approximately 72 times and often
arrives at night. Back in the 1970’s the windows of his former house were blown out twice by
helicopters landing at the medical center. He identified FAA regulations requiring two
approaches for helicopters and the avoidance of residential neighborhoods. He and his
neighbors understand the need for a helicopter landing pad, but request a different location than
the medical center building. He recommended reviewing the medical office building and the
medical center as a whole. He acknowledged that Vail needs a functional medical center, but in
other mountain communities require helicopters to land in off-site areas. Last winter a test
program resulted in a helicopter staging in Vail everyday during the ski season which resulted in
even greater impact than on-demand helicopter service. He noted the PEC and Town Council
review should be required. He does not believe the proposed architecture is in keep with the
Vail character and reminds him of the boat building in Avon. This building should be called the
“unicorn building”. He acknowledged that the surrounding buildings are not attractive, but like
the Four Seasons it should have an alpine character.
Gwen Scapello, resident at 9 Vail Road, agreed with Mr. Llapin’s comments. She noted the
parking, site coverage, etc. problems associated with her building being considered part of a
shared site. She warned that this building may suffer the same problems. She recommended
that parking, height, site coverage, etc. should be examined based upon each one-half on the
site and not as a whole. They are uniquely and separately owned and developed. She
cautioned about the challenges down the road in one side wants to expand and grow. She
4 - 2 - 3
9/18/2012
Page 4
believes parking without separate entrances or designations will be challenging to track and
control. She noted concerns about limited setbacks to the north is I-70 is ever expanded. She is
also concerned by the limited south setbacks and impacts when the South Frontage Road is
expanded in the future. There will be no room available for a sidewalk. She is concerned about
a development approach based upon we did it in Lionshead, so we should be able to do it here”.
She is troubled by the request for no on-site employee housing. This project is a major
development and net new housing is needed. She recommends buying down or restricting
existing units does not create new employee housing. She quest is a waiver is granted
Richard Kent, Scorpio Condominiums HOA president, asked what the existing and proposed net
floor area is per doctor. He recommended reviewing the medical office building, medical center,
and bank building be reviewed as a whole. He is concerned about traffic and the waiver for one-
site employee housing.
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner Association, noted that at a previous hearing about the bank
building, the Commission recommended the medical center and the neighborhood find better
ways to communicate. Since then, the homeowners have proposed a neighborhood review
process. He is concerned that direct communication is not yet all that it could be. He
acknowledged that the medical center has begun preparing a facilities plan. He believes there
are key studies that must be completed for the whole complex that need to be know before
individual projects can be reviewed. He does not believe loading and delivery can be reviewed
without knowing how it operates today and how it will operate for the whole medical center in the
future. Jim Lamont presented a 2003 frontage road traffic study from the Town’s archives to the
Commission’s review. He noted that this location is a keystone to traffic throughout Vail. He
acknowledged the importance of the medical office building use to the community, so the Town
of Vail may want to contribute to further community traffic study and master planning. He asked
what real world factors need to be understood further. He recommends that the more parking
constructed the better. If parking is built, it will be used. He gave the example that the helipad is
an example of no one knowing the actual FAA regulations standards of whether or not a future
helipad is feasible at the medical center. He asked if employee housing should be integrated in
the medical campus as a whole. A significant park of the existing site is only a surface parking
lot. If the Town of Vail needs critical employees to live in Town, doesn’t the medical center?
How many years of debate were associated with taller heights in Lionshead combined with
setbacks, step-backs, articulations, etc.; are those design provisions going to be thrown out?
Should the bridge be a public bridge and not exclusive to the medical office building given the
future traffic use of the frontage road? There needs to be fairness. How much did the Town
beat on the Ever Vail project to step down building heights? He is not sure this is the right site
for this project. How does this project interact with on-mountain and tourism uses in Vail.
Commissioner Pierce recommended addressing the topics one at a time.
Commissioner Kurz asked how loading and delivery and parking will operate with traffic. He
agreed with right-in, right-out turns.
Commissioner Rediker recommended that delivery drivers be notified that they will be exiting to
the right and driving to West Vail before they can re-enter the east bound interstate.
Commissioner Bird asked how hazardous waste will be addressed.
Mr. Foster described the “red bag area” in a separate room with separate procedures.
Commissioner Kurz asked about the access for public recycling.
4 - 2 - 4
9/18/2012
Page 5
Warren Campbell clarified that public recycling will no longer occur on this site.
Commissioner Pratt is concerned that a second delivery vehicle could be blocked by the first.
He believe the two-bay dock bay is adequate.
Commissioner Cartin asked about the turning movements associated with delivery trucks. He
asked for further description of the trash and recycling locations.
Commissioner Hopkins requested a massing model that includes the neighboring buildings. She
asked for clarification about the parking numbers and asked if a tunnel could be constructed
between the medical office building and the medical center. She noted that the Town Hall
building may be able to accommodate employee housing. She noted that the Town has worked
hard for years to achieve energy efficiency. How will the large glass roof address efficiency. He
will unblocked sun exposure, so shades will be installed in the future. How will the metal roof
address rain and snow shedding, since it appears to shed over the building entry or even impact
to the street. She asked if loading will be adequate to address future demand. She is concerned
that the icon style of the two buildings does not make up for the mass of the buildings. She
recommended adding balconies or other solutions.
Commission Pierce agreed with the Staff memorandum confirming the need for a written
description of the loading and delivery demands as anticipated. How will food service delivery
be addressed? He recommends some form of notification when the dock is full so trucks do not
accidentally enter the facility.
Commissioner Kurz asked for clarification about food service.
Mr. O’Connor clarified that food service will be limited to catering.
Commissioner Kurz asked how much peak will really be increased, since many existing uses
appear to be simply relocating. Will the hospital be decompressed or will the displaced space be
reoccupied as intensely as it is today.
Mr. Steadman quantified the anticipated staffing increases.
Tom Mars noted that it will be a good location for expansion of existing and new uses.
Commissioner Kurz noted that increasing demand is a good problem, but what will this campus
look like several years from now. Are we exacerbating the problem by not having a 10 year plan
for the medical center. Will employee housing uses be problematic? How can some of these
issues be addressed without a master plan. He recommends the location of the helipad be
entirely reviewed by the FAA. On one hand is the safety of the patient versus the safety of the
neighborhood. He noted that there are potential impacts to neighbors and the streets.
Commissioner Rediker asked questions about how the lecture hall was addressed in the parking
study.
Mr. McConnell noted that the typical use is addressed in the study.
Commissioner Rediker asked how sessions with outside attendees are addressed.
Mr. Steadman noted that out-of-town doctors typically stay at a local hotel, so shuttles and bus
service. These presentation and conferences will typically occur on weekends.
4 - 2 - 5
9/18/2012
Page 6
Commissioner Rediker noted concern that much of the review will be based upon assumptions.
What if a doctor rents a car at the Denver airport? He is concerned about the parking reductions
for shared use was already described as a arbitrary reduction. He noted that Town Code
parking requirements should not be substituted for a ULI based analysis.
Commissioner Bird agrees with Commissioner Rediker and she believes parking is under
estimated.
Commissioner Pratt will defer to the experts on parking demand for the medical center, but the
Town Hall numbers are too low. He used the number of cars from those attending this hearing
as an example. He is not comfortable with the baseline numbers and future demands will
exceed the spaces proposed.
Commissioner Cartin agrees with Commissioner Pratt that the municipal building parking is too
low. He recommends using under utilized parking spaces on the weekends for skier parking and
special events parking. He recommended constructing as much parking as possible. He asked
about the frontage road medians shown on some plans.
Mr. Foster clarified that those are future road improvements and the medians shown in front of
this site will be constructed with this project.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about if the proposed turn-around will accommodate peak arrivals
such as a lecture hall presentation or a council chamber event.
Mr. Foster described the on-site traffic patterns and queuing. These plan is being re-examined
and more detail will be presented at the Commission’s next hearing.
Commissioner Pierce asked if a future round-a-bout will be needed, where will it be located and
how will it would be designs.
Mr. Foster noted that a future round-a-bout is being examined.
Commissioner Cartin recommended combining the bus stop and fire staging areas.
Commission Bird noted concerns about the bus stop and the cross walk being located in the
same location, since vehicles are confused whether or not a pedestrian is crossing or waiting for
a bus.
Commissioner Pierce asked for clarification about short-term parking.
Mr Foster described the most recent parking lot configuration.
The majority of Commission agreed that the municipal building parking numbers are “light”, but
Commissioner Pierce agreed with the Carl Walker report.
Commissioner Kurz agreed with Commissioner Hopkins that the building appears to be blocky
and large. The building needs to look less big. He is ok with the setbacks as proposed.
Commissioner Rediker agreed with Commissioner Hopkins concerns about the roof shedding
into the street.
Mr. Foster noted that the newly aligned frontage road will be 17 feet to the north and the building
will be 15 to 20 off the street. Mr. Losa clarified that a snow shedding control will be installed.
4 - 2 - 6
9/18/2012
Page 7
Commissioner Bird asked if there is adequate room for pedestrians to from the sidewalk to
access the bridge.
Mr. Foster clarified that is an exterior entrance is provided, an elevator will be required. An
elevator would be cumbersome and create maintenance costs. At this time the bridge will be a
private, not public, bridge.
Commissioner Bird asked about bridge height.
Mr. Campbell clarified that it will meet CDOT clearance standards.
Commissioner Pratt is concern about how close the building is to the south setback.
Commissioner Kurz and Rediker do not believe the proposed height is egregious.
Commission Rediker acknowledged that the building is big, but not a big as Solaris.
Commissioner Pierce recommended that if Lionshead height is allowed, then setbacks, step-
backs, etc. must be applied too as included in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Commissioner Pratt agreed with Commissioner Pierce. He agrees with Commissioner Hopkins
that the glass room will be a heating and glare night mare. He does not support the long linear
roof form. He recommended the glass roof be on the east side to identify the location of the
building entrance. He recommends additional height if the building is articulated. He does not
like the angles of the proposed building.
Commissioner Cartin agrees with applying the other Lionshead design guidelines. He requested
a 3-D model to evaluate the whole site. The municipal building may be an opportunity for
employee housing.
Commissioner Hopkins described her knowledge of the history of employee housing from the
1980’s and the need for it thenand now for the town’s self preservation.
There were no Commissioner comments about site coverage.
Commissioner Kurz stated that this project will build the community short and long term. He
agrees with some recommendations of the Housing Authority. He does not believe this is an
appropriate location for employee housing do to location, surrounding traffic, and desires to not
live at work. He believes existing unit can be restricted as allowed for other projects.
Commissioner Rediker agrees with many recommendations by the Town’s Housing Coordinator.
While he is on the Housing Authority, he recused himself from this discussion. He agrees with
concerns about setting a precedent by not requiring some hosing to be built on-site. He believes
such a decision would be hypocritical of the Town when other developers. He believes the
municipal building is an opportunity for a housing location. He believes dispersed employee
housing in all neighborhoods is important. He agrees that Chamonix should not be considered
an option for mitigation since that property is intended to make up for current deficiencies.
Commissioner Bird suggested housing would be important on-site since there is a need from
seasonal doctors and students and seasons Town Staff. She recommended adding an
additional story to the municipal building for housing.
4 - 2 - 7
9/18/2012
Page 8
Commissioner Pratt does not believe on-site employee housing is appropriate generally.
Employee should be dispersed around town and not live at work. He believes the municipal
building is an appropriate location for employee housing. He agrees with the recommendation
for new off-site housing.
Commissioner Cartin agrees with Commissioner Pratt in supporting new off-site housing. He
believes it is foolish that the Town is requesting a waiver from on-site housing.
Commissioner Pierce clarified that there is little net new floor area and housing requirements for
the Town. But, it should like the Commissioners support mitigation for the medical building at the
municipal building.
Commissioner Hopkins identified the boom and bust historic need for employees. She noted
that the medical office could use employee housing as compensation and an incentive for
employees in boom years.
Commissioner Pierce noted support for on-site employee housing somewhere on the whole site,
including on at the municipal building.
Mr. Lamont finds it ironic that the medical center rents housing in the neighborhood today, so
employee housing should be addressed campus wide.
Commissioner Pratt noted that the helipad location is the lightning rod for this project. He is
disappointed that no permanent location has been determined yet. He acknowledged the desire
for this at the medical center, but it does have negative impacts to the neighbors. He does not
believe Ford Park is a permanent helipad location.
Commissioner Kurz believes this is a wonderful collaborative project that needs to be facilitated.
Commissioner Cartin also recommended resolving the helipad issue. He noted concerns about
daytime glare concerns about the glass room and light pollution at night.
Commissioner Pierce noted his disappointment about the medical office building. It doesn’t
relate to Vail and is not an iconic building. He is concerned about one more shed tower on a
building the same as the fire station, Avon Walgreens, and Frisco hotel along the interstate.
20 minutes
2. A request for the review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-8B-3, Conditional
Uses, Vail Town Code, for “accessory building and uses customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof,
including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concession, storage buildings, and similar
uses” to allow for the construction of temporary buildings for golf course and Nordic center
operations including offices, restrooms, general storage, trash storage, golf cart storage, etc.,
generally located at 1655 Sunburst Drive (Vail Golf Course starter shack and driving range area)
/ Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120032)
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Approved with Condition(s)
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-1 (Pierce recused)
CONDITION(S):
1. This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town
of Vail approval of the associated design review application.
4 - 2 - 8
9/18/2012
Page 9
2. This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant and the Town of
Vail obtaining design review approval and all final conditional use permit approvals for
renovations to the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse that displace golf course and/or Nordic
center operations.
3. This conditional use permit approval shall expire in accordance with Section 12-16-8,
Permit Approval and Effect, Vail Town Code, or within 60 days of the issuance of a final
certificate of occupancy for a renovated golf course clubhouse building. All temporary
buildings associated with this application shall be removed and the site restored prior to
the expiration of this conditional use permit.”
The Commission tabled agenda items 3 through 7. Commissioner Pierce then recused himself
from this item due to a conflict of interest and departed the hearing.
Bill Gibson made a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Commissioner Kurz asked how many golf carts are on site and if there were other locations for
storage.
Scott O’Connell, Vail Recreation District, identified the number of carts and clarified that in the
winter the carts will be shipped off-site and the tent will be removed.
Commissioner Bird will the buildings be ADA accessible and where restrooms would be located.
Mr. O’Connell stated that they would be ADA accessible and identified the location of the
restrooms.
Commissioner Pratt asked if the driving range would be shorted and if so, would there be any
increased danger of balls going over the driving range net.
Mr. O’Connell described how the driving range tee boxes would be affected and described how
the VRD Staff will interact with range guests to address the issue. He noted that the range could
be limited to irons only if this issue became a problem.
Commissioner Bird asked about the location of snow cats for Nordic operations.
Mr. O’Connell explained how snowcats and snowmobiles will be stored at the maintenance
building and not at this location.
Commissioner Pratt asked what will be stored in the proposed garage and which direction the
doors will face.
Mr. O’Connell said the garage door will face east and additional stock for the pro shop will be
stored in the building.
Commissioner Bird inquired about rental equipment.
Mr. O’Connell stated that rental services would occur in the existing starter shack.
Art Abplanalp, representing several property owners in the vicinity, stated that his clients support
the redevelopment of the clubhouse and acknowledged that these temporary facilities are a
necessary part of that project. He requested that the words “all final” be added to the second
condition regarding the requirement for conditional use permits.
4 - 2 - 9
9/18/2012
Page 10
Greg Hall, Public Works Director, asked for clarification on the “all final” wording address design
review for the clubhouse building and not other design review applications such as signage.
Commissioner Rediker proposed wording for the second condition that was agreeable to both Art
Abplanalp and Greg Hall.
3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning
Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to require restoration of
watercourses and riparian areas, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120011)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Tabled to September 24, 2012
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations
amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to Title
12, Zoning Regulations, to amend the development review process, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC120010)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Tabled to September 24, 2012
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0
5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code,
pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage
within the setbacks, located at 4192 Columbine Way/Lots 25 & 26, Bighorn Terrace, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120027)
Applicant: Anne Upton, represented by Pierce Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to September 24, 2012
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0
6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments
to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the construction sign
regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120031)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to September 24, 2012
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0
7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments
to Section 12-13-5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town
Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the
employee housing unit deed restriction exchange program review process, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC120017)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0
4 - 2 - 10
9/18/2012
Page 11
8. Approval of August 27, 2012 minutes
ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012
MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Bird VOTE: 4-0-2
(Cartin and Kurz abstained, Pierce absent,)
9. Information Update:
View Corridors
10. Adjournment
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-0 (Pierce absent)
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road West.
The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in
the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional
information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published September 7, 2012, in the Vail Daily.
4 - 2 - 11
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Resorts Metro District Service Plan discussion
PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler
ATTACHMENTS:
Ever Vail Presentation
Fiscal Impact Report
9/18/2012
Ever Vail
Metropolitan District
Nos. 1-5
Study Session Presentation
September 18, 2012
5 - 1 - 1
9/18/2012
2
Ever Vail Metropolitan District Nos. 1-5
Service Plan
Originally Submitted on June 25, 2010
Resubmitted on August 21, 2012
Service Plan format and structure based on
Vail Square (Arrabelle)
Propose Public Hearing on Service Plan for
October 2, 2012
Allows for Organizational Election
November 6, 2012
5 - 1 - 2
9/18/2012
3
Timing Considerations
November 2012 election is best date for
organization
Allows developer to commit to fund parking
spaces for 2013
Secures a key element to overall project feasibility
Establishes legal entity to accept preliminary
project design, engineering and other initial costs
associated with future public infrastructure
Not issuing debt now
Next election opportunity is full year away –
November 2013
5 - 1 - 3
9/18/2012
4
Key Service Plan Elements and Limits
Powers Include
Streets
Water
Sanitation
Storm Drainage
Park and Recreation (landscaping/open
space)
Transportation
Traffic and Safety Controls
5 - 1 - 4
9/18/2012
5
Key Service Plan Elements and Limits
Financial Limitations
Debt Cap of $95 Million (Estimated $75 Million
Infrastructure Costs + 30% contingency for issuance
costs, reserves, etc.)
Debt Service Mill Levy Cap of 50 Mills
Maximum Term of Debt is 40 years
Maximum Interest Rate 18%
Bonds cannot be issued until sufficient tax base or
credit enhanced
Bonds cannot be issued as tax-exempt unless
reasonable to conclude can be paid within the stated
maturity date
5 - 1 - 5
9/18/2012
6
Key Service Plan Elements and Limits
Other Limitations
Service Plan approval is not a land
use/development approval
Town can trigger dissolution if project is not
approved
Public improvements design/construction subject
to Town approval/standards
Public improvements may be dedicated to Town
or retained by Districts, as per development
agreements
District will not seek Conservation Trust
Funds/GOCO Funds in competition with Town
5 - 1 - 6
9/18/2012
7
Key Service Plan Elements and Limits
Public Infrastructure Cost Estimates
Specific Improvements to be funded to be determined
based on future development approvals and District
financing capacity
Total estimated costs = $75 Million
Costs include:
Public Parking Spaces Fall 2013
Parking Garage with 200 Public Parking Spaces
Frontage Road
Transit Center
Water and Sanitation
Landscaping Amenities
5 - 1 - 7
9/18/2012
TIF Revenues
Districts to retain all revenues from District mill levies
per agreement with Vail Reinvestment Authority
Same approach as in Vail Square Metropolitan
Districts (Arrabelle)
TIF projected from other taxing entities flows to VRI
as projected (see Thompson & Trautz, LLC Ever Vail
Fiscal Impact Report)
Ever Vail Districts require full amount of tax revenues
to fund public infrastructure
8
5 - 1 - 8
9/18/2012
9
Vail Resorts Sponsored Districts
Metro Districts Used Successfully
Arrabelle
Red Sky Ranch
Peak 7/8 Breckenridge
All are meeting their financial obligations as they
come due
Arrabelle (Vail Square Metropolitan Districts)
Identical structure to Ever Vail
Successfully achieved all financial goals
5 - 1 - 9
9/18/2012
10
Additional Considerations
Service Plan approval now does not create risks for Town
Propose that approval be conditional
Not seek Order creating Districts until DIA executed
Districts never exist if DIA is not executed
Service Plan approval is not a land use or development
approval
Parameters in Service Plan constrain ability to issue debt
until development occurs or unless credit enhancement
provided
Development Obligations secured through approval process
sufficiently secure delivery of public improvements
Use of Metro Districts does not create need for additional
guarantees
5 - 1 - 10
9/18/2012
11
Questions and Answers
Request for Public Hearing October 2, 2012
5 - 1 - 11
9/18/2012
5 - 2 - 1
9/18/2012
5 - 2 - 2
9/18/2012
5 - 2 - 3
9/18/2012
5 - 2 - 4
9/18/2012
5 - 2 - 5
9/18/2012
5 - 2 - 6
9/18/2012
5 - 2 - 7
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: The Coldstream Condominiums Homeowners Association, represented by Tom
Braun, is requesting a work session with the Vail Town Council to discuss a
contemplated major amendment to the Cascade Special Development District (SDD) No. 4,
Development Area B. The contemplated SDD amendment would propose to redevelop an
existing parking structure with a tennis court located above. The redevelopment is anticipated
to include a new parking structure with five (5) dwelling units and two (2) employee housing
units located above.
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell Tom Braun
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department cautions
the Vail Town Council from commenting on the contemplated redevelopment beyond the
specific question posed by the applicant. If an application to amend the SDD proceeds
forward, the Vail town Council will be acting in a quasi-judicial role and must maintain the
integrity of the prescribed process. The Vail Town Council does not need to take any action
on this request.
BACKGROUND: On February 28, 2011 the Planning and Environmental Commission held
a work session hearing to discuss the contemplated redevelopment of a portion of the
Coldstream Condominiums. At this hearing the Commission provided feedback on the design
and public benefit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Coldstream Condominium Homeowners Association
request that the Vail Town Council provides feedback on the question presented in the
memorandum.
ATTACHMENTS:
TC Memorandum 091812
Applicant's Document 090512
PEC Memorandum 022811
PEC Results 022811
9/18/2012
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 18, 2012
SUBJECT: A request for a work session with the Vail Town Council to discuss a
contemplated major amendment to the Cascade Special Development District
No. 4 Subarea B, Coldstream Condominiums.
Applicant: Coldstream Condominiums Homeowners Association
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The Coldstream Condominiums Homeowners Association, represented by Tom Braun,
is requesting a work session with the Vail Town Council to discuss a contemplated
major amendment to Cascade Special Development District (SDD) No. 4 Subarea B.
The contemplated SDD amendment would propose to redevelop an existing parking
structure with a tennis court located above on the south end of the property. The
redevelopment is anticipated to include a new parking structure with five (5) dwelling
units and two (2) employee housing units located above. A memorandum from the
applicant dated September 5, 2012 detailing their request is attached for reference
(Attachment A).
II. APPLICANT’S REQUEST
Ask any questions and offer any comments on the conceptual ideas presented by
the applicant, specifically any aspects of the project the applicant should
consider if and when they pursue a formal development application.
III. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS
Major Amendment to a Special Development District
Planning and Environmental Commission:
The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town
Council based upon the findings made on the criteria located in Chapter 12-9A, Special
Development District, Vail Town Code.
6 - 1 - 1
9/18/2012
Town of Vail Page 2
Town Council:
The Town Council takes into consideration the PEC’s recommendation when reviewing
an application for a special development district and is responsible for final
approval/denial of an SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal and
approve/approve with conditions/deny the application based upon the findings made on
the criteria located in Chapter 12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code.
IV. BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2011 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a work
session hearing to discuss the contemplated redevelopment of a portion of the
Coldstream Condominiums property. At this hearing the Commission provided
feedback on the design and public benefit. Attached are the memorandum to the
Commission (Attachment B) and the results of the hearing (Attachment C).
V. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNCIL
The Community Development Department cautions the Vail Town Council from
commenting on the contemplated redevelopment’s merits or compliance with the Code
and its criteria. If an application to amend the SDD proceeds forward, the Vail Town
Council will be acting in a quasi-judicial role and must maintain the integrity of the
prescribed process.
The Vail Town Council does not need to take any action on this request.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant’s request and attachments dated September 5, 2012
B. Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February 28,
2011
C. Planning and Environmental Commission hearing results dated February 28, 2011
6 - 1 - 2
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 1
SDD Amendment Work Session
Coldstream Condominiums
Cascade Village SDD Amendment
January 31, 2011, revised February 24, 2011, September 5, 2012
Over the past 30 years the Coldstream Condominium Owners Association has taken
many steps to continually upgrade and improve their community. Recently the
Association has been evaluating the feasibility of implementing a relatively small but
important improvement program that would involve the addition of five new residential
units, two EHU’s and a number of other on-site improvements. In order to implement
this plan an amendment to SDD No. 4-Cascade Village will be necessary.
Prior to submitting formal applications to amend SDD No. 4 the Association is interested
in a work session level discussion with both the Planning and Environmental
Commission and the Town Council. The Associations goal for these work sessions is to
gain some indication of the Town’s interest and/or attitude with regard to the re-
development of Coldstream.
While it is understood that any input received from the Town during this work session
process will be preliminary and non-binding, these work sessions will still be beneficial
to the Association in deciding what future actions to take on the potential re-development
of the project. Given the current economic climate, particularly with regard to real estate
development, any land owner must be prudent with how approach any land development
project. The Town’s SDD process can be exhaustive and the design work necessary to go
through the formal review process is extensive. Prior to expending the time, energy and
dollars to do so the Association would greatly appreciate preliminary feedback from the
Town on their conceptual ideas for the re-development.
A work session was held with the PEC in February of 2011. As an informal work session
no vote of the PEC was taken, however with caveats the PEC’s comments were generally
supportive of the re-development concept presented by the Association. The PEC
provided specific direction with regard to a number of design aspects of the project, i.e.
how the project entry will be enhanced, addressing portions of “exposed” parking
structure walls, using landscaping and building articulation to break up the linear corridor
that would be created by the new building. This type of feedback was exactly the input
the Association was hopeful of receiving and will be very beneficial in deciding if and
how to move forward with the project.
The following provides an explanation of the proposed re-development plans and
associated benefits, background on the Coldstream Condominiums, a summary of
existing and proposed development, an evaluation of alternative review processes, a
bullet-point response to SDD review criteria and a summary of the proposed project.
6 - 2 - 1
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 2
SDD Amendment Work Session
Proposed Re-development/Benefits of Project
Major elements of the re-development plans include the construction of five new free-
market condominiums, two new employee housing units, a new parking garage and
associated site improvements. There are a number of other improvements that are being
considered as a part of this project. While at this stage plans are conceptual and subject
to change, other specific improvements under consideration include:
x Employee housing square footage that is over twice that required by the Town’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (+/-2,350 sf in two 3-Bedroom units).
x A new on-site property manager’s office designed and constructed specifically for
this purpose.
x Conversion of the existing on-site manager’s office back to a residential unit.
x Improvements to the project entry/arrival and auto circulation for guest access.
x Replacement of deteriorating carports with a fully enclosed parking structure
x Replacement of 15 surface parking spaces with enclosed parking.
x Replacement of the obsolete courts buildings with new residential dwellings
compatible with the Coldstream vernacular.
Background on the Coldstream Condominiums
The Coldstream Condominiums were completed in 1981 and include 45 residential
condominiums and other related improvements including on-site parking, extensive
landscaping, pool, spa, cabana, tennis court and a racquetball/squash court. Coldstream
has approximately 23 units included in the Vail Cascade short term rental program; total
revenues are approximately $1.3 million per year producing approximately $130,000 of
sales and lodging tax revenue to the Town. The on-site management office and
housekeeping facilities are very important to these short-term rental operations.
With the opening of the Cascade Club [Aria] in 1987 (with its seven tennis courts and six
racquetball/squash courts), the Coldstream tennis and racquetball/squash facilities
became obsolete as Coldstream owners are able to utilize Cascade Club facilities. Since
that time the racquetball/squash court has been adapted to property and rental
management use and the tennis court is seldom used.
In late 1990 an amendment to SDD4 was proposed and recommended by Community
Development Department [9/24/90] to approve a small increase in GRFA and clarify
other development standards. The plan included the renovation of the courts building into
property management facilities and storage as well as two employee restricted units.
Because of financing difficulties the project never implemented.
Since it’s opening in the early 1980’s the Coldstream Association has been very diligent
in maintaining and upgrading the project. In 1995, Coldstream owners expended $1.5
6 - 2 - 2
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 3
SDD Amendment Work Session
million to replace the roofs and make substantial site/landscape improvements. In 2002
the Association spent a considerable amount of money to bring natural gas into the
project. In 2004, the Board prepared a phased redevelopment plan for the project. The
first phase consisted of replacing all building exteriors: siding, windows, doors and
extensive landscape and site improvements at a cost of $6.2 million. These
improvements were completed in 2006. The second phase is to replace the court
facilities and carports which are deteriorating.
As evident by this proposal, Coldstream owners continue to demonstrate their
commitment to an aggressive maintenance and improvements program for their project.
Existing and Proposed Development
Coldstream is situated on an approximately 4.21 acre (+/-183,479 sf) parcel designated as
Area B in Special Development District 4 (SSD No. 4, Cascade Village). The property
does not have underlying zoning as it was annexed into the Town with the creation of
SDD4.
SDD No. 4 - Area B development standards include:
Allowed Existing
x Dwelling units 65 45
x GRFA 65,000 sf 66,898 sf
x Site Coverage 35%, or 64,218 sf 42,689 sf
x Landscaping 50%, or 91,740 sf(*) 88,686 sf
x Parking Spaces As per Chapter 10(**) 77
x Height 48 ft 48 ft
x Setbacks 20 ft 20 ft
(*) – Or as otherwise indicated on site specific development plan.
(**) – 50% of required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings or
hidden from view.
With the exception of GRFA and setbacks (for the substantially below grade parking
structure), the proposed addition can be constructed in accordance with all applicable
development standards outlined by SDD No. 4. The following summarizes how the
proposed amendment/addition would affect zoning/development standards:
Dwelling Units
The five proposed condominium units would increase project density to 50 units, well
below the maximum allowable of 65 units (the two EHU’s, if developed as Type III units
would not count toward density).
6 - 2 - 3
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 4
SDD Amendment Work Session
GRFA
Existing development slightly exceeds the maximum allowable GRFA of 65,000 sq ft.
The five condominiums would add approximately 10,000 sq ft of GRFA to the site. The
two EHU’s, if developed as Type III units would not count towards GRFA.
Site Coverage
Proposed improvements would increase site coverage from +/-42,689 to +/-58,681 sq ft,
or 32% of the site. The allowable site coverage is 35%. Existing and proposed site
coverage diagrams are found at the end of this report.
Landscaping
While detailed landscape plans have not yet been done, a green roof is envisioned as a
possible solution for the parking garage. Assuming that a green roof is a part of the final
design solution the total landscaping of the entire site would actually increase from +/-
48% to +/-50%. Existing and proposed conceptual landscape diagrams are found at the
end of this report.
Parking
There are presently approximately 77 parking spaces at Coldstream. These spaces
include surface spaces, parking in carports and garage parking within individual units.
The parking requirement for the new addition would involve replacing any existing
parking displaced by the project and providing parking for the new development. The
proposed addition creates a requirement for 17 new spaces (10 for the five
condominiums, 4 for the two EHU’s, and 3 for the management office). Proposed
improvements displace 47 existing surface and carport spaces. This means 64 new
spaces are required. The proposed parking garage is designed for 64 parking spaces and
3 new surface spaces are also proposed for a total of 67 new spaces. This would satisfy
parking requirements
Height
The SDD allows for building height of 48’. The proposed improvements will be
designed within this limitation.
Setbacks
20’ setbacks are required by SDD No. 4. The residential buildings would conform to this
standard; however the parking garage would be located within a few feet of the south
property line. At the south property line the majority of the parking garage would be
below grade and at the highest point would only extend 6-8 feet above grade.
The adjacent properties to the south, Eagle Pointe Condominiums and Park Meadows, are
zoned HDMF. As a point of comparison, if HDMF zoning were applied to Coldstream
the allowable number of units would increase to 105 and the allowable GRFA would
6 - 2 - 4
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 5
SDD Amendment Work Session
increase to 139,444 sq ft. This amount of GRFA is over twice that permitted by the SDD
and greatly exceeds the GRFA proposed by these improvements.
Review Process Alternatives
As outlined above, the proposed improvements could be constructed in accordance with
existing SDD development standards with the exception of GRFA and setbacks (for the
below grade portion of the garage adjacent to the south property line). There are two
alternatives for obtaining development approvals for these improvements:
Remove Coldstream from SDD No. 4/Re-zone to HDMF/Request Setback Variance
Removing Coldstream from SDD No. 4 and re-zoning to HDMF would provide more
than enough GRFA to accommodate proposed improvements. However, a setback
variance would also be necessary. While procedurally these steps are all feasible, there is
not a great deal of precedence in removing land within an existing SDD (under these
circumstances) which creates a degree of uncertainty with this process alternative. In
addition, from the town’s perspective simply re-zoning Coldstream to HDMF would
leave the door open for a significant re-development of the property and not provide the
Town with the same certainty of having an approved development plan as per SDD
regulations.
Amend SDD No. 4
Two fairly straight forward amendments to existing SDD development standards would
allow for these improvements to Coldstream – increasing allowable GRFA by +/-10,000
sq ft and modifying setback requirements to state “20’ or as otherwise indicated by an
approved development plan”. A development plan depicting the location of the garage
would then be approved in conjunction with these amendments.
While both of these processes would have the same result, amending the SDD is the
preferred alternative.
SDD Review Criteria
The following criteria are used to evaluate a proposed SDD. Bullet-point responses to
how this proposal would conform to these criteria are also provided:
1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
x The limited scope of proposed development is consistent with and sensitive to
existing development within the site and on surrounding properties.
6 - 2 - 5
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 6
SDD Amendment Work Session
2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
x Density (dwelling units) is within that permitted by the existing SDD.
x Proposed uses are consistent with existing uses on the site and with surrounding
areas.
3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined
in chapter 10 of this title.
x Parking in accordance with Chapter 10 can be provided.
4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive
plan, town policies and urban design plans.
x The maintenance and upgrading of existing properties, particularly those with a
strong short-term rental component is encouraged by the Town’s master plans.
5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or
geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is
proposed.
x N/A
6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
x Proposed improvements are located on land that is already developed. As such
this criterion is not applicable.
7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and off site traffic circulation.
x Revisions to the project entry will allow for improvements to existing vehicular
circulation.
8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
x With the green roof proposed for the parking garage the project will result in a net
increase to landscape area (48% to 50%).
9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable,
functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
6 - 2 - 6
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 7
SDD Amendment Work Session
x The project would be done in one phase.
Project Summary
The revenue to be derived from the five condominiums is clearly the “economic engine”
necessary to fund other improvements to Coldstream – the two employee housing units,
the development of a parking garage, a dedicated on-site management facility and other
related site improvements. Contrary to a “traditional development project”, the five
condominiums will not bring a windfall of profits to the Association but rather will allow
for the implementation of Phase II of the Association’s redevelopment master plan and in
doing so further their tradition of continually maintaining and upgrading their
community.
With approximately one-half of Coldstream’s units involved in a short-term rental
program, the project plays an important role in providing the Town with guest
accommodations. In addition, the lodging/sales tax revenues to the Town generated by
Coldstream are not insignificant. The improvements that can be made to the project via
this re-development plan will improve Coldstream’s ability to serve the lodging market
and in doing so provide benefit’s to the entire Vail community.
6 - 2 - 7
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 8
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 2 - 8
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 9
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 2 - 9
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 10
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 2 - 10
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 11
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 2 - 11
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 12
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 2 - 12
9/18/2012
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 28, 2011
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major
amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to
Article 12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase
in gross residential floor area and site coverage, and a reduction of the side setback,
located at 1476 Westhaven Drive/Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC110014)
Applicant: Coldstream Condominiums Homeowners Association, represented by
Tom Braun
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Coldstream Homeowners Association, represented by Tom Braun, is
requesting a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission on a proposed
major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant
to Article 12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in
gross residential floor area and site coverage, and a reduction of the side setback, located at
1476 Westhaven Drive. The proposed amendments include five additional dwelling units
and two employee housing units located above a parking structure.
As this is a work session the applicant and Staff request that this item be tabled to March 14,
2011.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission
in order to gather feedback on a proposed major amendment to SDD No. 4 for Development
Area B, Coldstream. The goal of the applicant is to gather feedback from the Planning and
Environmental Commission on the proposal in order for the homeowners association to
determine if additional investment is warranted to develop the documents for a final review of
the project. The applicant acknowledges that this is not an official review of the project with
regard to the criteria and does not perceive the feedback they receive as binding.
The applicant is proposing to construct five (5) dwelling units and two (2) deed restricted
employee housing units along the southern property line adjacent to Park Meadows and The
Eagle Point Condominiums. The proposed units would be located on a partially buried
parking structure containing 64 enclosed parking spaces with an additional three parking
spaces on the exterior of the structure. These proposed improvements would replace and
existing tennis court which the applicant has suggested are “obsolete” and replace
“deteriorating” carports.
In association with the proposed major amendment to the SDD the applicant is suggesting to
6 - 3 - 1
9/18/2012
2
provide 100% of the employee housing on-site (50% required) and furthermore would provide
“over twice” the required mitigation square footage for a total of approximately 2,350 square
feet. This would be provided in two 3-bedroom units.
Other improvements proposed by the applicant include:
x A new on-site property manager’s office within the enclosed parking structure;
x Conversion of the existing manager’s office back into a residential unit; and
x Improvements to the project entry/arrival and auto circulation.
In a letter dated February 9, 2011, Staff provided several comments on the documents
submitted for review. The comments included initial feedback from all Town Departments
some of which Staff acknowledged would be addressed should the project move forward with
a final review of a major amendment. Those comments which Staff believes are relevant to
a work session discussion to identify comments and concerns prior to moving forward are:
x The lack of landscaping along the north elevation of the proposed parking structure
is a concern for staff due to the height of the proposed garage and structures. The
development currently incorporates a design in which landscaping is included
around all structures.
x Staff is concerned about the ability to place significant landscaping on the roof of the
parking garage with regards to weight and soil depth.
x The required snow storage will need to be shown. Currently, winter time conditions
can become tight within the development. Will any areas be heated?
x Possible public benefits that may be needed in the area include extension of
sidewalks and stream bank stabilization.
x Any encroachments that may be existing in the stream tract will be requested to be
removed.
x Staff has concerns about the exposed south wall of the parking structure in close
proximity to the property line eliminating the ability to buffer the improvement from
neighboring properties.
A vicinity map (Attachment A), a written document from the applicant detailing the request
(Attachment B), a set of proposed conceptual plans (Attachment C), and a letter from the
applicant with responses to concerns identified by Staff in its February 9, 2011 letter
(Attachment D) are attached for reference.
As this is a work session Staff has not prepared responses to the nine criteria which shall be
used in evaluating the merits of a major amendment to an established SDD. It will be the
burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed
development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or
more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest
has been achieved. Staff believes that feedback to the applicant should consider the
following criteria.
A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Special Development Districts:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
6 - 3 - 2
9/18/2012
3
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of
the Vail Town Code.
D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site traffic circulation.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
Staff believes the following questions will help begin a conversation based on the proposed
plans for a major amendment. Staff and the applicant acknowledge that the plans submitted
are conceptual and will need to provide additional detail if the project moves forward.
x Will the conceptual proposal have positive effects on the existing Coldstream
Condominiums and adjacent properties with regard to design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation?
x Will the conceptual proposal contain uses, activities, and density (including gross
residential floor area) which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activities?
x Will the conceptual proposal contain public benefits commensurate with the
suggested development standard deviations?
x Will the conceptual proposal contain functional and aesthetic landscaping and open
space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and
functions?
x What other feedback would the Planning and Environmental Commission like to
provide?
III. BACKGROUND
6 - 3 - 3
9/18/2012
4
Special Development District No. 4
Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village, was adopted by Ordinance No.
5, Series of 1976. At minimum of seventeen subsequent amendments occurred from 1977
through the present day, inclusive of the most recent major amendment to approve the
revised development plan for Cascade Residences in 2007 and the Cornerstone project in
2008. The subject property was a Planned Unit Development under Eagle County
Jurisdiction when the property was annexed in 1975. SDD No. 4 includes the following:
Area A Cascade Village
Area B Coldstream Condominiums
Area C Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single Family Lots
Area D Glen Lyon Commercial Site
The entire Cascade Village site is approximately 97.5 acres. Because the property was
annexed into the Town of Vail as a Planned Unit Development under Eagle County
jurisdiction and early Special Development Districts were not based on an underlying zoning,
there is no underlying zoning for this SDD. The uses and development standards for the
entire property are as outlined in the adopting ordinance for SDD No. 4.
Coldstream Site
The Coldstream Condominium development was completed in 1981 and included 45 dwelling
units. In 1990 approvals were granted which provided for an increase in gross residential
floor area in association with a project which did not move forward. Most recently
Coldstream completed a complete renovation to the exterior of all buildings including siding
materials, windows, and doors.
IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS
Major Amendment to a Special Development District
Planning and Environmental Commission:
The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council
based upon the findings made on the criteria located in Chapter 12-9A, Special Development
District, Vail Town Code.
Town Council:
The Town Council takes into consideration the PEC’s recommendation when reviewing an
application for a special development district and is responsible for final approval/denial of an
SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal and approve/approve with conditions/deny
the application based upon the findings made on the criteria located in Chapter 12-9A,
Special Development District, Vail Town Code.
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Vail Land Use Plan (in part)
The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series
of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were
developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were
brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general
consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas
6 - 3 - 4
9/18/2012
5
initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with
the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now
represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These
goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the
evaluation of any development proposal.
Resort Accommodations and Service:
This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short-term visitor to
the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with
densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre)
The goal statements which Staff believes are applicable to the proposed plan are as follows:
1. General Growth / Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both
the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural
resources should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed
areas (infill areas).
1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as
its potential for public use.
2. Skier /Tourist Concerns
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while
accommodating day visitors.
2.4 The community should improve summer recreational options to improve year-
round tourism.
2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve
year-round tourism.
5. Residential
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing,
platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not
exist.
5.2 Quality time share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy
rates up.
6 - 3 - 5
9/18/2012
6
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full
range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout the community.
6. Community Services
6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth.
6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing
growth with services.
6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods.
Town of Vail Zoning Regulations
Special Development District (in part)
12-9A-1: Purpose And Applicability:
A. Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to
improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to
facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the
natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the
community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a
special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district,
shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in
the special development district.
12-9A-2: Definitions:
MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND/OR COUNCIL REVIEW): Any proposal to change uses;
increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units;
modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor
amendments" as defined in this section), except as provided under section 12-15-4, "Interior
Conversions", or 12-15-5, "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)", of this
title.
VI. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following is a zoning analysis of the development potential of Development Area B as
contained within the SDD.
6 - 3 - 6
9/18/2012
7
Legal Description: Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Land Use Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services
Lot Size: 173,369 sq. ft./3.98 acres
Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed
Lot Area: 173,369 s.f. 173,369 s.f no change
Setbacks:
South: Per SDD 20 ft. 3 ft.
Height: 48 ft. 48 ft. no change
Density Control: 65 d.u.s 45 d.u.s 50 d.u.s 2 e.h.u.s
GRFA: 65,000 s.f, 66,898 s.f. 76,898 s.f.
Site Coverage: 60,679 s.f. 42,689 s.f 58,681 s.f.
(35%) (24.6%) (33.8%)
Landscaping: 86,684 s f. 76,736 s.f. 80,218 s.f.
(50%) (44.3%) (46.2%)
Parking 2 space per d.u. 77 spaces 97 spaces
90 required 104 required*
*The proposed amendment does not increase the parking deficiency as required by Code.
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoning
North: Recreation None
South: Multi-family residential High Density Multiple-family District
East: Residential SDD No. 4 Cascade Village
West: Recreation No Zoning/General Use District
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental
Commission tables this application to March 14, 2011.
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant’s written application
C. Proposed conceptual plans
D. Letter from the applicant addressing Staff’s February 9, 2011 letter
6 - 3 - 7
9/18/2012
6 - 3 - 8
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 1
SDD Amendment Work Session
Coldstream Condominiums
Cascade Village SDD Amendment
January 31, 2011, revised February 24, 2011
Over the past 30 years the Coldstream Condominium Owners Association has taken
many steps to continually upgrade and improve their community. Recently the
Association has been evaluating the feasibility of implementing a relatively small but
important improvement program that would involve the addition of five new residential
units, two EHU’s and a number of other on-site improvements. In order to implement
this plan an amendment to SDD No. 4-Cascade Village will be necessary.
Prior to submitting formal applications to amend SDD No. 4 the Association is interested
in a work session level discussion with the Planning and Environmental Commission and
the Town Council. The goal of these work sessions is to gauge the Town’s interest in this
re-development plan. While it is understood that any input received from the Town
during this work session process will be preliminary and non-binding, it will none the
less be beneficial to the Association in deciding what future actions to take on this re-
development plan.
The following provides an explanation of the proposed re-development plans and
associated benefits, background on the Coldstream Condominiums, a summary of
existing and proposed development, an evaluation of alternative review processes, a
bullet-point response to SDD review criteria and a summary of the proposed project.
Proposed Re-development/Benefits of Project
Major elements of the re-development plans include the construction of five new free-
market condominiums, two new employee housing units, a new parking garage and
associated site improvements. There are a number of other improvements that are being
considered as a part of this project. While at this stage plans are conceptual and subject
to change, other specific improvements under consideration include:
x Employee housing square footage that is over twice that required by the Town’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (+/-2,350 sf in two 3-Bedroom units).
x A new on-site property manager’s office designed and constructed specifically for
this purpose.
x Conversion of the existing on-site manager’s office back to a residential unit.
x Improvements to the project entry/arrival and auto circulation for guest access.
x Replacement of deteriorating carports with a fully enclosed parking structure
x Replacement of 15 surface parking spaces with enclosed parking.
x Replacement of the obsolete courts buildings with new residential dwellings
compatible with the Coldstream vernacular.
6 - 3 - 9
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 2
SDD Amendment Work Session
Background on the Coldstream Condominiums
The Coldstream Condominiums were completed in 1981 and include 45 residential
condominiums and other related improvements including on-site parking, extensive
landscaping, pool, spa, cabana, tennis court and a racquetball/squash court. Coldstream
has approximately 23 units included in the Vail Cascade short term rental program; total
revenues are approximately $1.3 million per year producing approximately $130,000 of
sales and lodging tax revenue to the Town. The on-site management office and
housekeeping facilities are very important to these short-term rental operations.
With the opening of the Cascade Club [Aria] in 1987 (with its seven tennis courts and six
racquetball/squash courts), the Coldstream tennis and racquetball/squash facilities
became obsolete as Coldstream owners are able to utilize Cascade Club facilities. Since
that time the racquetball/squash court has been adapted to property and rental
management use and the tennis court is seldom used.
In late 1990 an amendment to SDD4 was proposed and recommended by Community
Development Department [9/24/90] to approve a small increase in GRFA and clarify
other development standards. The plan included the renovation of the courts building into
property management facilities and storage as well as two employee restricted units.
Because of financing difficulties the project never implemented.
Since it’s opening in the early 1980’s the Coldstream Association has been very diligent
in maintaining and upgrading the project. In 1995, Coldstream owners expended $1.5
million to replace the roofs and make substantial site/landscape improvements. In 2002
the Association spent a considerable amount of money to bring natural gas into the
project. In 2004, the Board prepared a phased redevelopment plan for the project. The
first phase consisted of replacing all building exteriors: siding, windows, doors and
extensive landscape and site improvements at a cost of $6.2 million. These
improvements were completed in 2006. The second phase is to replace the court
facilities and carports which are deteriorating.
As evident by this proposal, Coldstream owners continue to demonstrate their
commitment to an aggressive maintenance and improvements program for their project.
Existing and Proposed Development
Coldstream is situated on an approximately 3.98 acre (+/-173,369 sf) parcel designated as
Area B in Special Development District 4 (SSD No. 4, Cascade Village). The property
does not have underlying zoning as it was annexed into the Town with the creation of
SDD4.
SDD No. 4 - Area B development standards include:
6 - 3 - 10
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 3
SDD Amendment Work Session
Allowed Existing
x Dwelling units 65 45
x GRFA 65,000 sf 66,898 sf
x Site Coverage 35%, or 60,967 sf 42,689 sf
x Landscaping 50%, or 86,684 sf(*) 88,686 sf
x Parking Spaces As per Chapter 10(**) 77
x Height 48 ft 48 ft
x Setbacks 20 ft 20 ft
(*) – Or as otherwise indicated on site specific development plan.
(**) – 50% of required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings or
hidden from view.
With the exception of GRFA and setbacks (for the substantially below grade parking
structure), the proposed addition can be constructed in accordance with all applicable
development standards outlined by SDD No. 4. The following summarizes how the
proposed amendment/addition would affect zoning/development standards:
Dwelling Units
The five proposed condominium units would increase project density to 50 units, well
below the maximum allowable of 65 units (the two EHU’s, if developed as Type III units
would not count toward density).
GRFA
Existing development slightly exceeds the maximum allowable GRFA of 65,000 sq ft.
The five condominiums would add approximately 10,000 sq ft of GRFA to the site. The
two EHU’s, if developed as Type III units would not count towards GRFA.
Site Coverage
Proposed improvements would increase site coverage from +/-42,689 to +/-58,681 sq ft,
or 34% of the site. The allowable site coverage is 35%. Existing and proposed site
coverage diagrams are found at the end of this report.
Landscaping
While detailed landscape plans have not yet been done, a green roof is envisioned as a
possible solution for the parking garage. Assuming that a green roof is a part of the final
design solution the total landscaping of the entire site would actually increase from +/-
44% to +/-46%. Existing and proposed conceptual landscape diagrams are found at the
end of this report.
Parking
There are presently approximately 77 parking spaces at Coldstream. These spaces
include surface spaces, parking in carports and garage parking within individual units.
6 - 3 - 11
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 4
SDD Amendment Work Session
The parking requirement for the new addition would involve replacing any existing
parking displaced by the project and providing parking for the new development. The
proposed addition creates a requirement for 17 new spaces (10 for the five
condominiums, 4 for the two EHU’s, and 3 for the management office). Proposed
improvements displace 47 existing surface and carport spaces. This means 64 new
spaces are required. The proposed parking garage is designed for 64 parking spaces and
3 new surface spaces are also proposed for a total of 67 new spaces. This would satisfy
parking requirements
Height
The SDD allows for building height of 48’. The proposed improvements will be
designed within this limitation.
Setbacks
20’ setbacks are required by SDD No. 4. The residential buildings would conform to this
standard; however the parking garage would be located within a few feet of the south
property line. At the south property line the majority of the parking garage would be
below grade and at the highest point would only extend 6-8 feet above grade.
The adjacent properties to the south, Eagle Pointe Condominiums and Park Meadows, are
zoned HDMF. As a point of comparison, if HDMF zoning were applied to Coldstream
the allowable number of units would increase to 105 and the allowable GRFA would
increase to 139,444 sq ft. This amount of GRFA is over twice that permitted by the SDD
and greatly exceeds the GRFA proposed by these improvements.
Review Process Alternatives
As outlined above, the proposed improvements could be constructed in accordance with
existing SDD development standards with the exception of GRFA and setbacks (for the
below grade portion of the garage adjacent to the south property line). There are two
alternatives for obtaining development approvals for these improvements:
Remove Coldstream from SDD No. 4/Re-zone to HDMF/Request Setback Variance
Removing Coldstream from SDD No. 4 and re-zoning to HDMF would provide more
than enough GRFA to accommodate proposed improvements. However, a setback
variance would also be necessary. While procedurally these steps are all feasible, there is
not a great deal of precedence in removing land within an existing SDD (under these
circumstances) which creates a degree of uncertainty with this process alternative. In
addition, from the town’s perspective simply re-zoning Coldstream to HDMF would
leave the door open for a significant re-development of the property and not provide the
Town with the same certainty of having an approved development plan as per SDD
regulations.
6 - 3 - 12
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 5
SDD Amendment Work Session
Amend SDD No. 4
Two fairly straight forward amendments to existing SDD development standards would
allow for these improvements to Coldstream – increasing allowable GRFA by +/-10,000
sq ft and modifying setback requirements to state “20’ or as otherwise indicated by an
approved development plan”. A development plan depicting the location of the garage
would then be approved in conjunction with these amendments.
While both of these processes would have the same result, amending the SDD is the
preferred alternative.
SDD Review Criteria
The following criteria are used to evaluate a proposed SDD. Bullet-point responses to
how this proposal would conform to these criteria are also provided:
1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
x The limited scope of proposed development is consistent with and sensitive to
existing development within the site and on surrounding properties.
2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
x Density (dwelling units) is within that permitted by the existing SDD.
x Proposed uses are consistent with existing uses on the site and with surrounding
areas.
3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined
in chapter 10 of this title.
x Parking in accordance with Chapter 10 can be provided.
4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive
plan, town policies and urban design plans.
x The maintenance and upgrading of existing properties, particularly those with a
strong short-term rental component is encouraged by the Town’s master plans.
5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or
geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is
proposed.
x N/A
6 - 3 - 13
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 6
SDD Amendment Work Session
6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
x Proposed improvements are located on land that is already developed. As such
this criterion is not applicable.
7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and off site traffic circulation.
x Revisions to the project entry will allow for improvements to existing vehicular
circulation.
8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
x With the green roof proposed for the parking garage the project will result in a net
increase to landscape area (44% to 46%).
9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable,
functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
x The project would be done in one phase.
Project Summary
The revenue to be derived from the five condominiums is clearly the “economic engine”
necessary to fund other improvements to Coldstream – the two employee housing units,
the development of a parking garage, a dedicated on-site management facility and other
related site improvements. Contrary to a “traditional development project”, the five
condominiums will not bring a windfall of profits to the Association but rather will allow
for the implementation of Phase II of the Association’s redevelopment master plan and in
doing so further their tradition of continually maintaining and upgrading their
community.
With approximately one-half of Coldstream’s units involved in a short-term rental
program, the project plays an important role in providing the Town with guest
accommodations. In addition, the lodging/sales tax revenues to the Town generated by
Coldstream are not insignificant. The improvements that can be made to the project via
this re-development plan will improve Coldstream’s ability to serve the lodging market
and in doing so provide benefit’s to the entire Vail community.
6 - 3 - 14
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 7
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 3 - 15
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 8
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 3 - 16
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 9
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 3 - 17
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 10
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 3 - 18
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 11
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 3 - 19
9/18/2012
Coldstream Condominiums 12
SDD Amendment Work Session
6 - 3 - 20
9/18/2012
6 - 3 - 21
9/18/2012
6 - 3 - 22
9/18/2012
6 - 3 - 23
9/18/2012
6 - 3 - 24
9/18/2012
6 - 3 - 25
9/18/2012
Opal Building · 225 Main Street · Suite G-002 · Edwards, Colorado · 81632
970-926-7575 · 970-926-7576 fax · www.braunassociates.com
February 17, 2011
Mr. Warren Campbell
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Coldstream Condominiums/SDD Work Session Discussion
Dear Warren:
Thank you for your letter of February 9th, re: initial staff comments on the SDD Work
Session submittal for Coldstream. While many of these comments are most
appropriately addressed after more detailed design has been done and during the formal
development review process, we do appreciate the “heads up” on what may be discussion
points. The following is a brief reply to the points raised in your letter:
x The development will be required to be sprinklered and have monitored fire
alarms.
Response
We assume that this comment pertains to the sprinkling and monitoring of the
proposed new building. This would be addressed during the detailed design of the
building.
x Research will need to be performed to determine if a recreation fee credit was
given for the tennis court site which is proposed to be removed. Fees may be due
if the provided recreation improvement is removed.
Response
Understood. We will address this if/when the Association decides to pursue the
project.
x Eagle River Water and Sanitation District will need to be contacted to discuss
water rights available for the proposed development.
Response
Understood. Based on similar discussions I’ve had with the District, I suspect
that this will not be an issue as the project density is still below that originally
allocated to the SDD.
6 - 3 - 26
9/18/2012
x The lack of landscaping along the north elevation of the proposed parking
structure is a concern for staff due to the height of the proposed garage and
structures. The development currently incorporates a design in which landscaping
is included around all structures.
Response
I would offer two thoughts in response to this comment - currently the drive aisle
fronts onto a +/- 15 stall surface lot and then a +/-15 stall carport and there is
virtually no landscaping in this area,. The proposed design at this conceptual
stage includes three significant landscape pockets on the eastern end of the
structure. Arguably the proposed landscape condition in this area would be an
improvement over existing conditions.
x Staff is concerned about the ability to place significant landscaping on the roof of
the parking garage with regards to weight and soil depth.
Response
The landscape treatment of the roof is best addressed during detailed design.
However, our thought is that as a “green roof” the soil depth of the roof would be
sufficient to support grasses and shrubs. We would not plan on installing trees on
the roof.
x The required snow storage will need to be shown. Currently, winter time
conditions can become tight within the development. Will any areas be heated?
Response
We have not contemplated heating the drive aisle. In comparing the existing and
proposed plans the area devoted to drive aisles is essentially the same. However,
the proposed plan eliminates +/-15 surface spaces and replaces them with 3
surface spaces. As such the area where snow would need to be removed is being
reduced, hence the necessary snow storage area would decrease. In addition, at
this conceptual level the new landscape areas at the project entry would appear to
provide an increase to snow storage areas.
x Possible public benefits that may be needed in the area include extension of
sidewalks and stream bank stabilization.
Response
We believe that given the relatively modest development that is proposed the
EHU’s being twice what Town regs would require, along with other
improvements to the project outlined in our submittal represent a significant
“package” of public benefits. That said, we are happy to learn more about what
you the thinking in terms of the sidewalk. The idea of stream bank stabilization
does “give me pause” from two perspectives – 1) there would not appear to be a
rational nexus between the impacts of the proposed development and the stream
bank, and 2) in my experience with stream bank stabilization the costs can be
astronomical. We look forward to discussing this aspect of the SDD with staff,
the PEC and Town Council.
6 - 3 - 27
9/18/2012
x Any encroachments that may exist in the stream tract will be requested to be
removed.
Response
We are not aware of any existing encroachments in the stream corridor but will
certainly confirm this in the spring.
x Staff has concerns about the exposed south wall of the parking structure in close
proximity to the property line eliminating the ability to buffer the improvement
from neighboring properties.
Response
Understood. There are a few potential solutions that are best addressed if/when
the Association decides to move forward with the project. These could include 1)
“stepping” the parking garage to lower the west end and reduce the height of the
south facing wall, 2) working with our neighbors to provide a buffer by
landscaping on their property, or 3) working with the neighbors to re-grade on
their property in order to bury the exposed wall.
x Details will be needed on the shoring methods anticipated in order to construct the
subterranean parking structure in close proximity to the property line.
Response
This is a good question but is one that cannot be answered until more detailed
design work is done. This information will be provided with a formal SDD
amendment request.
x The site coverage and landscaping area images included with your application
depict the inclusion of a parcel owned by the Town of Vail counting towards
landscape area. The area in question is the “tail” of land just to the south of the
development’s entry adjacent to Westhaven Drive and Parkside Meadows. We do
not believe this land should be included in these calculations.
Response
You are correct. We had understood the “tail” to be owned by the Association but
it is not. Amended landscape and site coverage calcs along with a revised written
description of the project will be provided to you in the next few days.
Thank you again for your initial comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any
questions you may have.
Regards,
Thomas A. Braun
CC: Don MacLachlan
Sid Schultz
Andy Norris
6 - 3 - 28
9/18/2012
Page 1
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 28, 2011
1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Luke Cartin None
Michael Kurz
Bill Pierce
Henry Pratt
John Rediker
Tyler Schneidman
David Viele
Site Visits:
1. Coldstream Condominiums – 1476 Westhaven Drive
2. Ellis Residence – 302 Hanson Ranch Road
3. Black Stallion Holdings Residence – 400 East Meadow Drive
60 minutes
1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed major amendment to
Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Article 12-9A, Special
Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in gross residential floor area and
site coverage, and a reduction of the side setback, located at 1476 Westhaven Drive/Lot 53,
Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110014)
Applicant: Coldstream Homeowners Condominiums, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to April 11, 2011
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-1(Pratt recused)
Bill Pierce disclosed that his firm represents the HOA on other matters, and as he will not gain
financially from this application nor felt any bias, he did not recuse himself.
Henry Pratt recused himself because his architecture firm is representing the applicant.
Warren Campbell made a presentation per the Staff memorandum.
Tom Braun, representative of the applicant, made a presentation on the application. He
provided a brief history of the project and reviewed the following topics: SDD amendments, site
planning, design, criteria and public benefits.
Sid Schultz, of Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz and Lindall, made a presentation on the design of the
buildings and the site. He described the landscaping on site, which would be a green roof. The
proposal includes 5 free market units and 2 employee housing units.
Tom Braun continued his presentation to including a discussion regarding the SDD
amendments, criteria and public benefits being proposed. He provided examples of other SDD
amendments within the Town of Vail. He stated that the HOA needs an economic engine to
upkeep the entire project and ensure the future of the development.
6 - 4 - 1
9/18/2012
Page 2
Commissioner Kurz stated that the benefit of employee housing is significant and that the project
was in a physical location which did not lend itself to multiple public benefit options. He asked
for further detail on the entry improvements that could be made.
Tom Braun responded with details on how the entry could be redesigned to clean up asphalt and
make the property more navigable.
Commissioner Kurz added that the massing of the proposal and the “channelized” effect should
be mitigated through additional landscaping. He stated variation in façade depth, materials, etc
would help to break up the massing of the project. He concluded that the removal of the carports
is positive.
Commissioner Pierce stated he felt that the partial exposed parking structure would be a
negative impact to the adjacent property owners. He encouraged the applicant to look into
stepping the garage to avoid the results at the Vail Mountain View Residences. He added there
needs to be something to offset the straight building lines through the proposal on the north
elevation and the ability to plant vertical landscaping between the new structures and on top of
the structure.
Commissioner Cartin asked about the process for amending a Special Development District.
Warren Campbell responded by explaining the SDD amendment process.
Commissioner Cartin stated that the landscaping along Westhaven Drive is a good example of
how the landscaping should be preserved and incorporated in to the proposal. He stated that
the roof should support large shrubs or trees to create a break between properties and mitigate
the bulk and mass.
Commissioner Cartin asked what the height is of the garage entrance.
Sid Schultz responded that the garage entry door would be nine feet tall. He added that this
would be enough head height for an SUV with a box on the roof.
Commissioner Rediker asked about the timeframe of construction.
Tom Braun responded that early 2012 would be the soonest that construction could occur, but
that no time frames had been discussed thus far.
Commissioner Rediker asked about the side setback. He inquired as to the ability for the
proposed development to shift north and narrow the drive lane and pull the structure away from
the property line.
Sid Schultz stated that the concern was that the existing parking on the north of the driveway
would be removed if the driveway was shifted. Tom Braun added that they would evaluate
additional options at a later hearing. He stated that any development is limited due to the
physical space available.
Commissioner Rediker added that he would like to see more landscaping on the south side of
the proposed development. Rediker asked Warren Campbell to clarify the thinking in the Staff
comment regarding sidewalk extension and streambank improvements.
Warren Campbell responded that these could be potential public benefits for the SDD
amendment.
6 - 4 - 2
9/18/2012
Page 3
Commissioner Rediker asked if there are any encroachments into Gore Creek.
Warren Campbell responded that there are no known encroachments.
Tom Braun recapped the Commissioners’ comments, including the need for more landscaping,
breaking up of building massing and public benefits.
6 - 4 - 3
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Emergency notification system (Siren/Voice)
PRESENTER(S): Jerry Johnston - Cooper Notification; Mark Miller
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation and provide feedback
and direction.
BACKGROUND: Over the course of the last few years, there have been
discussions/questions relative to an emergency notification system in the TOV. The notification
system could prove extremely beneficial in regards to life safety and early notification in the
event of a catastrophic or life threatening emergency. Many communities utilize such a system
for various emergency notifications, including; wildfires, severe weather, hazardous materials
spills, lost children, terrorist activities, special events, etc. Overall cost of the system depends
on the number of towers or sites and coverage area, but is estimated at $300,000 - $500,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As an important tool for evacuation and emergency notification
in TOV, staff is recommending that Council approve moving forward in pursuing a formal
proposal/quote for an emergency notification system in the TOV which could be included in the
5 year capital budget as appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
emergency notification system
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 1
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 2
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 3
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 4
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 5
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 6
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 7
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 8
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 9
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 10
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 11
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 12
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 13
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 14
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 15
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 16
9/18/2012
7 - 1 - 17
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update and Attachments:
1) July 2012 Vail Business Review - Sally Lorton;
2) VEAC September 11, 2012 minutes - Kelli McDonald;
3) CSE meeting minutes - Sybill Navas; and
4) Municipal Site Redevelopment - George Ruther.
PRESENTER(S): Various
ATTACHMENTS:
July 2012 Vail Business Review
VEAC 091112 Minutes
CSE 090512 Minutes
9/18/2012
8 - 1 - 1
9/18/2012
July 2012 Sales Tax
VAIL VILLAGE
July July July
2011 2012 %
Collections Collections Change
Retail 218,584 226,753 3.7%
Lodging 186,841 196,308 5.1%
Food &
Beverage 322,035 353,240 9.7%
Other 4,129 3,680 -10.9%
Total 731,589 779,981 6.6%
LIONSHEAD
July July July
2011 2012 %
Collections Collections Change
.
Retail 69,404 72,973 5.1%
Lodging 119,566 123,746 3.5%
Food &
Beverage 83,922 100,072 19.2%
Other 4,500 2,366 -47.4%
Total 277,392 299,157 7.8%
8 - 1 - 2
9/18/2012
July 2012 Sales Tax
CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONE/WEST VAIL
July July July
2011 2012 %
Collections Collections Change
Retail 160,834 161,699 0.5%
Lodging 74,782 84,651 13.2%
Food &
Beverage 56,968 58,609 2.9%
Other 7,421 4,833 -34.9%
Total 300,005 309,792 3.3%
OUT OF TOWN
July July July
2011 2012 %
Collections Collections Change
Retail 52,760 35,287 -33.1%
Lodging 5,765 5,437 -5.7%
Food &
Beverage 1,456 1,306 -10.3%
Utilities & 112,737 96,369 -14.5%
Other
Total 172,718 138,399 -19.9%
8 - 1 - 3
9/18/2012
July 2012 Sales Tax
TOTAL
July July July
2011 2012 %
Collections Collections Change
Retail 501,582 496,712 -1.0%
Lodging 386,954 410,142 6.0%
Food &
Beverage 464,381 513,227 10.5%
Utilities & 128,787 107,248 -16.7%
Other
Total 1,481,704 1,527,329 3.1%
8 - 1 - 4
9/18/2012
RETAIL SUMMARY
July July July
2011 2012 %
Collections Collections Change
FOOD 129,814 130,770 .7%
LIQUOR 37,391 39,986 6.9%
APPAREL 89,814 99,109 10.3%
SPORT 108,571 114,135 5.1%
JEWELRY 29,062 24,797 -14.7%
GIFT 11,231 10,447 -7.0
GALLERY 8,964 9,918 9.5%
OTHER 86,362 67,234 -22.1%
HOME
OCCUPATION
373 416 11.5%
TOTAL 501,582 496,712
-1.0%
8 - 1 - 5
9/18/2012
Vail Economic Advisory Council (VEAC)
September 11, 2012
MEETING NOTES
x VEAC Members Present:
Rayla Kundolf; Kristin Williams; Michael Kurz; Steve Kaufman; Mark Gordon; Chris Romer; Paul
Wible; Bob Boselli; Laurie Mullen, Mia Vlaar; Greg Moffet; Joe McHugh; Rob LeVine; Matt
Morgan; Pam Stenmark; Kim Newbury
x Others Present:
Jim Lamont; Connie Woodberry; Mark Woodberry; Lauren Glendenning; Mary McDougall;
Michael Cacioppo
x TOV Staff Present:
Town Manager Stan Zemler; Economic Development Manager Kelli McDonald; Community
Development Director George Ruther; Executive Assistant Tammy Nagel
x Moment of Silence:
Kelli McDonald asked the members to join her in a moment of silence to remember the victims
and heroes of 9/11.
x Roundtable discussion on existing regulations to improve the environment for doing
business in Vail:
George Ruther provided a brief update to the members on the steps the Community
Development department has taken to assist with doing business in the Town of Vail. Currently
there are six building permit applications and the applications checklist on the Town of Vail
website. An applicant can go online to see the requirements for a specific application, complete
the permit application and submit it to the Town and receive their permit that same day. The
Town of Vail IT Department is currently working on an online payment process so an applicant
will be able to do everything from their home or office. Ruther stated the Community
Development Department is handling inspections within 24 hours of a request. Ruther also spoke
to members about a computer program called Laserfiche, the Town is using to store all records
electronically and how the public will be able to research and access Town of Vail documents by
using this program within the next six months. Community Development is currently updating the
permit tracking software to allow an individual to see the status of an active permit in the Town,
see any outstanding issues and know when a meeting is being held regarding that
application/construction. Ruther stated this program will be implemented within the year. The
2012 International Building Code with amendments will be presented to Town Council on October
2nd for first reading. Ruther invited the members to provide feedback concerning outdoor display
regulations and issues concerning fire code inconsistencies.
Matt Morgan told the members how the Community Development team has been very helpful
with his new commercial construction project. The process has been made a lot simpler than
seven years ago when his company did a remodel.
Rob Levine and Rayla Kundolf who have also recently dealt with the ComDev dept. echoed what
Morgan said.
Kundolf stated Ruther has been hands-on and on the scene which she felt helps an applicant
understand the issues.
LeVine said a message is being sent that the Town of Vail wants to do business with you.
Bob Boselli suggested a group or committee be formed to assist with proposed outdoor display
regulations. McDonald reminded the group they had reviewed these regulations a couple of years
ago and will send the current regulations to the members.
8 - 2 - 1
9/18/2012
x Economic opportunities discussion regarding the redevelopment of the municipal site and
the medical office building:
Stan Zemler stated the medical office building redevelopment project was discussed in the PEC
meeting yesterday for four hours. Four years ago when the hospital was considering moving its
facility down valley, an econRPLFDQDO\VLVZDVGRQHVKRZLQJDSRVVLEOHRI9DLO¶VHFRQRPLF
base came from the hospital. The Town and medical facilitators have been making progress
through the construction process but there are still some hurdles such as the helipad relocation
and the pedestrian overpass. Zemler stated next year at this time there will be 55 Town of Vail
employees relocated throughout Vail. Zemler wanted to make clear that the Town and hospital
each has their own architects and development issues for their proposed projects and only share
the parking structure.
Chris Romer stated the Vail Valley Partnership is targeting the medical market in assisting with
hosting up to 250 person meetings and conventions. Romer stated the medical market makes up
approximately ¼ of the Partnership¶s group business.
x Town Manager Report:
Joe McHugh asked for an update concerning Timber Ridge. Zemler stated there is a group
currently reviewing the project and the Town had extended on the Letter of Credit with US Bank.
The Town is offering many different types of leases from 6 months to 1 year, there is a building
designated to dog owners and there are new onsite operators.
Zemler also spoke to members regarding the Golf Course Clubhouse which will be back in front
of Council on September 18, with a site plan, lighting, neighborhood proposal and a netting
solution.
McHugh asked for an update regarding the meeting with Town Officials and the Vail Home
Owners Association. Zemler said that he and Andy Daly had an honest exchange with Jim
Lamont, Gail Ellis and Larry _Stewart_______ and is hopeful there will be better communication.
x Financial Reports:
The financial UHSRUWVZHUHSURYLGHGLQWKHFRPPLWWHHV¶SDFNHWV
x Citizen Input:
None.
x Other Business:
x Next Meeting:
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at The Antlers.
8 - 2 - 2
9/18/2012
CSE/Meeting Minutes September 5, 2012 Page 1 of 5
MINUTES:
Town of Vail: Commission on Special Events Meeting
Town Council Chambers
__________________Wednesday, September 4, 2012 @ 8:30 a.m.______________
CSE Members Present: Rayla Kundolf
Bobby Bank
Joyce Gedelman-Viers
Barry Davis
Sonny Kerstiens
Cali Adkisson
Jenn Bruno *absent
TOV Staff Present: Sybill Navas, CSE Coordinator
Tammy Nagel, CSE Secretary
Clair Hefferon, Economic Development Assistant
Kelli McDonald, Econimic Development Director
Others Present: Margaret Rogers, Vail Town Council Member
Chris Jarnot and Kristin Williams, Vail Resorts
Adam Sutner, Highline
Rhonda Jackson, Legacy Entertainment
Tony Landon, Human Movement Management
Sean Glackin, Alpine Kayak
Michael Imholf and Scott Bluhm, Vail Valley Foundation
Jessica Stevens, Vail Valley Partnership
Jeff Brausch, James Diehgan and Peggy Wolfe, Highline Sports
and Entertainment
Amy Phillips, Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival
Marc LeVarn, Nick Calello, Jonathan Staufer and Susan Rapson;
Meadow Drive Partnership
Angela Mueller, Vail Farmers Market
Kursten Canada, Legal advisor to the Vail Village Center
______________________________________________________________________
CSE Chair, Rayla Kundolf, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Epic Discovery Center Presentation:
Chris Jarnot, Vail Resorts, presented to the members a PowerPoint introducing new
summer activities coming to the mountain. Last year legislation was passed allowing
more summer activities on the mountain. Jarnot stated Vail Mountain will lead the
industry and set the standards. The new summer activities will promote environmental
8 - 3 - 1
9/18/2012
CSE/Meeting Minutes September 5, 2012 Page 2 of 5
education and forest stewardship, mix eco discovery zones with fun activities, make the
National Forest accessible to everyone and give kids and families a unique way to
experience the mountains. Vail Resorts will use existing infrastructure and already
developed parts of the mountain so that all activities will blend seamlessly with the
natural environment. Appropriate mountain activities include Zip Lines, Forest Flyers,
Rope Courses and Adventure Tours. Vail Resorts will donate 1% of summer activity
revenue to The Nature Conservancy for forest restoration; Jarnot estimated the new
attractions will generate $21 million in summer revenue. The new mountain activities
will benefit the community by creating new jobs for construction and operations, support
healthier year-round employment and visitation and attract I-70 summer travelers to
experience Vail for a day.
Jarnot stated the Lionshead Gondola currently has 100,000 summer riders and predicts
350,000 visits over 100 days of summer once the new activities are operational.
Adventure Ridge will be the “hub” of the activities. A “European-style” lift-list served
hiking area will provide increased and more easily accessible opportunities for
bothhiking and mountain biking. Zip line construction will start this fall, opening spring
2013 with a goal of all activities operating by 2015.
Community Input and New Business:
Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice
on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct
negotiators, Regarding: Special Events, Gran Fondo; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(e) - to
determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: 2012/2013
Contracts.
Motion to adjourn the regular meeting and enter into executive session @ 8:45
am.
M/S/P: Rogers/Bank/Unanimous
Motion to adjourn executive session and enter into the regular shecule CSE
meeting @ 10:05 am.
M/S/P: Bank/Adkisson/Unanimous
EVENT RECAPS:
Kayak Demos:
Sean Glakin, Alpine Kayak, provided a powerpoint in the members packets. No
members had any comments concerning this event.
Vail Soul Music Festval:
Rhonda Jackson, Legacy Entertainment, provided a powerpoint presentation in the
members packets.
Bank stated the event production needs to improve, particularly with regard to getting
information out to the public regarding venue locations for event parties etc.
Motion to authorize release of the remaining allocation for Vail Soul Music
Festival .
8 - 3 - 2
9/18/2012
CSE/Meeting Minutes September 5, 2012 Page 3 of 5
M/S/P: Adkisson/Kerstiens/Unanimous
Vail America Days and discussion of use of funds remaining due to cancellation
of the fireworks:
Tony Landon, Human Movement Management, provided a brief recap for America Days
to the members in their packets. CSE members, while noting the gaps in the parade as
a difficult and on-going issue, complimented Landon on doing a good job in the face of
many obstacles, including the weather in the afternoon and the drought conditions/fire
danger which drove the decision to cancel the fireworks just a few days prior to the
event. Kundolf stated that despite the cancellation of the fireworks the energy in the
town was awesome.
Landon provided options to the CSE members concerning the unused fireworks, as
described in the recap provided. He stated that Human Movement Management is
willing to sign a new contract for the next 4th of July which would include using the
fireworks purchased for 2012, or Human Movement Management is also willing to sign
over their agreement with Zambilli Fireworks Manufacturing Companies to theTown of
Vail and the fireworks can be used for another event such as Vail’s 50th Anniversary or
New Year’s Eve. CSE members agreed by consensus that the most beneficial
resolution from a financial perspective would be to accept the 5% cancellation penalty,
pay the balance on the contract to Human Movement Management, and have the
contract for the remaining $29,500 contract be signed over to the Town of Vail for use at
next year’s 4th of July celebration. Landon confirmed that the contract could be used for
either close proximity/non-combustible or traditional/ariel fireworks.
Motion to request that Human Movement Management sign over the contract
with Zambilli to the Town of Vail, which would provide a credit of $29,500 to be
used towards the fireworks display on July 4, 2013.
M/S/P: Adkisson/ Kernstiens/Unanimous
Review $10,000 allocation for US Ski Team and Opening Day party in light of changes to
the event as previously proposed:
James Diehgan and Peggy Wolfe, Highline Sports and Entertainment, stated that due to event
changes made by the US Ski Team, Highline Sports and Entertainment no longer believes
they can uphold the agreement they entered into with the CSE for the additional $10,000.00
allocation.
Motion to accept the returned $10,000 allocation money for the US Ski Team and
Opening Day party.
M/S/P: Kerstiens/Adkisson/Unanimous
50th Anniversary Logo:
Navas informed members that event producers of all of the major Town of Vail sponsored
events will be asked to use the 50th Anniversary Logo through July 4, 2013.
8 - 3 - 3
9/18/2012
CSE/Meeting Minutes September 5, 2012 Page 4 of 5
Strategic Planning Discussion: Vail Farmers’ Market and Art Show
Marc LeVarn, Jonathan Staufer, Susan Rapson and Nick Calello, as the Board of Directors
representing the Meadow Drive Partnership which owns the Vail Farmers’ Market and Art
Show, provided a short recap to the members on the history of the market. Currently the
Farmers’ Market has 144 tents on town streets each Sunday, with a waiting list of 169
vendors, and attracts from 10,000-14,000 guests each week. The Vail Farmer’s Market is
listed as a largest farmers market in the State of Colorado. Town merchants have expressed
that Sundays during the Farmers Market are the busiest days of the summer.
Rogers suggested cutting down the number of tents to reduce the congestion on t town on
streets and to place more emaphsis on farmers. Staufer thought reducing the number of tents
may not necessarily reduce the congestion on the streets. Rapson stated that they have
discussed implementing a plan next year to have all the farmers in one location, which would
create a stronger awareness of the number of farmers that participate in the market. Mueller
added that adding more farmers to the market is difficult because the farmers are all selling
similar produce, which discourages farmers from wanting to make the haul to Vail to compete
for sales.
Kundolf inquired about the food vendors and expressed concerns she has heard from local
restaurants on how their businesses are affected negatively by the market because guests are
not coming into the restaurants for a sit down meal. Mueller stated that all of the outside food
vendors sell food that is not otherwise available in Vail, but that she would welcome
suggestions for revised guidelines for the food vendors.
Nick spoke to the CSE members about a suggestion to offer a coupon book next year with a
$50.00 value selling for $40.00 with coupons to be redeemed at the market that would help to
subsidize the farmers and create more incentive for them to participate.
Kundolf also suggested a “bike corral” to encourage cyclists not to push or ride their bikes
through the market, in order to promote safety and relieve the congestion on the town streets.
Gedelman-Viers would like to see the vendors starting to set up earlier stating she has
attended the market at 10:00 am and there are still vendors setting up to sell their product.
Administrative Items:
• Approval of the Minutes of the meeting of the CSE meeting held August 1, 2012.
Motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting of August 1, 2012, as presented.
M/S/P: Adkisson/ Kerstiens /Unanimous.
• Financial Report and Contract Status: CSE members reviewed the status of financial
report and contract status. Navas informed members that the Labor Day RMUSSSA
Softball Tournament had been cancelled with little notice, and that the $3,500 allocated
to the event will be returned. The current balance of funds available in the CSE’s 2012
budget, as of the start of the meeting, was $8,010.00.
8 - 3 - 4
9/18/2012
CSE/Meeting Minutes September 5, 2012 Page 5 of 5
• LH Merchant Association Meeting: Navas reminded members of the Tuesday,
September 18, 2012 at 8:30 meeting at the Chophouse.
• CSE Planning Session, Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:00 am to 11:00 am. The
CSE members agreed by consensus to a proposed agenda that would focus on further
development of a strategic approach to the allocation of special event funds.
Matters from CSE Not Currently on the Agenda:
CSE members spoke with Adam Sutner regarding a proposal for professional services to the
CSE board. Rogers stated an agreement could only be for the last four months of the year,
after which a contract for continuation of the services would be required to be advertised
through a public RFP process. It was agreed that Bank would gather suggestions from CSE
members as to proposed revisions to a scope of service concerning the work Sutner would do.
Kundolf stated she would like to see a contract with Sutner in place prior to the CSE Planning
Session on September 19, 2012. Sutner thought that an agreement could be reached by that
date.
Motion to offer Adam Sutner a contract for Professional Services as discussed,
for a fee of $12,500 and covering the time frame of September 12-December 12,
2012, for the purpose of helping the CSE to develop a more strategic approach
to their funding decisions.
M/S/P: Adkisson/ Kernstiens /Unanimous
New Business: There was no new business discussed.
Adjournment:
Motion to Adjourn @ 12:10 p.m.
M/S/P: Bank/ Adkisson /Unanimous
Upcoming Meetings:
Special CSE Planning Session
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 @ 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Vail Town Council Chambers
Regular Monthly CSE Meeting
Wednesday, October 3 @ 8:30 a.m.
Vail Town Council Chambers
Joint Meeting with the VLMDAC
Thursday, October 18 @ 8:30 a.m.
8 - 3 - 5
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor and Council
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal
advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct
negotiators, Regarding: Ever Vail Redevelopment Agreement and Ever Vail Metro District; 2)
C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; Regarding: Vail
Golf Course.
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
9/18/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (4:40 p.m.)
NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW (ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES
AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
--------------------
THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT
APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD), TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2012 IN THE VAIL TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Ongoing agenda items TBD: DRB/PEC updates - Warren - WS - 15 min.; Information
Updates Attachments: WS - 15 min.; Executive Session items: 30 min.; Consent Agenda: 5
min.; Town Manager Report: Fire and ERWSD updates - 5 min.
Vail Group Sales update - Kelli - WS - 30 min. - 10/2
Employee Housing Strategic Plan - Nina - ES - 30 min. - 10/2
UBC Sprinkler Requirements - Mark Miller - WS - 30 min. - 10/2
VLMD Resolution for VLMD Budget - SEPARATE Mtg. - Kathleen - 10 min. -10/2
CDOT - I-70 Chain Up discussion - Greg Hall/Dwight Henninger/CDOT rep - ES - 20 min. -
10/16
Site Visit - Library - Pam Brandmeyer - WS - 10/16
Capital Budget/Operating Budget discussion - Judy C/Kathleen H - ES - 60 min. - 10/16
TOV resolution for VLMD budget - Kathleen - ES - 15 min. - 10/16
Vail Reinvestment Authority budget Resolution - SEPARATE Mtg. - Kathleen - 11/6
1st reading 2013 budget ordinance - Kathleen - ES - 30 min. - 11/6
2nd readin 2013 budget ordinance - Kathleen - ES - 15 min. - 11/20
Ever Vail - George - 30 min. - ES - on going
Buy-down program funding discussion - Nina - WS - 30 min. - TBD
Site Visit - Sundial Plaza - Gregg B. - WS - 30 min. - TBD
Strategic Parking Plan discussion - Greg H. - WS - 30 min. - TBD
ERWSD - Drought Wrapup Discussion - Diane Johnson/Linn Brooks - WS - 15 min. - TBD
ERWSD - Wastewater Master Plan - Linn Brooks/Siri Roman/Todd Fessenden - WS - 30 min.
- TBD
Wolcott Plan Discussion with Eagle County reps - WS - TBD
Recycling discussion - Kristen B - 30 min. - WS - TBD
Housing Fee in Lieu Discussion – TBD
Ford Park discussion re: noise - Todd O./Greg Hall - WS - 30 min. - TBD
Outdoor Display Goods - George Ruther - TBD
Historic District - George Ruther - TBD
Sister City discussion - TBD
Open Space Discussion with Toby Sprunk, Eagle County Open Space Director - TBD
9/18/2012