HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-19 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
6:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 19, 2013
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot
be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider
an item.
1.
ITEM/TOPIC: Proclamation No. 1, Series of 2013; One Book One Valley
"Into the Beautiful North" (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Lori Ann Barnes
2.
ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Public
3.
ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Appointment of Davy Ratchford as Vail Resorts rep on VLMDAC (5 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Various
4.
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
1) Timber Ridge Discussion - Stan Zemler
2) Synthetic Infields at Ford Park - Todd Oppenheimer (15 min.)
5.
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the Vail Town Council to reconsider an
encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6,
Vail Town Code. (Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013) (10 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications,
or deny the request to reconsider.
BACKGROUND: On February 5, 2013, the Vail Town Council considered a
request for an encroachment into an existing view corridor (Resolution No. 3,
Series of 2013). Following a site visit to the affected view point (V.P. #8) in
Lionshead and a presentation by staff of the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission's action approving the request, a motion to
approve Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013, failed due to a lack of majority
vote (3-3). That being the case, it is likely a motion denying said resolution
would have failed due to a lack of majority vote.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Town staff recommends the Vail Town
Council grants the request to reconsider action taken on Resolution No. 3,
Series of 2013. Staff's recommendation is based on the following factors:
The Vail Town Council members were evenly split on the motion. (3-3) The 2/19/2013
applicant was not afforded an opportunity to make a full presentation.
6.
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013 a resolution approving an
encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6,
Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code to allow for the
encroachment of an addition to the Lionshead Centre Building into View
Point #8, located at 520 East Lionhead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead
Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (15 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with Modifications,
or deny Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013.
BACKGROUND: View corridors have been established with the Town of
Vail to maintain and protect certain views to the surrounding area from public
plazas and pedestrian ways. Encroachments into existing view corridors are
allowed when it can be determined that the proposed encroachment does
not negatively impact the intended purpose of the view corridor.
Three residential property owners within the Lionshead Centre Building are
proposing to complete residential additions to their dwelling units. The
proposed additions encroach into View Corridor #8. In order to construct the
residential additions as proposed, the property owners must first be granted
permission by the Town of Vail to encroach upon the existing view corridor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town of Vail Planning & Environmental
Commission (PEC) has granted an approval of the request for an
encroachment into View Corridor #8. The approval was granted based upon
the review of the criteria and findings outlined in the memorandum to the
PEC dated, January 14, 2013.
Staff recommends the Vail Town Council upholds the approval of the PEC
and grants an approval of Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013, as read.
7.
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013, a resolution amending the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption
and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,
to amend the recommendations for the central pedestrian plaza (Sundial
Plaza) in Section 5.8.6, Plazas and Nodes, Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell, Gregg Barrie
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall
approve, approve with modifications, or deny Resolution No. 4, Series of
2013.
BACKGROUND: The subject property was a part of the original Town of
Vail which became effective by the election of August 23, 1966, and the
court order of August 26, 1966. In 2008, the Vail Town Council instructed
Staff to locate and build a park in Lionshead per the LRMP. After examining
all town-owned locations, Sundial Plaza was selected as the only adequate
location for a public park. The Vail Town Council has approved funding for a
park in Sundial Plaza as part of the 2013 Municipal Budget.
On January 28, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
held a hearing to review the proposed amendments to the Lionshead 2/19/2013
Redevelopment Master Plan and an accompanying conditional use permit
application. The PEC recommended approval for the proposed LRMP
amendments to the Vail Town Council with a vote of 7-0-0.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the criteria and findings outlined in
Section VI of the Planning and Environmental Commission memorandum,
dated January 28, 2013 and the evidence and testimony presented, the
Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Vail Town
Council approves Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013.
8.
ITEM/TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, an
ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010, re-
establishing the approved development plan and development standards for
site coverage, density and landscaping for Special Development District No.
37, Tivoli Lodge, in accordance with Section 12-9A-10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an accommodation
unit, an office and a meeting room, at the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386
Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC130002) (20 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall
approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of
2013, upon first reading.
BACKGROUND: On February 11, 2013, the Planning and Environmental
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town
Council for Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, by a vote of 7-0-0 with the
following conditions:
1. This approval includes two revised plan sheets A4.0 and A5.4 dated
February 8, 2013.
2. The applicant shall receive permission from the adjacent property owner
(Vail Associates) for access for construction in conjunction with any building
permits.
3. Approval of an amendment to the SDD is contingent upon the applicant
obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application.
9. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (7:35 p.m.)
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: Proclamation No. 1, Series of 2013; One Book One Valley "Into the Beautiful
North"
PRESENTER(S): Lori Ann Barnes
ATTACHMENTS:
Proclamation No. 1 Series of 2013
2/19/2013
Proclamation o. 1, Series of 2013
OFFICIAL PROCLAMATIO for OE BOOK, OE VALLEY, 201 3
WHEREAS, community-read programs have united and uplifted hundreds of cities and
municipalities throughout the United States of America; and,
WHEREAS, the novel Into the Beautiful North by Luis Alberto Urrea is a wondrous and
riotously funny story filled with unforgettable characters and is an especially joyful and timely
tale of one young woman’s quest; and
WHEREAS, this Eagle Valley community read will feature book talks, discussions, film
showings and other special presentations about the novel; and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Public Library, in collaboration with the Eagle Valley
Library District, Colorado Mountain College and the Bookworm of Edwards have resolved to
bring this valley-wide reading project to the citizens of Eagle County; and,
WHEREAS, the One Book, One Valley initiative will encourage literacy and shared
enjoyment of reading throughout Eagle County;
OW, Therefore Be It Resolved , this 19th day of February, 2013, the Vail Town
Council proclaims and hereby promotes the One Book, One Valley initiative and officially
announces and promotes the novel Into the Beautiful North to all Town of Vail and Eagle
County residents for the enjoyment and enrichment of all.
_______________________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation
PRESENTER(S): Public
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda:
1) Appointment of Davy Ratchford as Vail Resorts rep on VLMDAC
PRESENTER(S): Various
ATTACHMENTS:
Dauphinais Moseley plat correction memo
August 7, 2012 Town Council Minutes
August 21, 2012 Town Council Minutes
2/19/2013
To: Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Date: 9/4/2012
Subject: Dauphinais Moseley Subdivision Correction Plat
I. BACKGROUND
The Dauphiniais Moseley Subdivision was established in 1990. The subdivision
included Moraine Drive that was intended to be dedicated to the Town of Vail as Right
of Way (ROW). Upon completion of the road infrastructure, the road was accepted but
never recorded as dedicated road ROW. The sole purpose of the attached correction
plat is to record Moraine Drive as dedicated ROW.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Corrected Final Plat for the Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing No. 1,
accepting Moraine Drive as dedicated ROW.
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 1
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by
Mayor Andy Daly.
Members present: Andy Daly, Mayor
Kerry Donovan
Kevin Foley
Ludwig Kurz
Greg Moffet
Margaret Rogers
Susie Tjossem
Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
_________________________________________________________________
The first item on the agenda was the recognition and thank you to Robert "Bob" McKown for his
multiple years of combined service on the Commission on Special Events (CSE) and on the
Local Licensing Authority (LLA), two volunteer boards for the Town of Vail.
Foley thanked Bob McKown for his time, commitment and volunteer service on both boards
over the years. McKown served on the town’s LLA from August of 2005 through June of 2012
and was chairman of the liquor board for the last four years. McKown also served on the CSE
from January of 2008 through December of 2011 and was the vice chair of the CSE for the last
two years.
McKown thanked the Council for the recognition.
The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Merv Lapin stated he lives on West
Meadow Drive adjacent to the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC). He said he attended the
work session to get a sense of what is happening regarding the hospital remodel. He is
concerned about a potential situation that could occur between the neighborhood and VVMC,
regarding the hospital campus and medical office building (MOB). He said the delivery, traffic
and helipad are the three main areas of concern. He believes the helipad placement will be the
most fractious. Where the helipad will be located may be unsolvable. The hospital will want it
as close to the emergency room as possible and the neighbors will want it as far from their
residential area as possible. One suggested compromise would be to have the helipad on top
of the new medical office building which will be built where the helipad is currently. He said he
has sent two emails to Council regarding these issues. He suggested that the neighbors, the
town and the VVMC staff sit down to solve all the issues. If the MOB is built and the town
offices get built, they may be removing from the discussions a good compromise of where the
helipad could be placed. One of the other problems was that this past year, the town
authorized the helicopters to come and go every day, twice a day, this past winter. This created
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 2
an atmosphere of concern where the neighbors didn’t know what was going on. There was no
planning or notification process. He researched this issue and said there were only 30 times
when the helicopter was required for flight care over the winter. Of those 30 times, only two to
three times were times of sensitive life saving issues. It’s important before moving forward to
decide where the helipad should go. Other issues will then fall into place.
Art Abplanalp, an attorney representing six families and other interested parties that live
adjacent to the Vail Golf Course 18th hole, said his role was to facilitate a resolution. He said
there was a meeting on July 24th with town staff and the neighborhood property owners. He
said the meeting and effort was appreciated by the neighbors. He said at the meeting, staff
heard the determination of the adjacent property owners regarding their opposition to changing
or restructuring the 18th hole. They also heard consensus about the traffic concerns and
opposition of additional uses at the clubhouse for a multi-use community center. The owners
want to keep the clubhouse within its current footprint and keep the 18th hole where it is
currently. He stated the town is going to lose money on this project. The total estimated cost of
the project is $7.4 million without the consideration of contingencies or safety measures. The
most recent budget shows the town intended to drain the repair budget for 2013 and 2014 to
generate $1.675 million to cover the shortfall. He said as far as the perceived safety hazard, in
the past 5 years, there was one incident of a person being hit on the 18th hole. There were
three other incidents that occurred at the 6th and 13th hole, not the 18th hole. The town should
not use additional funds for changing the safety measures.
Dale Nelson introduced himself as a candidate for Eagle County Commissioner in November’s
election. He recognizes that Vail is the economic driver for the county. When he is elected, he
wants to work with the town to develop additional ways to collaborate between the town and the
county.
Jonathan Levine, owner of Hummer’s of Vail, said he wants to clarify some confusion that
occurred at the last meeting. He said he had a video of the last meeting where Daly told Daril
Cinquanta to set a meeting agenda item to discuss Levine’s issue in further detail. He wants to
know why Cinquanta was told he couldn’t get on the agenda as a separate item. Daly said it
takes three or more Council members to get it on as an agenda item.
Levine said he wants the Council to discuss issues he had with Chief Henninger. Zemler said
he is responsible for town staff and it would be not be appropriate for Council to address
employee issues. Zemler told Levine he would give him one half hour to address staff issues
and to contact him to set up an appointment to discuss. Daly also stated Council does not
handle personnel matters.
Levine said he would contact Zemler to make an appointment to discuss at a later date.
The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. On the consent agenda was
1) The July 3 and 17, 2012 meeting minutes. This item was postponed to the August 21
meeting as the meeting minutes did not get attached to the agenda prior to the meeting; and
2) Bighorn Creek Utility Crossing Bid Award;
Chad Salli said the new box culvert is designed to meet all the standards;
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 3
3) A request to proceed through the process with a lease for Sweet Basil/Mountain Standard.
Donovan said she had a hard time understanding the exterior plan for this expansion outside.
Ruther said the area to be expanded for an outdoor dining deck started from the east where
Blu’s deck is today, to include the area directly west of the deck where Gore Creek Fly
Fisherman’s space used to be. It would not extend out into the path but would run lengthwise in
front of the old Gore Creek Fly Fisherman space which will now be part of Sweet Basil/Mountain
Standard’s space. Donovan said she was told the drainage in that area goes directly into the
creek. Ruther said the down spouts of the roof from that building go into the creek so there is
positive drainage away from the building to the grass area. The drainage from the businesses
does not go into the creek.
4) Approval of Resolution No. 26, Series of 2012, an Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
(ERWSD) Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
Moffet made a motion to approve items two, three and four of the consent agenda and the
motion was seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. There were two items under the
town manager report: a Fire Department wild land fire restriction update and an Eagle River
Water & Sanitation District water supply and drought update.
Fire Chief Mark Miller gave an update on the wild land fire restrictions. He said all fire
restrictions have been lifted in Vail and the White River National Forest at this time. The Vail
Fire Department has sent two crews to Moffat County to fires in that area. In addition, people
have asked them what Vail has learned about the other fires in Colorado. He said the Waldo
fire near Colorado Springs has not completed their reports as yet. However, the most
significant issues were notifications to people and timely evacuations in the area. He said there
were system overloads and there was no testing of the system prior to the fires. One of the
things that came out is that folks need and desire lots of information of what is happening and
wanted to be updated often on what was going on. The “wait and see” attitude of many people
was an issue with last minute evacuations and lots of mass chaos. He said nature has the
power and there is very little to do as far as preparedness goes. He said horizontal vortices
were an issue that is out of anyone’s control.
The Vail and Eagle County fire departments have done a good job in getting the word out. They
had more people sign up for the Eagle County (EC) alert system right after the Eby Creek fire.
They also had a 30% call back failure on the reverse 911 system due to people not being home
or not picking up. They have done a lot to get the word out via radio, newspaper, emails,
meetings, etc. The partnerships that have developed throughout this season has been great as
they have many partnerships now because of this season: Vail Resorts Inc. (VRI); other Eagle
County task forces; the Forest Service; the National Guard; the wild land mitigation crews; other
fire districts; and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD). This process will be
ongoing and he will come to a Council work session to discuss a siren system with a voice
activation system proposal. They will also be doing EC alert signups at the town’s August 14
community picnic.
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 4
Daly asked what they are doing about defensible spaces in town and between other areas west
of Vail.
Miller said there are other things the town should be doing. They have downloaded a Google
map of the area to find vulnerable areas in town. The most vulnerable area identified was West
Vail and the Intermountain areas. It was determined that some of the land is owned by the
Forest Service, as well as the communication tower on Vail mountain is vulnerable. These
areas are being worked on but it will take time to coordinate. Daly said it behooves the town to
work with the Forest Service to move it higher on their priority list. He asked if the local Forest
Service district ranger could come and talk to the Council about the areas of vulnerability and
where they consider their priorities are at this time. Miller said he has talked to the Forest
Service and they agree that there are vulnerable areas near Vail.
Miller said he is also meeting with Jeff Babb at VRI to discuss what they are planning. Zemler
will contact them to find out what is happening on Vail Mountain.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, thanked them for the presentation.
He said his homeowner’s have a heightened sense of urgency on fires in Colorado. He asked if
the town could look at producing a white paper for this issue. The homeowners want to know
specifics and details of what happens if there is a fire in this area as well as media reports.
They are concerned about scenarios like smoke filling the valley and having people evacuate
sooner instead of staying in their homes. They want to know how the chain of command works
and moves from local to the federal level. It has been brought home that this is not an “if”, but
“when,” situation of a fire happening in Vail. He said removing the pine beetle threat and having
details of evacuation planning will help alleviate people’s concern.
Miller said he’d be happy to do a white paper to educate and prepare folks on wild land fire
danger. He would also get the Forest Service and other folks together and have a meeting. He
said he was disappointed on the Ready Set Go meetings, as they had 250 folks show up and
not the 5,000 people they expected to attend. He said they can’t do a white paper covering all
the scenarios.
Daly said people want to know about the worst case scenario and what happens if it occurs in
Vail. He thanked Miller for getting the National Guard on board.
Diane Johnson, with Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) said the public
education going on around the fire updates and drought updates has been great. She said
continuing to hold public interest will be hard since we have had rain. Nature has the power.
She said Gore Creek got through July okay thanks to the rain. July was wet and around 3
inches of rain fell instead of the usual two inches, but there was such a deficit to begin with, that
it just helped but there was no gain. The little snow pack coming in has made the Gore Creek
struggle. The impact of last night’s rain helped as there was 21 cfs on Sunday and 19 cfs on
Monday, as of Tuesday it was 33 cfs in the creek. However no rain is predicted through the
weekend. We all need to get through September to figure out where we stand. She said they
are projecting that after Labor Day, residents and guests will slow down their use of water.
They are monitoring the air and water temperature on a daily basis. Every rain event helps but
they are still speaking with folks that are using more water then they ought to be. She said the
drought watch is still on the front page of the Vail Daily. She said Eagle County is considered to
be in a severe stage on the drought monitor.
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 5
The fifth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No.9, Series 2012, an ordinance
making budget adjustments to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Real
Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Dispatch Services Fund and Heavy Equipment Fund.
Kathleen Halloran, Budget Manager, stated across all funds the supplemental is increased by
budgeted expenditures of $1.5 million and the revenues will also increase by $1.5 million.
There were changes made from the first reading. Rogers asked about facilities capital
maintenance of $30,000 for Community Development. If the building is being torn down, why is
this cost in the supplemental. Halloran said this line item was not taken out from the original
costs and she will remove it.
Further discussion ensued. The Council also requested reducing the supplemental by $10,000
for the removal of the Information Center. Foley said the fire department should use this as a
training exercise and tear it down.
Moffet made a motion to approve second reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2012, with
reduction of $40,000 and the motion was seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
The sixth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012; the Vail
Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto; and Resolution No.
7, Series of 2012, amending Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub-Areas, East Gore Creek Sub-Area
(#6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail
Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse
(VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Bill Gibson, Planner, stated the applicant requested the Council approve Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 2012, on second reading. The applicant also requested the Council approve
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012. He said the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
had originally approved a 1.35 gross residential floor area (GRFA) ratio. Council had previously
approved 1.25 GRFA in the first reading.
Rogers made a motion to approve as read and the motion was seconded by Donovan. Further
discussion ensued.
Tjossem stated she would be voting against this motion as 40% of the property owners will lose
property rights as the ordinance currently reads. She suggested they lower the maximum roof
line from 43 feet down to 38 feet and give up calculating the GRFA for this one zone district.
She said calculating GRFA uses tremendous staff time. In this one zone district, removing the
GRFA will still allow what the purpose of creating this zone district is about. If you read through
all the design guidelines proposed by staff, they are so specific. GRFA is something you can do
away with and not feel the town is losing control. She has talked to a lot of the owners and they
felt this suggestion is something they could agree with and buy into.
Rogers said the last memorandum didn’t show any deficit or loss of development rights to the
owners. She asked Ruther via an email what the impacts would be for the town. She said
Ruther was forthright in saying to eliminate GRFA in one zone district is not appropriate. She
said this discussion has been ongoing for two years. The difference in the PEC
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 6
recommendation and Council’s recommendation on first reading was that Council approved first
reading with the GRFA at 1.25 and the PEC recommendation was for approving the GRFA at
1.35. She said the 1.25 GRFA keeps a balance.
Moffet said he liked Tjossem’s suggestion. He was not in support of 1.25 GRFA on second
reading. He doesn’t think this changes the balance. Donovan said after reading Ruther’s
response, she trusts his expert opinion as he knows this process better than she does. She
supports the motion and said this will keep the neighborhood interacting appropriately with the
surroundings. Foley wants to hold off his responses until he hears citizen comments. Kurz
congratulated the rest of Council that has been listening to this item for over two years. He
stated he agreed with Tjossem’s comments. He said the current ordinance was like trying to put
a 1960’s hat on 2010 issues. They need to come to grips that things are changing and things
need to change. These changes will have a positive effect for the community. He doesn’t feel
doing away with GRFA or being 1.35 will be a hard thing. He said he only approved first
reading to get it to second reading. He feels it needs to be 1.35 if they don’t do away with
GRFA altogether.
Daly said he supported the 1.25 on first reading as it would preserve the character of the
neighborhood. He said walking the project with staff he believes the best alternative is what
Tjossem is suggesting of keeping the height to 38 feet. He could support the change. If they
preserve the lower roof line, some language balancing the landscape in the front and back is
needed and not limit it to 30%. Keeping the height to 38 feet would meet the criteria, keep the
character of the neighborhood and streamline the process. He said GRFA could be used for
inclusionary zoning and for parking requirements but not for bulk and mass. He is in favor of
moving forward with the project. Donovan asked what going forward meant. Tjossem wanted to
hear recommendations. Rogers wanted to see the impact of the changes and how this would
effect the development.
Dick Parker said he is a resident of the first townhouse east of Gorsuch and has been there
since 1975. He stated he would be impacted if they approved the 1.25 GRFA. He said they
were one of the first condominium associations in the state and in Vail. He said seven town
house associations would be affected with the proposed 1.25 GRFA and four would be non-
conforming. He said this process was supposed to eliminate nonconforming properties. Every
time there was a change in the residences, they had to get a variance. At 1.25 GRFA, he can’t
redevelop. At 1.35 GRFA, it is on the edge of whether he can develop; but if they approve 1.50
GRFA they can develop. The townhome association has strict design criteria and so does the
town. If the whole process is aimed at streamlining the process, creating incentives and
preserving existing residential character, it needs to be 1.5 GRFA. He said he has been a part
of the Vail community for a long time. He tries not to be a problem but this ordinance as
proposed is unreasonable. He supported eliminating GRFA and reducing the roofline to 38 feet
as it would still preserve the character of the neighborhood and prevent battles from the past
and allow everyone to move forward.
John Dunn, representing the Bridgewater’s, owners of Rowhouse Unit 11, stated he is at a loss
at to what he has heard. He said he has heard an email has been exchanged between Ruther
and the Council that makes a significant change to the ordinance adopted on first reading. He
thinks this may be a violation of the open meetings law. Hearing staff doesn’t support what was
contained in an email is a major error and the Council supporting staff on a complex matter is
not acceptable.
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 7
Ruther said the question and discussion were about GRFA and amendments. His response to
eliminating or significantly changing the GRFA policy in eliminating GRFA and amendments to
changing GRFA policy in one zone district only and not others is a concern. He said staff needs
to address equity issues in this process and apply it throughout the town. He agrees with
Rogers and wants to know unintended consequences. If the Council wants to seriously
consider amending the ordinance and taking it in a different direction, he asked that the Council
afford staff and others additional time to investigate what the practical implications will be and
identify any unintended consequences. If they find this is beneficial, he would like to streamline
the development review process for the entire town and not just for this development. He said
Bill Gibson has done a fantastic job on bringing this project through the process. If the Council
wants to move forward in a different direction, he would like to have time for Bill Gibson to
examine the issues and bring back a more thoughtful response and an idea of how to
implement it.
Foley state he was against this ordinance on first reading but now will support this ordinance on
second reading.
A vote was taken and the motion was supported by Donovan, Rogers and Foley. Tjossem,
Kurz, Moffet and Daly were opposed. The motion failed.
Moffet stated in deference of Ruther and staff concerns, he would like to have staff examine the
roofline reduction from 43 to 38 feet limit and no GRFA for this zone district only. Foley agreed.
Ruther said they could come back at a future work session with several options and pros and
cons of each. Tjossem said she is concerned this would be another delay tactic if it went to a
work session. She doesn’t want to do delay it. Staff has to understand there are compromises
and trade offs. She said the property owners have been put off for two years.
Ruther said doing this process wrong could create significant consequences and create
additional nonconforming issues. He wants to do this right. He said this has been a well thought
out process. Daly said there is no reason not to have a work session and then have an evening
session on this item. Donovan asked what the notification process will be.
Ruther said they will notice all property owners that will be affected by the change in language
as well as place a notification in the newspaper and on the town’s website. Daly reiterated that
this item will be on the work session and evening session for the August 21 meeting.
Moffet made a motion to continue second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012; the Vail
Village Townhouse (VVT) District to the August 21st meeting and the motion was seconded by
Kurz. Moffet amended the motion to include a work session and an evening meeting on August
21 and the motion was seconded by Kurz. Daly said Council will allow the public to have input
at the work session and the evening session on August 21st. Ruther said there are models that
show the different height and bulk and will bring them back to Council on the 21st. Council
asked staff to review changing the height from 43 feet to 38 feet maximum with no GRFA in bulk
and mass but continue to use GRFA as part of the inclusionary zoning and parking
requirements. A vote was taken and passed unanimously 7-0.
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 8
Moffet made a motion to continue Resolution No. 7, 2012, to the August 21, 2012 meeting, and
Tjossem seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The seventh item on the agenda was Resolution No. 25, Series of 2012, A Resolution Calling a
Special Election for November 6, 2012, to be Coordinated with Eagle County, and Submitting
Ballot Questions to the Registered Electors of the Town at the November 6, 2012 Special
Election.
Matt Mire, Town Attorney, stated the Council determined that several changes to the Vail Town
Charter were warranted. All amendments to the Vail Town Charter must be approved by the
registered electors of the Town at a regular or special election.
Mire stated this resolution would clean up the Vail Town Charter on several issues. The list of
items discussed were; 1) change the masculine gender references to gender neutral, all Council
members were in favor of adding this to the ballot; 2) the town’s regular election date should be
consistent with county, state and federal elections to allow for coordinated elections in odd
numbered years. All Council members were in favor of changing the wording to have “following
first Monday” deleted. 3) Delete the requirement for an Election Commission to be appointed.
This is outdated and the state language covers this requirement. All Council members were in
favor of adding this to the ballot. 4) The section stating all ordinances need to be approved at
regular meetings be deleted or clarified that they can be approved at special meetings as well
as at regular meetings. Daly was opposed. 5) State law regarding initiative and referendum
requirements be repealed and the town could follow state law. Moffet wants to understand what
we are repealing and what would replace it. Mire will bring back this item with further details. 6)
Change the wording of the Planning Commission and Environmental Commission to reflect that
these are one board and have been for years. This would change from Planning Commission
and Environmental Commission to the Planning and Environmental Commission. All Council
members were in favor to add this to the ballot. 7) To change the charter to reflect that there
would no longer be a requirement to have a super majority to approve the annual budget if a
50/50 split is not done. Mire said this section of charter doesn’t call out or dictate a specific split.
Judy Camp, Finance Director, said this ballot question would just remove the language from the
charter and have the budget approved by ordinance. The Council still has the right to have a
super majority and have a say on the 50/50 split. She said it was very unusual to have this
language in the charter of a municipality. Mire stated if the Council wants to keep the language
in, clarify it so it’s in the charter correctly and clean up the language and be clear on what it
should say. Daly said he wanted to eliminate this ballot question. Tjossem said she is confused
about what is being eliminated. Tjossem said to keep this in the charter will never be a 50/50
split as it isn’t realistic. Kurz said to take question off. Rogers said the charter doesn’t say what
the Council thinks it says. She said either add specific language on the percentages of the split
into the charter. Then add specific language to the charter or take it out of the charter and do it
by ordinance. She said keeping something that is ambiguous doesn’t’ make sense. Moffet
agrees with Rogers. He said to leave the question on the ballot. Donovan said she agrees with
Rogers and Moffet. She said to keep it on the ballot and take it out of the charter and then have
an ordinance to require a super majority. This is a chance to clean this up and there won’t be
another convenient chance to take it to the voters. Daly said it would be too easy to change by
ordinance. Daly said the Council needs to have some fiscal responsibility. Further discussion
ensued.
2/19/2013
Town Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012 Page 9
Tjossem said this item is to change the charter. Daly asked how many Council members are in
favor of keeping it in the charter. Daly, Tjossem, Foley and Donovan were in favor. However
Donovan said they need to be more specific and clear up the language in the charter to make it
work.
Donovan made a motion to table Resolution No. 25 to the August 21st meeting and the motion
was seconded by Moffet. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The eighth item on the agenda was adjournment.
As there was no further business, Foley made a motion to adjourn and the motion was
seconded by Moffet. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting
adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attest: __________________________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
________________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 1
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by
Mayor Andy Daly.
Members present: Andy Daly, Mayor
Kerry Donovan
Kevin Foley
Greg Moffet
Margaret Rogers
Susie Tjossem
Members Absent: Ludwig Kurz
Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
_________________________________________________________________
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Kaye Ferry, Chairman of the Eagle
County Republicans, introduced Republican candidates Scott Turner, running for District
Attorney (DA) for the 5th Judicial District, Courtney Holm running for Eagle County
Commissioner District 2; and Chuck McConnell, running for Colorado Representative for House
District 26.
Scott Turner said he has worked in the 5th Judicial District for many years and is running for DA
as Mark Hulbert is term limited. He said he has nine years of experience in several D.A.’s
offices and has experience and leadership to do the job. He is also on several statewide boards
that contribute to his experience that would allow him to be a leader in the D.A.’s office. He
thanked the Council for their time.
Courtney Holm said she is replacing Shayne Mitchell on the ballot as the Republican candidate
for the Eagle County Commissioner for District 2 in November. She is excited and ready to do
the job to the best of her ability.
Chuck McConnell said he is running for Representative for House District 26 which includes
Eagle and Routt counties. He lives in Steamboat Springs and stated he could make a great
contribution to District 26. He said small businesses are the heartbeat of the economy and he
wants to simplify regulations and nurture small businesses to grow. He said common sense
needs to be brought into government. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak to
them and the community.
Dick Cleveland stated he is on the Eagle County Trails Committee. He said the Vail Pass
Recreation Path needed to be repaired and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 2
has been given $1.3 million to do the repairs. Beginning September 4th, the entire path will be
overlayed from the gate in East Vail on Highway 6 up to the Black Lakes. There will be closures
on the path from September 10th to September 27th, Monday through Thursday of each week.
The path will remain open on Friday, Saturday and Sunday of each week during the
construction process. There will be notices in the Vail Daily and Summit Daily newspapers each
day with the construction schedule. The upgrade includes signage from East Vail to the Black
Lakes. He asked if could work with the town’s communications manager, Suzanne Silverthorn,
to help keep folks informed on this project.
Rogers asked if they are going to add a wall in a section of the road where water runs off from I-
70 onto the path. Cleveland said there will be some culvert work but there is nothing scheduled.
There is no money for this but they are reviewing options. CDOT found money to do this work
this year. There may some work on the Summit County side of the pass next year if funding is
available.
Stephen Connolly said there was a comment missing from Daly Bugby on the July 3 meeting
minutes. He said Bugby stated in his study of the Vail Recreation District (VRD) safety records,
Bugby read there were three instances where people were struck by golf balls and only one of
those was on the 18th hole.
Georgene Burton handed out the book, “The Unthinkable”, by Amanda Ripley to the Council for
their reading on who survives when disasters strike and why. She wants everyone to think
about what could happen if a wild fire broke out in the Eagle County/Vail area. She asked if
anyone had ever seen a crying baby at a fire site. The answer was no. They get them out as
soon as possible. She said the bottom line if there is a fire here is to follow the crying babies
out of town and leave when they leave, don’t wait. Everyone needs to learn the physical
reactions and automatic motions that people have when they react to fires. She said this book
helps teach the general population about being better prepared to take care of themselves. She
said she would like to teach people how to better react and prepare in case a fire breaks out in
Eagle County. She asked a fire fighter what people should do if a fire breaks out and he said to
get out of the area as soon as possible.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. On the consent agenda was the
approval of the July 3 and 17, 2012 meeting minutes and the approval of a bridge railing
rehabilitation award to the low bidder, Mueller Construction Services, Inc., to complete the
project on the Meadow Drive Bridge over Gore Creek in East Vail in the amount of $64,664.00.
The project is budgeted and scheduled to be completed by November 15, 2012.
Foley, Donovan and Daly gave the town clerk minor language corrections and spelling of names
to change for the minutes of July 3 and July 17. Foley made a motion to approve the meeting
minutes of July 3 and July 17, 2012 with amended changes. The motion was seconded by
Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Moffet made a motion to approve the award for the Meadow Drive Bridge railing rehabilitation to
Mueller Construction Services, Inc. in the amount of $64,664.00 and the motion was seconded
by Donovan. A vote was taken and it was passed unanimously, 6-0.
The third item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. There was nothing to report at
this meeting.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 3
The fourth item on the agenda was the Vail Golf and Nordic Clubhouse Project Update.
Greg Hall said this was an update on the golf course clubhouse project and the purpose of the
previous meetings was to collect all the concerns and comments out there from the public and
staff made a comprehensive list of the issues. The staff will be coming back to the next two
September Council meetings with this item and taking the questions and concerns and
addressing each one. The memorandum has a list of the concerns. They will be sharing the
answers with the Council and the community. He said a neighborhood meeting was held on
July 24 out at the golf clubhouse and staff received more feedback from the neighborhood.
During this process, staff will continue to add to the list of concerned topics and items. All the
people who asked to be informed were sent out emails of notices of the meeting.
Tjossem asked if any new drawings were done based on feedback. Hall said they are in the
conceptual drawing stage and they are still drafting diagrams. Some of the concerns for the
parking lot have not been added to the drawings as yet. The drawings will be available at the
September meetings. They may have some meetings with individuals between now and
September 4 and 18. They don’t have drawings of the elevations, orientation, activity, lighting,
are all items that need to be addressed. He said the September 4th meeting will be about
operational hours, what is allowed and not allowed and zoning process issues.
Stephen Connolly stated the flow of information is going well. He thanked everyone for their
help. He said an event facility for up to 200 people is too large. He asked how the town came
up with the 200-person figure for the facility space. Zemler stated staff is working on
comprehensive answers so they are consistent when they supply them. This question will be
one of them. Connolly said if this number is scaled back it will reduce light, noise and other
impacts to the neighborhood and reduce the patio area and reduce the danger zone and netting
height. Zemler said he is referring to Donovan statistics. He said this room will host more than
just weddings. Connolly said he wanted hard numbers before they move forward any further.
Art Apblanalp, an attorney representing Glen Hilliard, one of the property owners adjacent to the
18th hole, stated he is also representing many other adjacent property owners west of Sunburst
Drive. He said the town has received additional input the message from the input has not been
understood. He stated the town intends to convert the clubhouse into an event center designed
to accommodate more people than Donovan Pavilion. He said the town’s plan is unacceptable
to the community. He said changing the 18th hole and the conversion of the clubhouse violates
the Pulis covenants. He read a list of issues changing the 18th hole, adding an event center,
safety issues, and other items in a list into the record. He said depleting funding and resources
are a concern. He said the neighbors want a world class golf clubhouse not a hybrid
clubhouse/event center. He said if the clubhouse was expanded as is, the neighbors would
have no alternative but to take action against this project. What is needed is a world class club
house.
Tjossem said she wanted to correct some misinformation given by Abplanalp. She read the
response from Laurie Asmussen on the numbers from Donovan Pavilion. Abplanalp said this
multiuse facility was going to dwarf the Donovan Pavilion. Greg Hall said the space at the golf
course clubhouse is approximately 2,700 square feet or less than half the size of the Donovan
Pavilion. Daly asked if Abplanalp had reviewed the memo from August 21st memorandum. He
asked Abplanalp to review the list to make sure it is a comprehensive list. Daly said he hasn’t
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 4
seen an addition for lighting concerns in evening in the list. Abplanalp said there are three
pages of issues and that they cannot be resolved within the current proposal as submitted. He
said the Council said the multi use facility was going to be built within the current footprint of the
golf course club house. Daly said the Council did not state that it would be in the current
footprint. Moffet asked for clarity from Abplanalp about who he was representing, the
neighborhood or the community at large, as he kept saying the community doesn’t want the
clubhouse to have an event center in it. Abplanalp was offended by this interruption and
comment by Moffet. Daly said the Council is trying to address neighborhood concerns and the
threat from him and the neighborhood owners has been clearly heard.
Dale Bugby said he believes there have been changes to this project since the last time he
spoke. He said changing the 18th hole was still on the table. They should leave it alone and
raise the netting. He said the neighborhood was heard at a meeting on July 24th, but no one
has asked the golfers what their concerns are with this project. He said the town chose to meet
with the neighborhood but didn’t meet with the golfers and he is offended by that. He said
feedback is needed from the golfers as they are not happy with how this project is going. He
suggested the town include restaurant owners as well. He thinks they need to add input as to
how to make a viable restaurant work there. He said the solution is to save the 18th hold and do
what the town wants with the clubhouse.
Tjossem said she attended two meetings that had many golfers in attendance. The Vail
Recreation District (VRD) had meeting with golfers at one of their regular monthly meetings and
Jeff Wiles met with a large group of golfers a day or two after that meeting. She said they heard
from many golfers who gave the VRD positive feed back. Tjossem said she wanted to make
sure people are hearing other sides of this issue. Mike Ortiz, Director of the VRD, stated the
meetings with the golfers were held this past summer.
Malia Norbrega said she is the property manager for the Vail Golf Course Townhomes Phases
2, 3 and 4, which are adjacent to the golf course and includes about 61 property owners. She
said universally, no one is happy about changing the 18th hole nor were they happy about an
events center being added to the clubhouse. She said 15 homeowners responded to a
questionnaire she sent out. Six of them were strongly opposed to moving the 18th hole and nine
of them questioned why the 18th hole should move. All of them were opposed to any event
center. It would be overwhelming to the neighborhood and all of them are worried about it. They
want a neighborhood agreement if an event center is added. She went to a neighborhood
meeting but they didn’t say how this project should look. She hopes there will be more than one
meeting with the neighbors. They want some say on what happens there and not be forced to
fight with the golf course when issues come up, when there is no parking on the street and have
noise issues. They want the renovation but don’t want an events center or other large venue at
the club house.
Rogers asked if she had emails for all these property owners. Norbrega said she does. Rogers
asked for those emails so staff could get timely information out to them. Norbrega said they are
getting their information from her and she is compiling information as she gets it and putting it
on a website she has created.
Daly said an operating agreement is being formulated by the VRD and will be coming forward
and will be transparent to the community and there will be plenty of opportunity for input.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 5
Norbrega said if the town and VRD have to rezone this area they want to make sure everything
in the current zoning is abided by except for height which may have to be changed. Tjossem
asked for the emails from her property owners to give to Greg Hall for the town’s records.
Norbrega said several owners have looked at the temporary structures and they like them,
which is something positive.
Bill Pierce, owner in Fall Ridge said he is supportive of this project. He is speaking as a citizen
and a person not old enough to golf yet. He said change is inevitable. If we don’t adapt,
change, improve and modify, we will fall behind as a world class resort. This improvement is
necessary and we need to look at ways to improve this and not looking at Donovan Pavilion as
far as size, meetings and type of building.
Joe Bachelor said his family has owned a Vail Golf Course Townhome for 25 years. He is
concerned about the expanded parking. If they are talking about a facility that would
accommodate an additional 200 people this is a concern. He said traffic planners figure 2.5
people per car for any event. A space for 200 would need an additional 75 parking spaces
outside of golf activities. There are currently about 100 parking spaces and an additional 20
more spaces would be needed. If you look at case studies, they show you will have to limit
parking as traffic congestion will occur. He said using the term “event center” is a poor term to
use. He said people should use “community center” as it is more like what that space would be.
He said if the town and VRD want to get the neighborhood on their side, give them additional
neighborhood amenities. Maybe a small grocery store or a wine and cheese shop may help sell
this project.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, said it may be helpful to give a
summary at the end of this discussion so that the public has a sense of where we have been
and where we are going with this project as not everyone understands where we are in the
process and what subjects are not on the table and will not be revisited.
Daly said they will address this at the conclusion of all input.
Norbrega asked if this was an event center, a banquet room or a community room. Daly said
this is an expansion of the current restaurant space by 18 feet.
Zemler said the staff has asked the architects to address the long list that was submitted that
need to be addressed and resolved. The architects, through the town’s process will have to
address these and adhere to the regulations of the town. Many of the things in the PEC
process are going to have to answer many of these questions. They have asked the architects
if there are alternatives. The town is not stuck today and they are looking at addressing many
concerns. The golf course hole has received Council and PEC direction and will not be
addressed anymore. The conceptual review of temporary structures will be coming up. Hall
said this will go to PEC in September for the temporary facilities that VRD will operate out of
while the clubhouse is under construction and being renovated. The site planning and other
constructs will be brought back to Council in the next two meetings. Hall said a submittal to
PEC is tentatively scheduled for late September or early October to the PEC after consulting
with the neighborhood.
Zemler said they will be consulting the community and will try to incorporate as much as
possible knowing the town will not be able to make everyone happy or satisfy everyone. He
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 6
said the VRD operational plan will be reviewed in the next few weeks as well which may answer
a lot of the questions and issues that have been raised.
Daly reiterated that Council would like Art Abplanalp, as the property owner’s attorney, review
the list and add any discussion points or additional items that may be missing and submit that
list to the staff to be reviewed and addressed.
The fifth item on the agenda was an update on the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) Master
Planning Process.
Doris Kirchner, Chief Executive Officer of the VVMC, thanked the Council for the opportunity to
provide an update. This is the beginning of many more updates to come. They retained a
consultant and three months ago they interviewed key stakeholders such as the doctors, staff
and ancillary staff and lease holders within the hospital to begin to find a facility planning firm. A
Request for Proposal (RFP) process has begun and the documents will be mailed out in the
next ten days and a firm decision will be made by mid-October on which consulting firm will be
retained. There are four areas that will be focused on: 1) emergency services and the location
of emergency services; 2) site and community considerations such as traffic and parking
studies, minimizing intrusions in the neighborhoods, locating loading docks; 3) infrastructure and
work flow adjacencies, identifying services that can be done off site; and 4) space planning for
private rooms, redevelopment of surgical services and expanded critical care services plus
others. She said the loading and delivery services could be off site. Space planning will be
about a nine to twelve month process. Then there is a 90-100 day architectural planning phase
bringing them into January or February of 2014. Key points are that the VVMC is staying in
Vail, they will address ambulance services, traffic and emergency services, loading and
delivery, minimizing intrusions into the neighborhood, have a traffic study done, etc. They are
identifying services that can be done elsewhere. They have moved approximately 40-60 trips
away from Meadow Drive as they have sent these services down to the Edwards facility. The
VVMC will remain a Level 3 trauma center which will require a helipad on site. She said there
are approximately six times a month that there is a need to use a helicopter. They don’t expect
that number to increase. The hospital knows they need to do a better job to address issues the
neighborhood has with the VVMC. The VVMC contributes significantly to the preservation care
of the community healthcare. Their goal is to implement the best facility plan that will serve the
healthcare needs now and in the near and distant future. They are committed to a thorough
study process of each and all the elements to reach their goal. They will keep the Council and
the community informed through various meetings, BLOG’s and such as they navigate the
process.
Donovan asked to clear up the number of flights out of Vail was six flights per month and not six
fights per day, that have a patient in the helicopter. Kirchner said its six flights per month.
Donovan said rumors were circulating in town that the hospital has approached the helicopter
company to have Vail be their home base and increase flights because this would be where
they would park the helicopter everyday.
Kirchner said she is dispelling the rumor as they are not considering the VVMC to be a base for
helicopter services as they would have to provide fuel services. She stated this rumor may have
been due to last year’s Tri State Air Flight’s service of the helicopter coming in and out of Vail
twice a day. That is no longer happening. She said the hospital will only be providing critical
care services for transport out of the area for higher service levels in other areas. She said
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 7
there would only be inbound flights picking up patients to take them out of Vail. They won’t be
bringing critical care patients to Vail. They are a Level 3 trauma center and not a Level 1
trauma center.
Rogers asked about the differences were between a Level 1 trauma services versus Level 3
trauma services. Kirchner said Level 1 services consist of 24 hour/7 days a week (24/7) care
and the anesthesiologists and trauma surgeons have to be on site 100% of the time and 100%
of the time blood transfusions etc. have to be available on site. Level 3 trauma is when the
hospital has the capability of providing 24/7 care only to the point of having board certified
trauma surgeons on staff and anesthesiologists available in sleep rooms or within 20-30
minutes of the hospital. Also, blood transfusions capabilities are available but not for large
events.
Daly asked about when the community outreach process starts, how it will look like and when
input will be available to the community.
Kirchner said they are adding a BLOG on their website that will be in place within the next 30
days; information will be in the newspaper, through intermittent Town Council updates as
necessary and they will be hosting community open houses when information needs to be
communicated to the community. Once the consulting firm is in place the meetings will be
ongoing and the information will be disseminated about once a month or every other month.
Daly asked when input from the community and neighborhood begins. Kirchner said at the
same time, so they will get timely feedback.
Tjossem asked if the hospital process will be lagging behind the behind the medical office
building construction about two years. She wanted to know about the options of where the
helipad will and can be placed. She said the FAA regulations discourage flight plans of the
helicopters in neighborhood. Is this accurate? She said this topic should be scheduled to be
resolved earlier in the process so they don’t limit their choices down the line.
Kirchner said the hospital staff is looking at the helipad issue. There area helipads at Trauma 1
hospitals in Denver that are in neighborhoods. She said there are no statutory regulations on
where helicopters can be placed. However, safety is of the upmost importance.
Lane Lapin, a neighbor on West Meadow Drive, thanked the Council for the lost speed limit sign
on West Meadow Drive that has been replaced. She sent an email of August 19th was on
vehicular safety on West Meadow Drive. She said as far as the VVMC expansion, she asked
the town to provide the process with a record of a formal traffic study prior to this expansion.
Daly said there has been no formal traffic study done while he has been on Council. He said
they acknowledge there are pedestrians, vehicular traffic, bicycles, and general recreational use
on Meadow Drive. They want to have summer and winter traffic patterns in the study. There
will be a traffic study done by a consultant hired by the applicant. He asked that she put her
specific request in writing and give it to the VVMC to have addressed. Lapin asked for any
enforcement action reports from the Vail Police Department that are specific to this area for the
past two years, as the close calls between pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles is very
high.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 8
Zemler said they are talking about two different things. The hospital is doing a master plan and
they are not submitting a traffic study at this time and not submitting anything at this time for
consideration. Zemler clarified that Lapin wants to find a base line of what accidents have
happened on Meadow Drive to date. He asked Lapin to submit her questions to him, in writing,
so the town staff can answer them to the best of their ability.
Lapin doesn’t think there are any enforcement folks on West Meadow Drive very much. She
wants a baseline prior to the VVMC expansion begins. She wanted a clarification of what
emergent traffic means and where people will access emergency services. Daly stated this will
be addressed in future VVMC presentations. She will see this information when Council sees it.
Kirchner said the hospital has had a request to remove ambulance traffic off of West Meadow
Drive. She said they would love to remove all traffic off West Meadow Drive however, they are
looking at this. She said emergency traffic will be addressed during this process.
Lapin said the speed limit is 15 mile per hour on W est Meadow Drive and a preponderance of
vehicles think they have an entitlement to go faster on West Meadow Drive if they have to go to
the hospital. She wants this issue addressed.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association (VHA) said Council had a letter
dated July 20, 2012, from the VHA stating the VHA is initiating a process to allow them to
identify issues they have are important. They are also proposing a schedule for this process
and want to have a dialogue with the VVMC and the town on this project. They polled an
extensive number of people and what they view are issues for the VVMC projects. He said one
of the big issues is the operation of the helicopter. He gave the staff a copy of the FAA
regulations for helipads on hospitals. He said in the FAA rule making, a helipad in a
neighborhood is not advised. Neighborhood safety is important, and the VVMC need to be in
the process of having a helipad in the community not in the West Meadow Drive neighborhood.
He said the “back of house” issues are another area to focus on. He said when they do the
redevelopment of the U.S. Bank Building there is an opportunity to move the entire loading and
delivery function from West Meadow Drive to the South Frontage Road. He went through issues
the VHA had which included traffic studies done by the hospital instead of the town. He said the
Council has a responsibility to conduct this study instead of the applicant. The next concern is
how West Meadow Drive operates relative to traffic flow, pedestrian use, vehicles, skateboards,
bicycles, etc. He believes there is a need to build a roundabout off of the Frontage Road to the
hospital. The town and the VVMC have a responsibility to deal with traffic issues. The most
logical place for helipad is to be as close to the hospital as possible and said the helipad should
be at the new medical office building (MOB).
Donovan asked for clarification on the location of the bus barn, is he suggesting that the medical
office building be a temporary or permanent solution. Lamont said it would be up Council to
define.
Daly said he had a few questions for Lamont. He said the town has a regulatory responsibility
and the town is in partnership for the development of the shared parking between the town and
the MOB only. Lamont said the town should be responsible to do the traffic study and figure out
that maybe a roundabout is necessary. Daly clarified that the VVMC process is not well under
way and they are just starting the process and are at least nine months away from making any
applications to the town. He said the updates will be no less than once every other month and
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 9
having it in writing is a good idea. It will be part of the record and Council will read it ahead of
time so they can ask appropriate questions.
Lamont said he feels both sides of the VVMC projects on each side of the Frontage Road
should be considered as one. Daly said they are two distinct projects but they will look at the
traffic issues together. Zemler said CDOT will have it no other way. The town and CDOT will
have a say in this manner. In the PEC and Council process, CDOT input and the town’s
process is very apparent. Daly said the town is asking for regular updates from the VVMC and
will expand help expand to include the input process and this will be as encompassing as
possible. From the Council perspective this will be a very inclusionary process.
Lamont said there have been other projects that were highly volatile. He said the July 20th
document included the neighborhood concerns. The VHA is suggesting the VVMC continue
their dialogue with the neighbors and have a much more collegial and collaborative process.
Daly said he has his own copy of the FAA regulations. He asked the rest of the Council to
review these as well. In fairness, he said he should disclose his conflict of interest as a
neighborhood adjacent property owner. Lamont said his wife owns the home and not him but is
has fallen to him to bring to the Council the neighborhood concerns. Daly said the Council is
committed to having an inclusive, comprehensive and innovative process.
Yvonne Martins, a retired physician and a part time resident since 1984, said she is appreciative
of opening this up to the public. She has concerns about the helipad being adjacent to tall
buildings and being in a residential area. Her second concern is drawing people from the west
of the County and towns to the west of Vail. She wants to know the rationale of bringing them
into town when it is already congested.
Margy Kell, an Alphorn condominium owner, said she has a bird’s eye view of West Meadow
Drive. She said something serious is going to happen soon as there are so many different
types of vehicles, bicycles, strollers, pets, skateboards and pedestrians on that road. She has
never seen a police officer on Meadow drive or vehicles going the 15 mph speed limit. She
wants to underscore the seriousness of this issue. She sees close calls for accidents nearly
every day.
Jerry Worshovski, a Scorpio condominium owner, said most everything has been spoken of,
from his perspective, the hospital has taken care of all the walking wounded with the facilities
they have now. He sees Vail as a paradise not a business. For this community, the hospital
can take care of any needs but they don’t need to add additional trauma units. He is against the
whole process as he doesn’t think this will change anything. It won’t be good for the community.
It won’t do anything for the residents who are here full time or part time.
Daly said one question that remains is at the next work session, should they discuss whether a
traffic study should be implemented more quickly, be done by the town or the hospital and the
hospital should pay for it.
Moffet said doing a traffic study on a 15 mph study is tricky. He said historically, the state
doesn’t recognize those speed limits and that you should be careful what you ask for, as the
speed limit could go to 25 mph.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 10
Zemler said let staff go back and look at what has been done, look at signage and day-to-day
functioning. There may not be a need for a traffic study. They do have to be careful what they
ask for as it may increase the speed limit as the street might accommodate a higher speed limit
not a lesser speed limit. Staff will get back to Council with a report.
The sixth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012; the Vail
Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto; and Resolution No.
7, Series of 2012, amending Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub-Areas, East Gore Creek Sub-Area
(#6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail
Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse
(VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Bill Gibson, Planner, handed out new copies of Ordinance No. 2 with revisions as discussed at
the work session earlier in the day and Resolution No. 7, 2012. These are the most current
ordinance revisions. A vicinity map was included to be perfectly clear which properties are
included in this ordinance. He went through the amendments with Council.
Donovan asked if there was any feedback from people notified in the past two weeks. Gibson
said no response was received from anyone that notices were sent to via our public notice
process, emails and mail, about a week and a half ago. Further discussion ensued.
Gibson said changes to the parking and loading of one space per dwelling unit could be added
versus the 1.4 that is there currently. With 1.4 this is rounded up to 2 spaces per unit. Daly and
Rogers wanted to keep the status quo and keep it at 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit. Gibson said
staff is okay with keeping it status quo.
Moffet made a motion to approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2 with the amendments and
the exception of parking and loading section to keep it GRFA based and the motion was
seconded by Tjossem. Donovan said she is voting against it as supports the ordinance and
resolution as read but this is a pretty big switch in direction and doesn’t think they have given
folks adequate time to respond. Foley said he is voting against as he doesn’t think this will keep
the character of the neighborhood as it is.
Rogers said she did a walk through with Tjossem and Gibson. Gibson answered all the
questions she had regarding keeping the character of the neighborhood. The design guidelines
are so strict that the character of the neighborhood will be preserved. She will be voting in
favor. Daly said kudos to Tjossem and Gibson for pursuing a solution to something that has
been in process for over two years. He can support this whole heartedly.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-2, Foley and Donovan opposed.
Moffet made a motion to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, and the motion was
seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and passed unanimously 6-0.
The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion on the Main Vail Fire Station 2 bid award.
Mark Miller said thanked the Council for going on the site visit to the Fire Station 2. Miller said
the renovation of Fire Station 2 has been discussed and deferred for many years. Station 2 is
significantly beyond its useful life in regards to basic infrastructure and systems and in need of
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 11
substantial repairs and maintenance. There is $1.75 million in the 2013 budget as part of the
five year capital plan for renovation of Fire Station 2. Council approved $150,000 in 2012 for
design and engineering, etc. Due to several significant projects including; municipal building
construction, golf course clubhouse renovation, library renovation, etc., it has become apparent
that moving the station renovation to 2012 would be prudent and advantageous for the town. In
June, Council gave direction to move forward with final design and construction drawings and
proceed with the bid process. Plans and approvals were completed and, staff solicited bids for
construction, receiving six competitive bids. All of the bids exceeded the initial “preconstruction”
estimates of approximately $1,400,000. Staff determined the lowest qualifying bidder was GE
Johnson Construction Company. GE Johnson was asked to provide value engineering (VE)
proposals for the town to consider and staff carefully reviewed areas that could lower costs
without reducing quality and longevity of the structure. The bid from GE Johnson was
$1,619,505. Approximately $35,000 was cut through the value engineering process in the short
time frame they had to work with at this point. They are asking for the Council to direct the Town
Manager to enter into a contract with GE Johnson for the renovation of Fire Station 2 for the
amount of $1,584,505 based on accepted value engineering items and move the $1,750,000
budget in 2013 be moved to 2012, bringing the total project budget to $1,900,000 which is over
$150,000 over the original budget amount. There is a six to seven month window of
opportunity to get this project done.
Donovan made a motion to direct the Town Manager to enter into a contract with GE Johnson
for the renovation of Fire Station 2 for the amount of $1,584,505 with the suggested
amendments and based on accepted value engineering items and move the $1,750,000 budget
in 2013 be moved to 2012, bringing the total project budget to $1,900,000; and the motion was
seconded by Rogers.
Moffet said for the record, they walked the site and the town has squeezed every ounce of use
out of the building. Rogers said moving the timing up to 2012 construction period as it falls
nicely in timing with all the other projects so it makes sense to do it now. Daly asked that staff
continue to work with GE Johnson to reduce the $150,000 that is over budget.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
The eighth item on the agenda was an update on the status of Ford Park Budget Phase 1 bid
results and a request to award the Ford Park Phase 1 construction contract to R.A. Nelson, Inc.
Greg Hall, Public Works Director, stated through the spring of 2012, they went through the
development plan for Ford Park. Looking at all the phases, in June they identified that there
were budget issues with some of the items. The original budget was $6.3 million, with $3.8
million coming from conference center funds and $2.5 million with existing RETT dollars.
Construction drawings were done in the summer and they received four bids and all four bids
were higher than the original cost estimates. There have been more RETT dollars identified to
use toward this project since the East Vail bike lanes project came in lower than anticipated and
RETT funds could be used from that project. Hall said work in Phase 1 includes a west outfield
wall, setting up the project for moving the restrooms, working on the East Betty Ford Way path
from the east parking lot down to the amphitheater, adding a major retaining wall. He said the
most costly would be the utility work. He said the utility work is about a million dollars which is a
significant change from the budget which was budgeted at $100,000. He said $1.3 million of the
cost could be budgeted in 2013 and 2014. Phase 1 would be done in 2012, Phase 2 in 2013
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 12
and Phase 3 in 2014. Hall said through value engineering, they identified small items to reduce
costs; East Betty Ford Way reducing traffic and making it one way. Timing of each phase was
discussed, keeping access from at least one way open at all times. Doing work in the fall is best
as spring can be very wet.
Rogers and Donovan asked about the artificial turf in the softball fields. Donovan said she
remembered the discussions about artificial turf and thought they had made a decision not to
use it. There were several discussions around artificial turf. She remembered that they said
injuries were higher, couldn’t hold events on it, the maintenance would be greater and artificial
turf wasn’t “Vail”.
Mike Ortiz, Director of the Vail Recreation District (VRD) said they aren’t putting in an artificial
turf; they are putting in artificial interior fields. He explained the difference between artificial turf
and a skinned infield. Ortiz said the whole idea for redoing the fields was to have a multi-
purpose field where multiple sports could be played on it. He said we can’t have a skinned
infield (a dirt infield) and have multiple sports. He said there is a lip from the infield to the
outfield and this isn’t safe for other sports. When you have artificial turf on the infield, it creates
a safety area and the transition is smoother. He said after the La Crosse tournaments play on
the fields, the fields are torn up. Then you ask people to play softball on torn up turf and people
get hurt. This is dangerous and this is a safety issue.
Moffet asked that then the idea is to have a synthetic infield and natural turf on the outfield.
Ortiz said yes. Moffet asked if there were other places that had this type of field. Ortiz said
there is a complex in Denver that has three fields set up that way. Moffet said he is a fan of
synthetic. He asked why you wouldn’t do the whole thing. Ortiz said cost is the factor for not
doing the whole thing. Rogers asked why you can’t do this for the whole field for natural turf.
Ortiz said you can’t play softball on a whole natural turf field. Further discussion ensued.
Zemler said since this is not being done this year, maybe they do a field trip and get more
information to Council as there is confusion about the differences. Ortiz said he has pictures,
testimonials from people who use it and could do a field trip.
Daly said Phase I is where they need to spend their time this evening. He asked Hall to talk
about the utilities since this is a big budget breaker.
Hall asked Mark Luna to talk about what is existing and what is proposed.
Mark Luna with Martin/Martin, civil engineers for the project, said the cost to get a fire services
to the Betty Ford Alpine Garden (BFAG) proposed building is $100,000. He said currently there
is only one water line into the park at this time. The addition of another line allows for two water
lines into the park.
Daly asked why the town is paying for the hydrant for the BFAG if it is directly contributable to
the gardens building. Luna said this line also supplies water to other parts of the park. If the
current water line goes down, all water service to all parts of the park go down.
Hall said this new line would service the new restrooms as well. The line doesn’t go down all
the way to the BFAG building. The loop completion would be completed when they build the
BFAG building. They have phased the water line to be done with the sewer line. The water and
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 13
sewer cost is approximately $500,000 to complete. Further discussion ensued about the sewer
lines, water lines and where they need to go, deterioration of current lines, drainage, fitting three
service utilities in one pathway, etc.
Ortiz said when service goes down in the park for water, due to only having one line that is a
real deal. This summer there was a break and they almost lost the turf. Todd Oppenheimer
explained the electrical systems, which is the other large cost of utility work. He explained the
current electrical services are not up to code and substandard. They will be relocating
transformers; they will be adding transformers, adding 50 new lighting fixtures as well as
controls to operate the lights. They would like to be able to dim them but this is not added in the
costs at this time. The cost for this is about $446,000. The work will be done by Holy Cross
and the town will have to pay for it. The two transformers may cost another $200,000. Hall said
storm sewer work make up the rest of the cost of $135,000. This is part of the Phase 1 portion
and there is also storm sewer costs in Phase 2 as well.
Foley asked if we do electrical and water now, would the park have to be dug up again anytime
soon.
Hall said not for a while, once this work is completed it shouldn’t be dug up again until the
playground restroom is done. Additional work will need to be done when the Phase 2 and
Phase 3 projects move forward. Also there may be some work when the BFAG project and the
amphitheater projects are ready to go. The Vail Valley Foundation and the BFAG are doing
fundraising for their projects so that may take some time.
Daly said the proposed budget is now up from $7.5 million to $8.5 or about 25% for Phase 1.
He wanted to know what guarantees will the Council have that this won’t happen with Phases 2
and 3. Moffet asked what have we learned so we don’t do this again.
Hall said utilities were a big issue. Staff is looking at reasonable tie-ins with utilities and with
estimates and having a Phase 1 contractor, the plans are further along. There are cost savings
by doing all this work now. He said his concern is that in 2013 and 2014, if construction picks
up, the cost may go up. He said civil work is still competitive. Moffet asked if there are any
additional surprises. Hall said the existing concrete block on field side is not in the estimate and
is not in great shape and may be a significant cost. Moffet said to build it in. Daly asked why
the town wouldn’t get VRD to pay for the artificial turf.
Ortiz said the town could ask the VRD to pay for part of it and the VRD could make payments to
the town. The town could ask for it if they choose to.
Daly summarized the costs and asked the rest of the Council if they are willing to add additional
funds in this project from RETT funds. Further discussion ensued.
Moffet made a motion to award the Ford Park Phase 1 construction contract to R.A. Nelson, Inc.
for $4,737,338 as stated in Option 1 of the memorandum. The motion was seconded by Foley.
A two minute break was taken.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 14
Zemler stated he wanted to be sure everyone understands by making this allocation today this
still is true and whole and within the parameters of what the voters have agreed upon. This fall
the Vail Valley Foundation (VVF) will start implementing some of their projects.
Jack Hunn, with the VVF, said their Phase 1 of their project is out to bid now and three weeks
out from knowing what the costs are. They are hoping they don’t have the same budget
challenges as they want to start construction beginning September 24, 2012.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
The ninth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 25, Series of 2012, A Resolution calling a
special election for November 6, 2012, to be Coordinated with Eagle County, and submitting
ballot questions to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the November 6, 2012
Coordinated Election.
Matt Mire, Town Attorney, stated the Council determined that several changes to the Vail Town
Charter were warranted. All amendments to the Vail Town Charter must be approved by the
registered electors of the Town at a regular or special election. Mire reviewed each of the ballot
questions with Council. Additional discussion was had on item number 4, regarding percentages
of referendum and initiative needed to add something to the town’s ballot. The state
percentages would be a lesser percentage than the town’s current percentages. Another item
was the split for budget requirements for capital projects and the general fund on whether it
should be by ordinance versus charter as the charter does not have a specific split in the
language.
Moffet had more questions on the date of elections. Mire will research this further and take
another look at this. Mire said September 4 is the last date that the town can approve ballot
questions and submit them to the County by September 7th, to be included in the November
election.
The other item was to keep the percentages of signatures needed per the existing town charter
for initiative and referendums but clean up the language for the procedural items. Foley asked
how you get this information out to the public. Mire said that the town a resolution they can
adopt to explain the changes.
Rogers said the item regarding the split allocation of the capital funds and the general fund
should be done by ordinance. It is not a good idea to keep it in the charter as it is not clear
about the specific split and cannot be changed except by voters. The Council is still be bound
by ordinance to approve the budget. The council has always had a super majority vote on the
budget. This could still be done by ordinance. If circumstances change in future, it gives
council flexibility to change as they still have the same analysis process. It gives the Council
flexibility they otherwise wouldn’t have.
They would still have to have a super majority.
Moffet said this doesn’t belong in the charter, it’s messy and it’s not clear.
Mire said the split has been a compilation of various ordinances and discussions through the
years; this is not in the charter.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 15
Daly said he will represent the opposing view. He said there have been things amended
through the years in the constitution and it can be appropriate. This concept has served us well.
He thinks that a fundamental of budgeting is better not to change things easily. If there needs to
be change there are mechanisms in place to allow for that. He said he wants to propose a more
conservative approach by considering the foundation that they rely on year after year, are more
stabilizing and why they have large budget fund balances now. By changing to make it easier to
change percentages will not serve the town.
Rogers said the past language doesn’t say anything about a 50/50 split. Daly said they have
been living by this idea and directed by the charter that split sales tax revenue on a 50/50 basis.
Moffet said it was an interesting point, but the language isn’t in the charter and the Council is
still following the split closely. Rogers said the budget could be approved by super majority.
Council is allowing two or three people to hold up the whole process. If there is anything less
than a simple majority, there could be blocks if people say don’t approve the budget unless you
do what they say. Daly said that is a possibility. The charter does provide that the prior budget
year stays the same in that case. Further discussion ensued.
Moffet he would rather see it in an ordinance. Tjossem said she feels just because we have
always done it the same doesn’t mean you should keep doing it. She thinks it would be better
to go to an ordinance and this is the right time to clean it up so all current and future Council
members get this right. It doesn’t make sense that this be in the charter anymore. Donovan
said generally people want to have the 50/50 reflected in an ordinance. She said there could be
five votes for that. She said they are avoiding the option to doing away with 9.4 in its entirety or
leaving some language in the charter. She said to strike Section 9.4 entirely, leave as it or
change it.
Daly asked if there were four people in favor of having this by ordinance. Tjossem, Rogers,
Moffet and Foley raised their hands in favor of doing this by ordinance. Daly and Donovan
opposed.
Further discussion ensued about how to proceed, about whether to strike section 9.4 in it’s
entirely, or changes the charter language; find the right balance of language in the charter and
by ordinance. Mire will bring back new language at the September 4 meeting in a resolution.
Daly reviewed the ballot questions again and Mire will bring back a resolution with the changes.
“Safety language” will be proposed that may be added to the charter regarding the capital and
general fund issue. The Council has a September 4th deadline to approve final ballot language
questions
The tenth item on the agenda was Ever Vail.
Staff requested Council continue the major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, and 9, Series
of 2011 to the September 18, 2012 public hearing.
Moffet made a motion to continue the major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, and 9, Series
of 2011 to the September 18, 2012 public hearing and the motion was seconded by Donovan.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail August 21, 2012 Minutes Page 16
The eleventh item on the agenda was adjournment.
As there was no further business, Moffet made a motion to adjourn and the motion was
seconded by Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The
meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attest: __________________________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
________________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager Report:
1) Timber Ridge Discussion - Stan Zemler
2) Synthetic Infields at Ford Park - Todd Oppenheimer
ATTACHMENTS:
Approved June 19, 2012 Town Council Meeting Minutes
Ford Park Update
Ford Park 1
Ford Park 2
Ford Park 3
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
To: Vail Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Vail Recreation District
Date: February 19, 2013
Subject: Ford Park request to include Synthetic Turf
I. SUMMARY
The purpose of this discussion is to request approval from the Town Council to include
a Hybrid Sport Field System in the completion of the Phase 1 Ford Park Improvements
scheduled to begin in September 2013. A Hybrid Sport Field System includes natural
turf outfields combined with synthetic turf infields, along with subgrade and subsurface
drainage systems, to create a safe, uniform and consistent playing surface.
II. BACKGROUND
The Ford Park Management Plan Update was approved by the PEC on April 9, 2012
and adopted by resolution of the Town Council on April 17, 2012. The Ford Park Phase
1 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit were approved by the PEC on May 21,
2012.
The athletic field realignment, as it is referred to in the Updated Management Plan,
includes the expansion of the field area by relocating the restroom/concession facility,
and east parking lot and construction of a retaining wall at the south west corner of the
existing fields. The expansion allows for 3 full size softball fields or 2 full size
soccer/lacrosse fields. The new restroom/concession building and outfield retaining
wall are well underway and will be completed by June 1, 2013. The space available for
the expanded fields requires the soccer/lacrosse layouts to cross over and utilize the
softball infield areas.
The use of synthetic turf in Ford Park was omitted from the approval of the update to the
Ford Park Management Plan and subsequent Phase 1 Ford Park Development Plan by
the Town Council to allow staff an opportunity to gather additional information. If the
Town Council determines a Hybrid Sport Field System is appropriate, staff will proceed
through the Design Review Board required approval and incorporate the system into the
final construction documents. The estimated budget for the Hybrid Sport Turf System
including fencing is $1.22 M.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 2
III. EFFECTS ON TOURNAMENT PLAY
The Vail Recreation District (VRD) is responsible for establishing and promoting the
numerous sport tournaments and local recreation league paly which utilize the Ford
Park Sport Fields. Sport tournaments such as the Lacrosse Shoot Out and 3 on 3
Soccer are significant economic generators for the town. VRD staff has been in
communication with the event organizers over the last several months. In the past,
softball infields at Ford Park have been constructed of a specialty mix of sand and clay
(dirt) materials. It is prepared by VRD staff for each day that games are scheduled.
The transition between the dirt infields and the natural turf outfields is a significant
concern to the tournament organizers. Even with regular maintenance there can be a
lip which creates a trip hazard and causes erratic ball bounces which can cause injury.
Sport tournament organizers have communicated their concerns to the VRD staff and
would likely withdraw their events from Vail if the dirt infields were to be reconstructed.
Please refer to Attachment 1.
Synthetic turf, know as “Turf” in the industry, is the preferred surface by the Lacrosse
and 3 on 3 event organizers. Please see the correspondence addressed to the VRD in
regards to the use of Turf in Ford Park. Attachment 1 also contains photographs of the
existing dirt infields to illustrate the concerns in regards to the existing unsafe transition
between the dirt infields and natural turf outfields.
IV. COMMON SPORT FIELD CONSTRUCTION
Hybrid Sport Fields (natural turf outfields - synthetic turf infields) have become common
place throughout the country. Today they are considered to the state-of-the-art and are
included in the most facilities that market intensely for national and regional softball and
little league tournaments. Hybrid Sport Filed Systems and preferred by facility
managers, organizers, coaches and players. The fields are safe, easier and less
expensive to maintain, drain quickly when wet and hold up better to the intense use that
comes with tournament play. Sport Field designers and contractors know how to build
them and successfully create the seam between natural and synthetic turf surfaces to
be safe and permanent.
Please refer to Attachment 2.
Attachment 2 includes a discussion of factors supporting the benefits of synthetic turf
and testimonials from synthetic turf users.
Please refer to Attachment 3.
Attachment 3 includes documentation from Turf Solutions Group, a professional
design/build company specializing in synthetic and hybrid sport turf installations. The
documentation is in regards to a recent, successful hybrid sport turf complex project in
Newberry, Florida. There are similarities between all hybrid sport turf installations and
while the species of natural turf will vary at Ford Park, the installation techniques will be
the similar.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 3
Synthetic turf is manufactured in a variety of colors and nap heights customizable to an
organizations particular needs and type of play. Staff will present some color material
samples from one manufacturer, Astroturf, at the Town Council session. Final material,
nap height and color selection will require additional coordination with the
manufacturers and installers later in the process.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff generally try’s to lay out options for the Town Council allowing the Council to make
informed decisions. In the case of a Hybrid Sport Field System at Ford Park there are
not good options. To retain the economically important sport tournaments in Vail, staff
recommends the Town Council approve the inclusion of the Hybrid Sport Field System
in the completion of the Phase 1 Ford Park Improvements scheduled to begin in
September 2013. To facilitate the process a Request for Qualifications and a
subsequent Request for Proposals have been issued to select design/build firms to
begin the process of employing the services of a design - build contractor to help ensure
the field systems are properly designed and constructed. This contractor will work
concurrently with a general contractor, focusing only on the sport field related work.
With the councils permission to continue staff will interview potential firms in earl y
March and bring back a recommendation to award a design - build contract to the Town
Council for approval at the second meeting in March.
VI. ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL
Staff requests the Town Council approve the inclusion of the Hybrid Sport Field System
in the completion of the Phase 1 Ford Park Improvements scheduled to begin in
September 2013.
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the Vail Town Council to reconsider an encroachment into an
existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Vail Town Code. (Resolution No. 3, Series
of 2013)
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the
request to reconsider.
BACKGROUND: On February 5, 2013, the Vail Town Council considered a request for an
encroachment into an existing view corridor (Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013). Following a
site visit to the affected view point (V.P. #8) in Lionshead and a presentation by staff of the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's action approving the request, a
motion to approve Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013, failed due to a lack of majority vote (3-3).
That being the case, it is likely a motion denying said resolution would have failed due to a
lack of majority vote.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Town staff recommends the Vail Town Council grants the
request to reconsider action taken on Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013. Staff's
recommendation is based on the following factors:
The Vail Town Council members were evenly split on the motion. (3-3) The applicant was not
afforded an opportunity to make a full presentation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Cotton Top LLC Correspondence
2/19/2013
COTTON TOP LLC
520 E. Lionshead Circle, Vail, CO 81657
February 12, 2013
Town Council Members
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Lionshead Centre - View Corridor Encroachment
Dear Town Council members:
As you are aware from the meeting on held on February 4 with regard to the
minor encroachment into view corridor #8 on the west side of the Lionshead
Centre building, a motion to approve failed with a vote of 3 for and 3 against.
Since this motion failed, we have requested that the Town Council reconsider
our application.
At the meeting on February 4 our representatives were not afforded an
opportunity to present our request. We'd like our presentation to be made and
we believe that once the Town Council has an opportunity to see the
presentation that the outcome may be different. Both the DRB and PEC
benefited from seeing the full presentation which resulted in unanimous
approvals from both boards. The DRB evaluated the design of the proposed
building addition at two meetings and believed the design of all elevations was
appropriate. The PEC found specifically that the encroachment into the view
corridor was warranted and appropriate.
We are three owners within the Lionshead Centre that are taking the lead
within our association to invest and make improvements to the building.
Beyond the addition that is proposed, we are leading an exterior improvement
program including: pool area renovation, commercial upgrades, and improved
waste management containment.
With our support, the HOA recently hired 4240 to look at the building
comprehensively and recommend improvements.
2/19/2013
We hope to move forward with these improvements and request that you allow
us this first step.
We look forward to being able to present the proposal to the Town Council on
February 19.
Sincerely,
Jorge Esteve Recolons
Owner
Cotton Top LLC
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013 a resolution approving an encroachment into
an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View
Corridors, Vail Town Code to allow for the encroachment of an addition to the Lionshead
Centre Building into View Point #8, located at 520 East Lionhead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
PRESENTER(S): George Ruther
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with Modifications, or deny
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013.
BACKGROUND: View corridors have been established with the Town of Vail to maintain and
protect certain views to the surrounding area from public plazas and pedestrian ways.
Encroachments into existing view corridors are allowed when it can be determined that the
proposed encroachment does not negatively impact the intended purpose of the view corridor.
Three residential property owners within the Lionshead Centre Building are proposing to
complete residential additions to their dwelling units. The proposed additions encroach into
View Corridor #8. In order to construct the residential additions as proposed, the property
owners must first be granted permission by the Town of Vail to encroach upon the existing
view corridor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
(PEC) has granted an approval of the request for an encroachment into View Corridor #8. The
approval was granted based upon the review of the criteria and findings outlined in the
memorandum to the PEC dated, January 14, 2013.
Staff recommends the Vail Town Council upholds the approval of the PEC and grants an
approval of Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013, as read.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013
PEC Memo 1/14/13
Attachment A vicinity map
Attachment B proposed encroachment
Attachment C applicant's request
Attachment D DRB120433 approved plans
2/19/2013
1
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013
RESOLUTION NO. 3
Series of 2013
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENCROACHMENT INTO AN EXISTING VIEW
CORRIDOR, PURSUANT T O SECTION 12 -22-6, ENCROACHMENTS INT O EXISTING
VIEW CORRIDORS, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR THE ENCROACHMENT
OF AN ADDITION TO THE LIONSHEAD CENTRE BUILDING INTO VIEW POINT #8,
LOCATED AT 520 EAST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE/LOT 5, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIONSHEAD
FILING 1, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. (PEC120047)
Whereas, on August 4, 1992, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 18, Series
of 1992, which, in part, established Chapter 18.73 (now known as 12-22), View Corridors, Vail
Town Code, for the purpose of protecting views within the Town of Vail. This chapter of the
Town’s zoning regulations has subsequently been amended numerous times; and,
Whereas, on December 15, 1998, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 14,
Series of 1998, establishing the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan which included a
recommendation to preserve certain public views, including a view from the pedestrian mall
looking directly south up the gondola lift line; and,
Whereas, on August 6, 200 2, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 16, Series
of 2002, establishing the View Point #8 (formerly know as Lionshead view corridor #2); and,
Whereas, on November 18, 2008, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 2008, which, in part, amended View Point #8 to reflect the construction of the Arrabelle
development project which frames the west boundaries of View Point #8; and,
WHEREAS, Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Zoning
Regulations, Vail Town Code, sets forth the procedures for review of applications to encroach
into existing view corridors; and,
Whereas, according to the Eagle County Assessor, the Lionshead Centre Building was
constructed in 1970; and,
W HEREAS, owners of real property in the Lionshead Centre Building have submitted an
application to encroach into an existing view corridor to allow for an 803 square foot residential
addition to Units 208, 308 and 309 of the Lionshead Centre Building; and,
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2013 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on the application to allow for an encroachment into an
existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into View Corridors, Vail
Town Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval (6-0-0), with conditions, for the proposed view corridor
encroachment to the Vail Town Council; and,
2/19/2013
2
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2013
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the applicant has
demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets all of the criteria
listed in Section 12-22-6 (C) of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail; and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the encroachment is
consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in
the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town;
and,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the encroachment
promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the
coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and
enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of the highest quality.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
SECTION 1. APPROVAL
An encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6,
Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
encroachment of a residential addition into View Point #8, at the Lionshead Centre
Building, located at 520 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1,
(PEC12004) is hereby approved subject to Section 2, Conditions of Approval, herein.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Approval of this encroachment into an existing view corridor is specific to the
design review application for a residential addition to Units 208, 308, and 309, Lionshead
Centre Building, Town of Vail, as approved by the Design Review Board on December 5,
2012. (DRB120433)
2. Approval of this encroachment into an existing view corridor shall become null
and void upon the demo/rebuild, as defined by Chapter 12-2, Definitions, Vail
Town Code, of the Lionshead Centre Building.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Vail held this 5th day of February, 2013.
__________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
2/19/2013
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 14, 2013
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for
an encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6,
Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
encroachment of an addition to the Lionshead Centre Building into View Point #8,
located at 520 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120047)
Applicant: Jorge Esteve, Javier Barrios, and Lucilia DeLaLama, represented
by Suman Architects and Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Bill Gibson
I. SUMMARY
The applicants, Jorge Esteve, Javier Barrios, and Lucilia DeLaLama, represented by
Suman Architects and Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting the review of an
application to allow for the encroachment of an addition to the Lionshead Centre
Building into the adjacent View Point #8.
Based upon Staff’s review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, for this view corridor encroachment
application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Pursuant to Section 12-22-4, Adopted View Corridors, Vail Town Code, the subject
View Point #8 protects “a view from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse
Lodge looking south directly up the gondola lift line.” The existing Lionshead Centre
Building frames the eastern side of this view corridor and the Arrabelle Hotel frames the
western side of the view corridor.
The applicants are proposing an 803 sq.ft. (originally proposed as an 859 sq.ft.) addition
to Units 208, 308, and 309 of the Lionshead Centre Building. The proposed addition is
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 2
located at the rear (south) of the existing building and extends the existing western
exterior wall of the Lionshead Centre Buidling south toward the adjacent ski yard.
Although the proposed addition is located at the rear (south) of the Lionshead Centre
Building, the proposed addition will impact View Point #8 because the west façade of
the existing Lionshead Center Building and View Point #8 are not precisely parallel.
The exterior wall of the subject addition is proposed to extend one foot and three inches
(1’-3”) into the view corridor and the associated roof eave is proposed to extend two feet
of seven eighths of an inch (2’-07/8”) into the view corridor.
A vicinity map (Attachment A), proposed view corridor encroachment (Attachment B),
the applicant’s request (Attachment C), and the associated, design review approved
architectural plans (Attachment D) have been attached for review and inclusion in the
record.
III. BACKGROUND
According to the Eagle County Assessor, the Lionshead Centre Building was
constructed in 1970. On October 15, 1970, a condominium map of the constructed
Lionshead Centre Building was recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
On August 4, 1992, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992,
which in part established Chapter 18.73 (now known as 12-22), View Corridors, Vail
Town Code, for the purpose of protecting views within the Town of Vail. This chapter of
the Town’s zoning regulations has subsequently been amended numerous times.
On December 15, 1998, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 14, Series of
1998, which established the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This master plan
included a recommendation to preserve certain public views, including a view from the
pedestrian mall looking directly south up the gondola lift line.
On August 6, 2012, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2002,
which established the subject View Point #8 (formerly know as Lionshead view corridor
#2).
On November 18, 2008, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 23, Series of
2008, which in part amended the subject View Point #8 to reflect the construction of the
Arrabelle development project which frames the west boundaries of View Point #8.
On December 5, 2012, the Design Review Board approved the accompanying design
review application for the subject addition to the Lionshead Centre Building
(DRB120433) by a vote of 4-0-0 with a condition of approval that:
“This design review approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of
Vail approval of the associated view corridor encroachment/amendment
application.”
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 3
IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES
Planning and Environmental Commission:
The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding the
Town Council a recommendation on any view corridor encroachment or
amendment application, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-22, View
Corridors, Vail Town Code.
Design Review Board:
The Design Review Board has no review authority over a view corridor
encroachment or amendment application. However, the Design Review Board is
responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any
accompanying design review application.
Town Council:
The Town Council is responsible for the final approval, approval with
modifications, or denial of a view corridor encroachment or amendment
application. The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from
any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental
Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a
decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review
Board under certain conditions.
V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
VAIL LAND USE PLAN
CHAPTER II: LAND USE PLAN GOALS / POLICIES (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 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.
The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as
follows:
1. General Growth / Development
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 4
1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the
visitor and the permanent resident.
1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
4. Village Core / Lionshead
4.2. Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
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.
5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a
full range of housing types.
CHAPTER VI: PROPOSED LAND USE (IN PART)
LRMP Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this
land use category shall be encouraged to redevelop, per the Master Plan
recommendations, as it has been found that it is necessary in order for Vail to remain a
competitive four-season resort. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to
encourage a safe, convenient and an aesthetically-pleasing guest experience. The
range of uses and activities appropriate in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
(LRMP) land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base
facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, open spaces, parking and
loading/delivery facilities/structures, public utilities, residential, lodges, accommodation
units, deed restricted employee housing, retail businesses, professional and business
offices, personal services, and restaurant uses.
LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
4.4 PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDORS
On May 20, 1997, recognizing the importance of visual connections, the Vail Town
Council approved the use of the existing Town of Vail view corridor ordinance to
designate the first protected public view corridors in Lionshead. In order to qualify for
protection under the Town’s ordinance, a view corridor must meet the following criteria:
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 5
a. Is the view critical to the identity, civic pride, and sense of place of
Lionshead? A nice view is not sufficient.
b. Is the view seen from a widely used, publicly accessible viewpoint? Views
from private property cannot be recognized or protected by this ordinance.
c. Is the view threatened? Is there a possibility that development on nearby
property would block the view?
It is critical to note that the following recommended public view corridors will create a
development constraint that will work with all other applicable development and
regulatory guidelines and standards. The suggested location and outline of any view
corridor is not intended to create a “build-to” line for a vertical architectural edge that
would not be allowed under other applicable guidelines and standards. According to
these criteria and following an intensive public input process, protection of the following
public view corridors is recommended (see Map O):
4.41 Public View Corridors Protected under the Town of Vail View Corridor Ordinance
It is proposed that two legally protected view corridors be established according to
existing Town of Vail code:
4.412 View Corridor Two
This view corridor (see figure 4-2) is seen from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of
the Lifthouse Lodge, looking south directly up the gondola lift line. This view fulfills the
following criteria:
a. It fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead.
b. It is taken from a commonly used, publicly accessible viewpoint.
The mountain view from this point is currently very broad, crossing much of the Vail
Associates core site. As part of the redevelopment of the Vail Associates core site this
view corridor should become narrower and more focused on the new gondola terminal.
Given the current lack of a defining architectural edge, the dimensions of this corridor
should roughly correspond to the suggested view boundaries outlined in figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2: Public View Corridor Two
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 6
TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 12-21: VIEW CORRIDORS (IN PART)
12-22-1: PURPOSE:
The town believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the town's residents
and guests. Specifically, the town believes that:
A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other
significant views from various pedestrian public ways within the town will foster
civic pride and is in the public interest of the town.
B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the
enjoyment and environmental enrichment for the residents and guests of the
town.
C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the town's unique
environmental heritage and attributes.
D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic
vitality and values of the town.
E. The preservation of such views is intended to promote design which is
compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment, and is intended to
provide for natural light to buildings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view
corridors.
F. The preservation of such views will include certain focal points such as the
Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks within
Vail village and contribute to the community's unique sense of place.
12-22-3: LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION:
No part of a structure shall be permitted to encroach into any view corridor set forth in
this chapter unless an encroachment is approved in accordance with section 12-22-6 of
this chapter.
12-22-4: ADOPTION OF VIEW CORRIDORS:
Photographs on record with the department of community development and the
following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors
protecting views within the town. The photographs taken represent the boundaries
defined by the legal descriptions. The camera used to take the photographs was held
five and four-tenths feet (5.4') above the instrument, which is approximate eye level for
most adults. A thirty five millimeter (35 mm) camera was used for each photograph;
however, once developed, some photographs were cropped or enlarged to improve the
graphic representation of each view corridor.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 7
G. View Point #8: A view from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse
Lodge (555 E. Lionshead Circle) looking south directly up the gondola lift line.
1. Purpose: To protect the views of Vail Mountain from the core of the Lionshead area.
2. Survey Control: Based on published material from town of Vail GPS control map.
Points Spraddle and 1766 were used for this survey. Bearings reported below are tied
to this control.
3. Instrument; View Point #8: A 21/2 inch diameter aluminum monument, flush in brick
pavers, stamped View 8.
4. Backsight: A 21/2 inch diameter aluminum monument, which bears S84°22'18"W a
distance of 164.53 feet. Located flush on top of the stone wall running east to west in
front of the Montauk Deck east of the main entrance, stamped CP Montauk.
5. Height Of Survey Instrument Above View Point #8: 5.03 feet (to match previous
height before streetscape).
6. Table:
Horizontal
Angle
Zenith
Angle Foresight Point On Photo As Of July 8, 2008
267°00'33" 79°08'15" A - intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined
by the southerly roof line on the Vail Lionshead Centre
Condominiums, 520, E. Lionshead Circle
266°52'31" 85°10'55" B - intersection of a lower roof at the westerly end and
the westerly building wall of the Vail Lionshead Centre
Condominiums
268°09'29" 85°55'59" C - westerly end of the lower roof on the westerly end of
the Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums
267°50'34" 87°46'40" D - intersection of the red awning and the westerly wall
of the Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums
269°10'34" 87°51'15" E - top westerly corner of red awning
269°10'34" 88°28'56" F - point of intersection of the red awning and the main
level roofline on the westerly end of the Vail Lionshead
Centre Condominiums
271°54'54" 88°28'56" G - point of intersection of a line projected from View
Point F across the Eagle Bahn Gondola ski yard to the
support post of the sloped roof of the terrace on the 1st
level along the east side of the Arrabelle at Vail Square
281°17'48" 87°51'18" H - underside intersection of sloped roof and the support
post of the terrace on the 1st level on the east side of
Arrabelle at Vail Square
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 8
280°52'19" 87°46'16" I - underside of sloped roof of the terrace on the 1st
level on the east side of Arrabelle at Vail Square
280°42'31" 87°24'36" J - top edge of overhang/beginning of sloped roof of the
terrace at the 1st level on the east side of the Arrabelle
at Vail Square
281°30'24" 87°06'00" K - intersection of sloped roof of the terrace at the 1st
level and the east wall of the Arrabelle at Vail Square
281°31'32" 79°37'37" L - intersection of the east wall of the Arrabelle at Vail
Square and the bottom outer edge of the concrete deck
on the 6th level of the Arrabelle at Vail Square
281°09'32" 79°02'30" M - top outer edge of concrete deck on the 6th level of
the Arrabelle at Vail Square
O - line projected from View Point M straight up to the
horizon line of Vail Mountain
The following are permitted within view corridor #8: drain pipes; roof snow
fences; streetlights; decorative outdoor lights/lighting; ski lifts/tows and
appurtenances; ski area installations and appurtenances, e.g., signs, fencing;
other items not comprising the structure of the building; all structures permitted
under this code contained within the following described parcels:
Parcels A and B, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing;
Units A and B, Lot 5, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing;
Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing (a.k.a. Beaver Dam Condominiums);
Parcels A and B, Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village Sixth Filing;
Units 1 and 2, House in Forest Condominiums;
Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Sixth Filing;
Lots 1 and 3, Forest Place Subdivision;
Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Village Third Filing.
12-22-6: ENCROACHMENTS INTO EXISTING VIEW CORRIDORS:
An application for approval to encroach into an existing view corridor may be initiated by
the town council on its own motion, by the planning and environmental commission on
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 9
its own motion, or by application of any resident or property owner in the town, or by the
administrator or his/her designee.
C. Criteria For Encroachment: No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be
permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the
encroachment meets all of the following criteria:
1. That the literal enforcement of section 12-22-3 of this chapter would preclude a
reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land.
2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be
such as to defeat the purposes of this chapter.
3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the
enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views.
4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable
elements of the Vail land use plan, town policies, urban design guide plans, and
other adapted master plans.
5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor
compromise the original purpose of the preserved view.
VI. SITE ANALYSIS – Lionshead Centre Building Addition
Address: 520 East Lionshead Circle
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1
Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1
Land Use Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Mapped Geological Hazards: None
Lot Area: 40,206 sq.ft. (0.92 acres)
Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed
Lot/Site Area: 10,000 sq.ft. buildable 40,206 sq.ft. no change
Setbacks:
North 10 ft. or per build-to-lines 11 ft. no change
East 10 ft. or per build-to-lines 43 ft. no change
West 10 ft. or per build-to-lines 4 ft. no change
South 10 ft. or per build-to-lines 0 ft. no change
Height: 82.5 ft. max/71 average 53 ft. max no change
GRFA: 100,515 sq.ft. (2.5 ratio) 28,781 sq.ft. 29,584 sq.ft.
or 33% more than existing (+803 sq.ft.)
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 10
Site Coverage: 28,144 sq.ft. (70%) 23,401 sq.ft. no change
or per master plan
Landscaping: 8,041 sq.ft. (20%) 8,039 sq.ft. no change
or per master plan
Parking: 26 26 no change
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA
Before acting on a view corridor encroachment, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposal:
1. That the literal enforcement of Section 12-22-3 of this chapter would preclude a
reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land.
The Lionshead Centre Building was constructed in 1970. The original construction of
this building pre-dates the Town’s 1998 adoption of view corridor recommendations in
the Lionhead Redeveloment Master Plan, the Town’s 2002 adoption of the subject View
Point #8, and the Town’s 2008 amendment to the western boundary of View Point #8 to
match the newly constructed facade of the Arrabelle Hotel.
The applicants are proposing an 803 sq.ft. addition to Units 208, 308, and 309 of the
Lionshead Centre Building. The proposed addition is located at the rear (south) of the
existing building and extends the existing western exterior wall of the Lionshead Centre
Buidling south toward the adjacent ski yard. Although the proposed addition is located
at the rear (south) of the Lionshead Centre Building, the proposed addition will impact
View Point #8 because the existing Lionshead Center Building and View Point #8 are
not precisely parallel. Units 208, 308, and 309 are the only residential units in the
Lionshead Centre affected by this circumstance. Other units in the building have the
opportunity for expansion without impacts from View Point #8.
In proposing to construct an addition to Units 208, 308, and 309, the western exterior
wall of the addition is proposed to extend 1’-3” into the view corridor and the associated
roof eave is proposed to extend 2’-07/8” into the view corridor. This 803 sq.ft. proposed
addition to Units 208, 308, and 309 of the Lionshead Centre Building increases the total
gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the building from 28,781 sq.ft. to 29,584 sq.ft..
This proposed GRFA is under the maximum GRFA of 100,515 sq.ft. allowed by
Article12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Vail Town Code. The proposed addition causes
no change to the existing setbacks, height, site coverage, landscaping area, or parking
of the Lionshead Centre Building.
Through its December 5, 2012, approval of the associated design review application
(DRB120433), the Design Review Board determined that the proposed addition to the
Lionshead Centre Building is in keeping with the character of the area and the scale and
bulk of the surrounding uses.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 11
Staff believes the proposed encroachment is minor in scope and does not block the
originally intended views of the gondola lift line and adjacent ski runs; and that the literal
enforcement of the view corridor restriction would preclude the applicants from
constructing reasonable additions to their existing residential units. Therefore, Staff finds
the proposed encroachment into an existing view corridor meets this review criterion.
2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be
such as to defeat the purposes of this chapter.
The proposed encroachment into View Point #8 includes an exterior wall encroachment
of 1’-3” and the associated roof eave encroachment of 2’-07/8” to facilitate the
construction of an addition to the rear of the subject building. Staff believes the
proposed encroachment is minor in scope and does not block the originally intended
views of the gondola lift line and adjacent ski runs.
Based upon a review of Section 12-22-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code:
Staff finds that the proposed encroachment into existing View Point #8 will not
diminish the civic pride or the public interest of the town.
Staff finds that the proposed encroachment will not detract from the enjoyment or
environmental enrichment of the existing view corridor for Vail’s residents or
guests.
Staff finds that the proposed encroachment will not weaken or eliminate the
town’s unique environmental heritage or attributes.
Staff finds that the proposed view corridor encroachment will not diminish the
aesthetics or economic vitality and values of the town.
Staff finds that the proposed encroachment maintains the existing character and
design of the Lionshead Centre Building which is compatible with the surrounding
natural and built environment and provides adequate natural light to buildings
and public spaces in the vicinity.
Staff finds that the proposed encroachment continues to preserve views of the
landmark gondola ski line and adjacent ski runs that contribute to the
community’s sense of place.
Therefore, Staff finds the proposed encroachment into the existing view corridor does
not defeat the purposes of Section 12-22-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, as outlined in
Section V of this memorandum, and the proposed encroachment is consistent with this
review criterion.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 12
3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to
the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public
views.
As identified above, the proposed encroachment into View Point #8 includes an exterior
wall encroachment of 1’-3” and the associated roof eave encroachment of 2’-07/8” to
facilitate the construction of an addition to the rear of the subject building. Staff believes
the proposed encroachment is minor in scope. Due to the depth of the addition and
alignment of the existing building, the proposed addition does not block the originally
intended views of the gondola lift line and adjacent ski runs. Therefore, Staff finds the
proposed view corridor encroachment will not be detrimental to the enjoyment of the
public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public view consistent with this
review criterion.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The proposed encroachment into View Point #8 includes an exterior wall encroachment
of 1’-3” and the associated roof eave encroachment of 2’-07/8” to facilitate the
construction of an addition to the rear of the subject building. Staff believes the
proposed encroachment is minor in scope and does not block the originally intended
views of the gondola lift line and adjacent ski runs.
The 803 sq.ft. proposed addition to Units 208, 308, and 309 of the Lionshead Centre
Building increases the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the building from
28,781 sq.ft. to 29,584 sq.ft.. This proposed GRFA is under the maximum GRFA of
100,515 sq.ft. allowed by Article12-7H, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Vail Town Code. The
proposed addition causes no change to the existing setbacks, height, site coverage,
landscaping area, or parking of the Lionshead Centre Building.
Through its December 5, 2012, approval of the associated design review application
(DRB120433), the Design Review Board determined that the proposed addition to the
Lionshead Centre Building is in keeping with the character of the area and the scale and
bulk of the surrounding uses.
Therefore, Staff finds the proposed encroachment into View Point #8 is consistent with
this criterion.
5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor
compromise the original purpose of the preserved view.
As identified above, the proposed encroachment into View Point #8 includes an exterior
wall encroachment of 1’-3” and the associated roof eave encroachment of 2’-07/8” to
facilitate the construction of an addition to the rear of the subject building. Staff believes
the proposed encroachment is minor in scope and does not block the originally intended
views of the gondola lift line and adjacent ski runs. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 13
encroachment will not diminish the integrity or quality of the subject view corridor, nor
will the proposed encroachment compromise the original purspose of the preserved
view. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed encroachment to be consistent with this
review criterion.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning an Environmental
Commission forwards a recommendation of approval on an application for an
encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6,
Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
encroachment of an addition to the Lionshead Centre Building into View Point #8,
located at 520 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the
criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for this encroachment into an
existing view corridor, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission passes the following motion:
“The Planning and Environmental forwards the Vail Town Council a
recommendation of approval for an application for an encroachment into an
existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing
View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the encroachment of an addition to
the Lionshead Centre Building into View Point #8, located at 520 East Lionshead
Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.”
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for this encroachment into an
existing view corridor, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission recommends the following conditions:
“1. Approval of this encroachment into an existing view corridor is specific to the
associated design review application for an addition to Units 208, 308, and 309
Lionshead Centre, as approved by the Design Review Board on December 5,
2012 (DRB120433).
2. Approval of this encroachment into an existing view corridor shall become null
and void upon the demo/rebuild (as defined by Chapter 12-2, Definitions, Vail
Town Code) of the Lionshead Centre Building.”
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for this encroachment into an
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 14
existing view corridor, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections VII of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 14,
2013, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and
Environmental Commission finds:
The applicant has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the
encroachment into an existing view corridor meets all of the following criteria:
1. That the literal enforcement of Section 12-22-3, Limitations on
Construction, Vail Town Code, would preclude a reasonable development of
a proposed structure on the applicant's land.
2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not
be such as to defeat the purposes of this chapter.
3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental
to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or
public views.
4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable
elements of the Vail land use plan, town policies, urban design guide plans,
and other adapted master plans.
5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor
compromise the original purpose of the preserved view.”
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Proposed View Corridor Encroachment
C. Applicant’s Request
D. Design Review Approved Architectural Plans DRB120433
2/19/2013
I
!!!!
!!!!!
Subject Property
k
0 100 200Feet
L i o n s h e a d C e n t r eLionshead C e n t r e- V a i l L i o n s h e a d F i l i n g 1 , B l o c k 1 , L o t 5 -- V a i l L i o n s h e a d F i l i n g 1 , B l o c k 1 , L o t 5 -
(5 2 0 E a s t L i o n s h e a d C i r c l e )(5 2 0 E a s t L i o n s h e a d C i r c l e )
This map was crea ted b y th e Town of Vail GIS Tea m. Use of this map sh ould be for ge neral p urp ose s only. The Town o f Vail do es not warran t the accuracy of the information contained herein.(whe re sh own, parcel line wo rk is app ro ximate )
Last Modified: December 12, 2012
2/19/2013
P1!!!!!!!!!~ -
i ~ .
T ~
F',X
r
f ~~ .
p
t~ .::- .'
6F'
s'
3¢
i'
e ~, ~Fx ~' ° ~
P,
i ~ ~
ZjU11'
E •;u ,it
r ~~~
p~
rT~
r
NI
3
r ~
r~,~
t ~~
iii. ' ~, .'~~~,,.'', :.
S ~ ~~
I ~ ~
FI
1. ~ ~ ~_ ,
III'
Y
l
i ~
it
1
1~,_
I, ~ ~.
m ~~
i
i :,
i .
ri
yy ~.
Amended
View
Point #
8
8
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
LIONSHEAD
CENTRE
VIEW
CORRIDOR
ENCROACHMENT
Submitted
to
the
Town
of
Vail:
December
6,
2012
2/19/2013
Table
of
Contents
A.
Introduction
3
B.
Details
on
Proposed
Addition
4
C.
Background
on
View
Corridors
4
D.
Criteria
for
Review
6
E.
Adjacent
Property
Owners
10
F.
DRB
Action
Form
13
2 2/19/2013
A.
Introduction
Lionshead
Centre
is
located
at
520
E.
Lionshead
Circle.
The
owners
of
3
residential
units
within
Lionshead
Centre
-‐
Jorge
Esteve
(Unit
308),
Javier
Barrios
(Unit
208),
and
Lucila
DeLaLama
(Unit
309)
-‐
are
proposing
additions
to
their
dwellings.
It
is
a
total
of
859
sq.
ft.
of
GRFA
located
over
the
existing
footprint
of
Lionshead
Centre.
Following
a
conceptual
review
on
November
7,
the
DRB
application
for
the
proposal
was
approved
on
December
5
with
a
condition
that,
“This
design
review
approval
is
contingent
upon
the
applicant
obtaining
Town
of
Vail
approval
of
the
associated
view
corridor
encroachment/amendment
application.”
A
survey
of
the
view
corridor
was
conducted
and
indicates
that
the
addition
will
encroach
into
View
Corridor
#8
approximately
2
ft.
for
the
roof
and
1.16
ft.
for
the
wall
of
the
building.
The
survey
of
this
encroachment
is
provided
below,
along
with
a
photo
rendering
of
the
view
corridor
impact.
In
these
images,
the
red
indicates
the
existing
view
corridor,
while
the
yellow
indicates
the
area
of
encroachment.
As
indicated
in
the
survey
above,
the
view
corridor
does
not
run
parallel
with
the
existing
building
and
as
a
result,
there
is
a
slight
encroachment
into
the
corridor
where
the
proposed
addition
is
an
extension
of
the
plane
of
the
existing
wall.
However,
as
it
is
the
intent
of
this
view
corridor
to
3 2/19/2013
preserve
the
view
of
the
gondola
lift
line,
the
proposed
encroachment
maintains
the
integrity
of
the
view
corridor.
B.
Details
on
Proposed
Addition
Units
208,
308,
and
309
are
proposed
to
be
expanded
by
a
total
of
859
sq.
ft.
The
following
table
provides
a
square
footage
analysis
of
the
increase
in
sq.
ft.
to
each
unit:
Unit Additional
GRFA Description
Unit
208 344
sq.
ft.Bedroom
and
bathroom
addition
Unit
308 344
sq.
ft.Bedroom
and
bathroom
addition
Unit
309 115
sq.
ft.Addition
to
existing
bedroom
As
indicated,
the
additional
GRFA
to
each
unit
is
minimal
and
was
designed
to
match
similar
additions
that
have
occurred
over
the
years.
A
proposed
model
of
the
addition
is
provided
below,
indicating
the
existing
conditions
and
the
proposed
addition:
Existing
Conditions Proposed
Addition
C.
Background
on
View
Corridors
On
May
20,
1997,
recognizing
the
importance
of
visual
connections,
the
Town
Council
approved
the
use
of
the
existing
Town
of
Vail
view
corridor
ordinance
to
designate
the
first
protected
public
view
corridors
in
Lionshead.
In
order
to
qualify
for
protection
under
the
Town’s
ordinance,
a
view
corridor
was
required
to
meet
the
following
criteria:
1.Is
the
view
corridor
critical
to
the
identity,
civic
pride,
and
sense
of
place
in
Lionshead?
2.Is
the
view
seen
from
a
widely
used,
publicly
accessible
viewpoint.
3.Is
the
view
threatened?
Is
there
a
possibility
that
development
on
nearby
property
would
block
the
view?
The
Lionshead
Redevelopment
Master
Plan
identifies
this
view
corridor
as
View
Corridor
Two,
and
states
the
following:
4 2/19/2013
4.4.1.2
View
Corridor
Two
This
view
corridor
(see
figure
4-‐2)
is
seen
from
the
pedestrian
plaza
at
the
east
end
of
the
Lifthouse
Lodge,
looking
south
directly
up
the
gondola
lift
line.
This
view
fulfills
the
following
criteria:
a.It
fosters
civic
pride
and
is
central
to
the
identity
of
Lionshead.
b.It
is
taken
from
a
commonly
used,
publicly
accessible
viewpoint.
The
mountain
view
from
this
point
is
currently
very
broad,
crossing
much
of
the
Vail
Associates
core
site.
As
part
of
the
redevelopment
of
the
Vail
Associates
core
site
this
view
corridor
should
become
narrower
and
more
focused
on
the
new
gondola
terminal.
Given
the
current
lack
of
a
defining
architectural
edge,
the
dimensions
of
this
corridor
should
roughly
correspond
to
the
suggested
view
boundaries
outlined
in
figure
4-‐2.
Prior
to
the
redevelopment
of
the
Core
Site
into
Arrabelle
at
Vail
Square,
this
view
corridor
was
surveyed
and
adopted
in
2002.
Following
the
construction
of
the
Arrabelle,
the
view
corridor
was
amended
to
reflect
the
new
building,
and
was
surveyed
and
adopted
in
2008
as
View
Point
#8.
The
photo
of
View
Point
#8
is
provided
below:
5 2/19/2013
D.
Criteria
for
Review
Section
12-‐22-‐6:
Encroachments
into
Existing
View
Corridors,
provides
the
review
criteria
for
an
encroachment.
It
states
the
following:
Criteria
For
Encroachment:
No
encroachment
into
an
existing
view
corridor
shall
be
permitted
unless
the
applicant
demonstrates
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
the
encroachment
meets
all
of
the
following
criteria:
1.That
the
literal
enforcement
of
section
12-‐22-‐3
of
this
chapter
would
preclude
a
reasonable
development
of
a
proposed
structure
on
the
applicant's
land.
Applicant
Response:
The
view
corridor
disproportionately
affects
the
owners
of
208,
308,
and
309.
These
units
are
located
on
the
far
west
of
Lionshead
Centre
and
are
the
only
units
which
are
affected
by
the
view
corridor.
While
other
units
have
had
opportunity
for
expansion,
these
are
limited
by
the
view
corridor
to
do
similar
enclosures.
Due
to
the
configuration
of
Lionshead
Centre,
the
proposed
additions
are
in
the
only
location
available
to
the
owners
of
these
units.
By
not
allowing
this
encroachment,
the
owners
are
precluded
from
reasonable
development
of
their
units.
6 2/19/2013
2.That
the
development
of
the
structure
proposed
by
the
applicant
would
not
be
such
as
to
defeat
the
purposes
of
this
chapter.
Applicant
Response:
Section
12-‐22-‐1
of
the
Vail
Town
Code
provides
the
purposes
of
the
View
Corridor
chapter.
These
purposes
are
as
follows:
12-‐22-‐1:
PURPOSE:
The
town
believes
that
preserving
certain
vistas
is
in
the
interest
of
the
town's
residents
and
guests.
Specifically,
the
town
believes
that:
C.The
protection
and
perpetuation
of
certain
mountain
views
and
other
significant
views
from
various
pedestrian
public
ways
within
the
town
will
foster
civic
pride
and
is
in
the
public
interest
of
the
town.
D.It
is
desirable
to
designate,
preserve
and
perpetuate
certain
views
for
the
enjoyment
and
environmental
enrichment
for
the
residents
and
guests
of
the
town.
E.The
preservation
of
such
views
will
strengthen
and
preserve
the
town's
unique
environmental
heritage
and
attributes.
F.The
preservation
of
such
views
will
enhance
the
aesthetic
and
economic
vitality
and
values
of
the
town.
G.The
preservation
of
such
views
is
intended
to
promote
design
which
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
natural
and
built
environment,
and
is
intended
to
provide
for
natural
light
to
buildings
and
in
public
spaces
in
the
vicinity
of
the
view
corridors.
H.The
preservation
of
such
views
will
include
certain
focal
points
such
as
the
Clock
Tower
and
Rucksack
Tower,
which
serve
as
prominent
landmarks
within
Vail
village
and
contribute
to
the
community's
unique
sense
of
place.
Because
the
encroachment
is
minimal
(at
only
2
ft.
for
the
roof
and
1.16
ft.
for
the
building)
the
integrity
of
the
view
corridor
is
maintained.
The
view
corridor
is
intended
to
protect
the
view
of
the
gondola
lift
line
as
it
runs
up
Vail
Mountain
and
there
is
no
effect
to
this
view,
which
is
an
important
focal
point
in
Lionshead.
Because
the
request
is
for
an
encroachment
only,
as
opposed
to
an
amendment,
to
the
view
corridor,
if
Lionshead
Centre
were
ever
demolished,
the
existing
view
corridor
boundaries
would
need
to
be
maintained
with
any
new
construction.
As
a
result,
the
proposal
does
not
defeat
the
purposes
of
Chapter
22:
View
Corridors.
3.That
the
development
proposed
by
the
applicant
would
not
be
detrimental
to
the
enjoyment
of
public
pedestrian
areas,
public
ways,
public
spaces,
or
public
views.
Applicant
Response:
The
proposed
encroachment
would
be
imperceptible
to
the
public
from
any
public
pedestrian
areas,
public
ways,
public
spaces
or
public
views.
The
proposed
addition
matches
the
existing
wall
of
Lionshead
Centre
and
any
attempt
to
jog
the
building
would
create
an
architectural
error
which
would
be
more
noticeable
to
the
public.
4.That
the
development
proposed
by
the
applicant
complies
with
applicable
elements
of
the
Vail
land
use
plan,
town
policies,
urban
design
guide
plans,
and
other
adapted
master
plans.
7 2/19/2013
Applicant
Response:
The
Lionshead
Redevelopment
Master
Plan
provides
the
guidance
for
the
adoption
of
view
corridors
in
Lionshead.
The
Master
Plan
provides
the
following:
4.4
Public
View
Corridors
On
May
20,
1997,
recognizing
the
importance
of
visual
connections,
the
Vail
Town
Council
approved
the
use
of
the
existing
Town
of
Vail
view
corridor
ordinance
to
designate
the
first
protected
public
view
corridors
in
Lionshead.
In
order
to
qualify
for
protection
under
the
Town’s
ordinance,
a
view
corridor
must
meet
the
following
criteria:
a.Is
the
view
critical
to
the
identity,
civic
pride,
and
sense
of
place
of
Lionshead?
A
nice
view
is
not
sufficient.
b.Is
the
view
seen
from
a
widely
used,
publicly
accessible
viewpoint?
Views
from
private
property
cannot
be
recognized
or
protected
by
this
ordinance.
c.Is
the
view
threatened?
Is
there
a
possibility
that
development
on
nearby
property
would
block
the
view?
It
is
critical
to
note
that
the
following
recommended
public
view
corridors
will
create
a
development
constraint
that
will
work
with
all
other
applicable
development
and
regulatory
guidelines
and
standards.
The
suggested
location
and
outline
of
any
view
corridor
is
not
intended
to
create
a
“build-‐to”
line
for
a
vertical
architectural
edge
that
would
not
be
allowed
under
other
applicable
guidelines
and
standards.
According
to
these
criteria
and
following
an
intensive
public
input
process,
protection
of
the
following
public
view
corridors
is
recommended
(see
Map
O):
The
Lionshead
Redevelopment
Master
Plan
then
provides
recommendation
for
the
adoption
of
two
view
corridors
which
were
to
be
adopted
immediately,
while
the
remaining
three
view
corridors
(plus
an
additional
three
in
Ever
Vail)
were
to
be
adopted
after
development
occurred
on
key
sites.
Lionshead
View
Corridor
#2,
the
view
corridor
in
question
with
this
application,
was
one
recommended
for
immediate
adoption.
The
Lionshead
Redevelopment
Master
Plan
states:
4.4.1.2
View
Corridor
Two
This
view
corridor
(see
figure
4-‐2)
is
seen
from
the
pedestrian
plaza
at
the
east
end
of
the
Lifthouse
Lodge,
looking
south
directly
up
the
gondola
lift
line.
This
view
fulfills
the
following
criteria:
a.It
fosters
civic
pride
and
is
central
to
the
identity
of
Lionshead.
b.It
is
taken
from
a
commonly
used,
publicly
accessible
viewpoint.
The
mountain
view
from
this
point
is
currently
very
broad,
crossing
much
of
the
Vail
Associates
core
site.
As
part
of
the
redevelopment
of
the
Vail
Associates
core
site
this
view
corridor
should
become
narrower
and
more
focused
on
the
new
gondola
terminal.
8 2/19/2013
Given
the
current
lack
of
a
defining
architectural
edge,
the
dimensions
of
this
corridor
should
roughly
correspond
to
the
suggested
view
boundaries
outlined
in
figure
4-‐2.
As
indicated
in
the
general
photo
for
View
Corridor
2,
the
existing
Lionshead
Centre
building
was
established
as
the
general
eastern
boundary
of
the
view
corridor.
However,
as
clearly
stated
in
the
section
above:
“The
suggested
location
and
outline
of
any
view
corridor
is
not
intended
to
create
a
“build-‐to”
line
for
a
vertical
architectural
edge
that
would
not
be
allowed
under
other
applicable
guidelines
and
standards.”
It
was
not
the
intention
that
that
the
view
corridors
limit
the
ability
of
individual
property
owners
to
improve
their
properties.
Instead,
it
is
clearly
the
intention
that
the
architecture
is
meant
to
frame
the
view
to
be
protected.
In
this
case,
the
view
is
of
the
gondola
lift
line.
Furthermore,
the
Master
Plan
also
recommends
that
this
view
be
much
narrower
than
the
adopted
view
corridor.
As
indicated
in
the
photos
below,
the
original
recommendation
for
this
view
corridor
actually
bisected
the
ski
run,
where
as
the
adopted
view
corridor
is
much
further
west,
into
the
tree
line.
View
Point
#8,
adopted
2008 LHMP
Recommended
View
Corridor
#2
The
proposed
encroachment
complies
with
the
recommendations
as
provided
in
the
Lionshead
Redevelopment
Master
Plan.
5.That
the
proposed
structure
will
not
diminish
the
integrity
or
quality
nor
compromise
the
original
purpose
of
the
preserved
view.
Applicant
Response:
The
original
purpose
of
this
view
corridor
was
stated
in
the
Lionshead
Redevelopment
Master
Plan
when
adopted
in
1998
and
further
refined
with
the
adoption
of
it
as
View
Point
#8.
The
purpose,
as
stated
in
Chapter
22:
View
Corridors
of
this
view
is:
To
protect
the
views
of
Vail
Mountain
from
the
core
of
Lionshead.
As
indicated
in
the
analysis
provided
in
this
submittal,
this
view
is
not
affected
by
the
proposed
encroachment
and
the
integrity
of
this
view
is
maintained.
9 2/19/2013
E.
Adjacent
Property
Owners
TOWN
OF
VAIL
FINANCE
DEPT
75
S
FRONTAGE
RD
W
VAIL,
CO
81657-‐5043
VANTAGE
POINT-‐VAIL
INTERVAL
OWNERS
ASSOC
ALPENGLOW
PROPERTY
MGMT
PO
BOX
178
AVON,
CO
81620
VANTAGE
POINT-‐VAIL
INTERVAL
OWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
Gary
A.
Lebo
PO
BOX
178
AVON,
CO
81620
VANTAGE
POINT-‐VAIL
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
MICHAEL
D'ANCI,
SR
508
E
LIONSHEAD
CIR,
VAIL,
CO
81657
FIRST
WESTWIND
AT
VAIL
CONDOMINIUMS
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
Steve
MacDonald
C/O
Vail
Management
Company,
PO
Box
6130,
Avon,
CO
81620
VAIL
CORP
THE
FIXED
ASSETS
DEPARTMENT
390
INTERLOCKEN
CRESCENT
STE
1000
BROOMFIELD,
CO
80021
LANDMARK-‐VAIL
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
GEOFFREY
WRIGHT
610
W
LIONSHEAD
CR,
VAIL,
CO
81657
HUGHES
LAND
HOLDING
TRUST
28
ANACAPA
ST
STE
D
SANTA
BARBARA,
CA
93101
MONTANEROS
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
Laurie
Jeanes
641
W
LIONSHEAD
CIR,
VAIL,
CO
81657
LION
SQUARE
NORTH
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
Bill
Anderson
660
WEST
LIONSHEAD
PLACE
10 2/19/2013
VAIL,
CO
81657
LION
SQUARE
PHASE
II
&
III
CONDO
ASSOC
INC
-‐
ETAL
660
W
LIONSHEAD
PL
VAIL,
CO
81657-‐5212
VAIL
CORP
THE
FIXED
ASSETS
DEPARTMENT
390
INTERLOCKEN
CRESCENT
STE
1000
BROOMFIELD,
CO
80021
VAIL
CORP
SAMANTHA
JONES
390
INTERLOCKEN
CRESCENT
STE
1000
BROOMFIELD,
CO
80021
VAIL
21
PARKING
GARAGE
NO.
1
LLC
-‐
VAIL
21
PARKING
GARAGE
NO.
2
LLC
610
W
LIONSHEAD
CIR
STE
100
VAIL,
CO
81657
LAZIER
LIONSHEAD
LLC
386
HANSON
RANCH
RD
VAIL,
CO
81657
THE
LIFT
HOUSE
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
DOUGLAS
WALKER
555
E
LIONSHEAD
CIR,
VAIL,
CO
81657
LIONSHEAD
ARCADE
BUILDING
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
KIT
C.
WILLIAMS
P
O
BOX
3622,
VAIL
,
CO
81658
Arrabelle
at
Vail
Square
Residential
Condominium
Association,
Inc.
Mark
Payne
675
Lionshead
Place,
Denver,
CO
81657
ARRABELLE
AT
VAIL
SQUARE
LLC
VAIL
RESORTS
MANAGEMENT
CO
390
INTERLOCKEN
CRESCENT
STE
1000
BROOMFIELD
,
CO
80021
VAIL
LIONSHEAD
CENTRE
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
David
A
Zippie,
CPA
P.O.
BOX
4627,
AVON,
CO
81620
VAIL
21
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
Destination
Resort
Mgt,
Inc,
610
W
LIONSHEAD
CIR
11 2/19/2013
VAIL,
CO
81657
TREETOPS
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
Vicki
L.
Brown
450
E.
Lionshead
Circle,
Vail,
CO
81657
VAIL
LIONSHEAD
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
JEFF
BAILEY
380
E.
LIONSHEAD
CIR,
VAIL,
CO
81657
LODGE
AT
LIONSHEAD
III
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
JEFF
BAILEY
380
E
LIONSHEAD
CR,
VAIL,
CO
81657
LION
SQUARE
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
WILLIAM
ANDERSON
660
W.
LIONSHEAD
PLACE
VAIL,
CO
81657
LION
SQUARE
PHASE
II
AND
III
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
WILLIAM
ANDERSON
660
W
LIONSHEAD
PL
VAIL,
CO
81657
12 2/19/2013
F.
DRB
Action
Form
13 2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013, a resolution amending the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master
Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for the central
pedestrian plaza (Sundial Plaza) in Section 5.8.6, Plazas and Nodes, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell, Gregg Barrie
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013.
BACKGROUND: The subject property was a part of the original Town of Vail which became
effective by the election of August 23, 1966, and the court order of August 26, 1966. In 2008,
the Vail Town Council instructed Staff to locate and build a park in Lionshead per the
LRMP. After examining all town-owned locations, Sundial Plaza was selected as the only
adequate location for a public park. The Vail Town Council has approved funding for a park in
Sundial Plaza as part of the 2013 Municipal Budget.
On January 28, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a hearing to
review the proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and an
accompanying conditional use permit application. The PEC recommended approval for the
proposed LRMP amendments to the Vail Town Council with a vote of 7-0-0.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the criteria and findings outlined in Section VI of the
Planning and Environmental Commission memorandum, dated January 28, 2013 and the
evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends
the Vail Town Council approves Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
Res 4 Series 2013 Town Council Memo
Res 4 Series 2013
PEC memo dated 012813 part 1
PEC memo dated 012813 part 2
2/19/2013
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013, a resolution amending the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan,
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for the central
pedestrian plaza (Sundial Plaza) in Section 5.8.6, Plazas and Nodes, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting approval of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013. The
purpose of this resolution is to amend the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan’s
recommendations for Sundial Plaza to allow a public park.
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Resolution No. 4,
Series of 2013. The proposed Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013, (Attachment A) and the
Planning and Environmental Commission memorandum dated January 28, 2013 (Attachment B)
have been attached for review.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The requested amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP) can be
found in Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013 (see Attachment A). The existing recommendations
for the Central Pedestrian Plaza (Sundial Plaza) are for a commercial infill building in the hillside
and an ice rink in the plaza. The proposed recommendations include a public park for this area,
and shift the ice rink to the existing Arrabelle at Vail Square.
III. BACKGROUND
The subject property was a part of the original Town of Vail which became effective by the
election of August 23, 1966, and the court order of August 26, 1966.
In 2008, the Vail Town Council instructed Staff to locate and build a park in Lionshead per the
LRMP. After examining all town-owned locations, Sundial Plaza was selected as the only
adequate location for a public park. The Vail Town Council has approved funding for a park in
Sundial Plaza as part of the 2013 Municipal Budget.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 2
On January 28, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a hearing to
review the proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and an
accompanying conditional use permit application. The PEC recommended approval to the Vail
Town Council for the proposed LRMP amendments with a vote of 7-0-0. The conditional use
permit application was tabled to the February 11, 2013 hearing. On February 11, 2013, the
approved the conditional use permit for a “public park and recreational facility” by a vote of 6-1-0
(Kurz opposed).
IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNCIL
Based on the criteria and findings outlined in Section VI of the Planning and Environmental
Commission memorandum dated January 28, 2013 and the evidence and testimony presented,
the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Vail Town Council approves
Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013.
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve this resolution, the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommends the Council pass the following motion:
“The Vail Town Council approves Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013, a resolution
amending the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption
and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend
the recommendations for the central pedestrian plaza (Sundial Plaza) in Section 5.8.6,
Plazas and Nodes, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in
regard thereto.”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve this resolution, the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommends the Council makes the following findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of Staff’s January 28, 2013
memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds:
“The Commission finds that the proposed amendments to the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan comply with the review criteria outlined in
Section VI of the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission, dated January 28, 2013, and that the amendments, as
proposed, further the goals, objectives and policies, as stated in Chapter 2
of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.”
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 4, Series of 2013
B. Planning and Environmental Commission Memorandum, dated January 28, 2013
2/19/2013
1
RESOLUTION NO. 4
Series of 2013
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2.8, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN, LIONSHEAD
REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CENTRAL
PEDESTRIAN PLAZA (SUNDIAL PLAZA) IN SECTION 5.8.6, PLAZAS AND NODES, LIONSHEAD
REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, on December 15, 1998, the Vail Town Council adopted the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan;
WHEREAS, Section 2.8 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan outlines a procedure for
amending the Master Plan;
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan amendment on January 28, 2013, and has
forwarded a recommendation of approval of the amendment to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 7-0-0;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds conditions have changed since the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted which warrant changes to recommendations for the Central
Pedestrian Plaza;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds the incorporation of the proposed amendments into the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan are in concert with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan;
WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment is to change the recommendations for the Central
Pedestrian Plaza to allow a public park;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments improve and enhance
the effectiveness of the Master Plan without negatively affecting the goals, objectives, and policies
prescribed by the Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO:
The Town Council of the Town of Vail hereby amends the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan as follows:
The amendments to the text of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan are indicated in bold
italics(additions), and strikethrough italics(deletions).
5.8.6 Plazas and Nodes
Dynamic pedestrian plazas and nodes are encouraged at each significant intersection in the retail
core. Successful plazas are those that have good sun exposure, that are located on primary
pedestrian corridors, and that are properly proportioned to encourage seating, eating, gathering
and events. Successful nodes are concentrations of activities, landmarks and spaces where
people want to congregate. Focal elements such as fountains, landscaping, and public art help to
give each node a unique identify and serve as visual reference points. A fundamental objective
of the master plan is to introduce these qualities in the Lionshead core.
2/19/2013
2
The central Lionshead public plaza, for example (shown in figure 5-10), presents an opportunity
to create a vibrant center of activity surrounded by active retail and restaurant spaces and
animated with an ice rink. The development of a small infill building at the north edge of the plaza
is recommended to define the space and introduce additional retail opportunities. The building
could incorporate an underground service and delivery corridor to the North Day Lot
transportation center. A food and beverage operation on a rooftop deck over this structure could
provide a unique vantage point marking the new north Lionshead pedestrian portal and opening
views into the central Lionshead plaza and up to the mountain.
The central Lionshead public plaza (shown in Figure 5-10) was previously considered to
be at Sundial Plaza. However, the design of the Arrabelle incorporated an ice rink with
surrounding retail and restaurant shifted the central Lionshead public plaza to the south.
This allows for Sundial Plaza to be repurposed from a previously recommended infill
building with an ice rink to a public park. Sundial Plaza serves as the only green space in
the center of Lionshead. The pedestrian connection between the First Chair Employee
Housing at the North Day Lot and the pedestrian mall through Sundial Plaza should be
snowmelted and rerouted for optimal views (see view corridor #4) and access. Sundial
Plaza presents an opportunity for a public park in the Lionshead Retail Core and will
provide a public recreational amenity to serve as a stand alone attraction and as an
activity to compliment the retail and restaurant experience within Lionshead.
2/19/2013
3
2/19/2013
4
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail held this 19th day of February, 2013.
_________________________
Andrew P. Daly
Mayor of the Town of Vail, Colorado
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Lorelei Donaldson,
Town Clerk
2/19/2013
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 28, 2013
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption
and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to
amend the recommendations for the central pedestrian plaza (Sundial Plaza) in
Section 5.8.6, Plazas and Nodes, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130001)
A request for the review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5,
Conditional Uses; Generally (On All Levels of a Building), Vail Town Code, to
allow for the construction of a public park and recreation facilities (playground) at
Sundial Plaza, located within the Lionshead pedestrian mall/Tract C, Lionshead
6th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120050)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Rachel Dimond
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie, is requesting the
following:
• Amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to amend the
recommendation for the central pedestrian plaza in Section 5.8.6, Plazas and
Nodes to allow for a public park at Sundial Plaza.
• Conditional use permit for “public park and recreation facilities” at Sundial Plaza,
including playground features, a climbing wall and a water/fire feature with
seating.
Based upon Staff’s review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, and subject to the findings noted in Section VIII
of this memorandum, the Community Development Department recommends the
Planning and Environmental Commission:
• Forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
• Approves, with conditions, a conditional use permit for public park and
recreation facilities at Sundial Plaza.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 2
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
LRMP AMENDMENT:
The applicant is requesting amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
as follows:
Additions are in bold; deletions are in strikethrough.
5.8.6 Plazas and Nodes
Dynamic pedestrian plazas and nodes are encouraged at each significant
intersection in the retail core. Successful plazas are those that have good sun
exposure, that are located on primary pedestrian corridors, and that are properly
proportioned to encourage seating, eating, gathering and events. Successful
nodes are concentrations of activities, landmarks and spaces where people want
to congregate. Focal elements such as fountains, landscaping, and public art
help to give each node a unique identify and serve as visual reference points. A
fundamental objective of the master plan is to introduce these qualities in the
Lionshead core.
The central Lionshead public plaza, for example (shown in figure 5-10), presents
an opportunity to create a vibrant center of activity surrounded by active retail
and restaurant spaces and animated with an ice rink. The development of a
small infill building at the north edge of the plaza is recommended to define the
space and introduce additional retail opportunities. The building could
incorporate an underground service and delivery corridor to the North Day Lot
transportation center. A food and beverage operation on a rooftop deck over this
structure could provide a unique vantage point marking the new north Lionshead
pedestrian portal and opening views into the central Lionshead plaza and up to
the mountain.
The central Lionshead public plaza (shown in Figure 5-10) was previously
considered to be at Sundial Plaza. However, the design of the Arrabelle
incorporated an ice rink with surrounding retail and restaurant shifted the
central Lionshead public plaza to the south. This allows for Sundial Plaza
to be repurposed from a previously recommended infill building with an ice
rink to a public park. Sundial Plaza serves as the only green space in the
center of Lionshead. The pedestrian connection between the First Chair
Employee Housing at the North Day Lot and the pedestrian mall through
Sundial Plaza should be snowmelted and rerouted for optimal views (see
view corridor #4) and access. Sundial Plaza presents an opportunity for a
public park in the Lionshead Retail Core and will provide a public
recreational amenity to serve as a stand alone attraction and as an activity
to compliment the retail and restaurant experience within Lionshead.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 3
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 4
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for public park and recreation
facilities for a new park at Sundial Plaza with the following amenities:
• Climbing wall
• Three playground features
• W ater /fire feature with seating
• Soft rubber playground surface
• New vegetation to screen, shade and enhance the park
• ADA access to playground area via ramp
• Rerouted snowmelted stairway connecting the frontage road, First Chair
Employee Housing and the pedestrian bridge to the Lionshead pedestrian area
III. BACKGROUND
The subject property was a part of the original Town of Vail which became effective by
the election of August 23, 1966, and the court order of August 26, 1966.
In 2008, the Vail Town Council instructed Staff to locate and build a park in Lionshead.
After examining all town-owned locations, Sundial Plaza was selected as the only
adequate location for a public park. The Vail Town Council has approved funding for a
park in Sundial Plaza as part of the 2013 Municipal Budget.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the
review of this proposal:
TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE (IN PART)
ARTICLE 12-7H. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU-1) DISTRICT
12-7H-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead mixed use 1 district is intended to provide sites for
a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares,
lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments
in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 1 district, in accordance with
the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air,
open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and
uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing
appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and
provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment
master plan.
This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to
redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant
lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 6
increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the
previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area.
The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to
inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master
plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off site
improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/
redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following
amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access,
public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar
improvements.
CHAPTER 12-16: CONDITIONAL USES PERMITS
Section 12-16-1: Purpose; Limitations:
In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified
uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so
that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with
respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this
chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and
limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the
conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and
will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised,
to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied.
LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN (IN PART)
Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations - Overall Study Area
4.10: Gateways, Landmarks, and Portals
The lack of spatial hierarchy or organizational clarity is a fundamental problem in the
Lionshead pedestrian and vehicular network today. This section discusses the need to
create a series of gateways, portals, landmarks and useful public spaces that will
increase and enhance the character and identity of the pedestrian environment.
4.10.1 Gateways and Portals
Gateways and portals are elements that signify important points of entry and
transition and serve to reinforce the identity and functionality of both. They are
announcements of direction and relative importance. Gateways can be created
using building forms, landscaping, paving patterns, or signage. Portals and
gateways are discussed in the architectural design guidelines (see chapter 8).
The creation of gateways and portals is encouraged as a basic component of
redevelopment, especially in transition areas between different domains, or
public, semi-public, and private areas. A change in the hierarchy of the
surrounding environment should be announced and well delineated. There are
several critical locations where gateway and portals need to occur (see Map R).
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 7
4.10.1.2 Pedestrian Portals/ Gateways
Four primary pedestrian portals are critical to establishing the character
and identity of Lionshead (see Map T): 1) the pedestrian entry on the
west end of the parking structure; 2) the top of the grade transition from
the North Day Lot into the retail mall; 3) the intersection of West
Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place at the western end of the retail
mall; and 4) the transition between the ski yard and the retail mall.
4.10.2 Landmarks
A landmark is a significant architectural element that all the visitors to Lionshead
can identify and remember. Landmarks signify important points of entry, turning
points and critical intersections in the pedestrian network, as well as destinations
and visual reference points. The single landmark in Lionshead today is the
Gondola clock tower, which will be replaced with the Vail Associates core site
redevelopment. Appropriate locations for new landmarks in Lionshead are the
east pedestrian portal, the central retail mall adjacent to the main pedestrian
plaza, and the west pedestrian portal adjacent to the intersection of West
Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. In addition, the potential civic center
complex at the east end of the parking structure should function as a significant
architectural landmark for the east end of Lionshead.
4.10.3 Public Art
Through the Art in Public Places board, the Town of Vail has long recognized the
importance of public art in pedestrian environments. Future development and
redevelopment projects in Lionshead, especially projects impacting the retail mall
and primary pedestrian environments, should seek to incorporate public art
according to the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Master Plan (not adopted as of
the writing of this document). Pedestrian circulation systems, portals and
gateways, landmarks, pedestrian plazas and architecture all present
opportunities to incorporate public art.
4.10.4 Youth Recreation
Throughout the master plan process there was public input regarding the need
for both indoor and outdoor non-skier related recreation opportunities for children
and youth. Since the removal of the playground south of Gore Creek in
1995, the only such activities include the Vail Associates putt-putt golf
course and the open play field of the ski yard. As the redevelopment of
Lionshead progresses the creation of a programmed children’s play area
should be a community priority. Programmatic components of such as
play area could include “tot-lot” play equipment, a volleyball court, swing
sets, and creative play structures. Landscaping, benches, and picnic
tables should also be integrated into the design such a play area. The
location of such a play area will need to be readily accessible from the
Lionshead pedestrian mall area and the Gore Creek recreation path, and
will require good southern solar exposure. In addition to the play area
described above, the potential of integrating children’s play areas into the
Lionshead pedestrian retail mall should be considered when improvements
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 8
to the mall are made. Good examples of such play areas can be found in the
Aspen, Breckenridge, and Boulder pedestrian retail districts.
5.8 Lionshead Retail Core
The Lionshead retail core (see figure 5-8) is comprised of the Vail Associates core site,
the surrounding pedestrian mall environment, and the retail faces of adjacent buildings.
This central area is the heart and soul of Lionshead and constitutes the most critical
area for public and private improvements. The Vail Associates core site represents the
most likely near-term redevelopment project, but it is essential that the Town of Vail take
all available steps to encourage and facilitate other efforts to enhance and redevelop
the retail core. Specific recommendations are as follows:
5.8.1 Build-To Lines
A significant problem in the retail mall today is the excessive distance between
opposing retail faces, which causes pedestrians to interact with only one side of
the street. To remedy this, build-to lines are recommended (see Map S) to
create a continuous, well-defined retail experience in which all ground floor
spaces directly address the pedestrian street. Of special note, the corridor
defined by the build-to lines between the existing Landmark retail and Sunbird
Lodge is centered on Tract C. In other words, the build-to lines in this east-west
corridor will impact both the Vail Associates property and the Landmark Retail
property equally.
5.8.2 Ground Level Retail Expansion Opportunities
Ground floor retail expansion should be encouraged on existing structures that
do not currently extend to their designated build-to lines and are not likely to be
completely redeveloped. The most significant places for ground floor retail
expansion are the east face of the Vail 21 building and the south and west faces
of the Lionshead Arcade building.
5.8.3 Pedestrian Connections Through the Core Site
There is a critical north-south pedestrian connection between the ski yard
and the proposed transportation and skier drop-off uses on the North Day
Lot. This connection will require at least one north-south penetration
through the Vail Associates core site, and there is an opportunity to create
a second one, as shown in figure 5-9. The east-west pedestrian corridor
originating at the east Lionshead pedestrian portal should also be extended into
the Vail Associates core site, connecting with the north-south corridors. These
connections should be part of the “primary retail mall” (see site design guidelines,
chapter 6) to reinforce the village character of the core. It is not necessary that
flanking architectural forms be completely separated in order to define pedestrian
corridors. Instead, opportunities to create significant architectural portals are
encouraged to highlight the transition from one public space into another.
5.8.4 Hierarchy of Pedestrian Space
The Lionshead retail core is composed of a hierarchy of primary and secondary
pedestrian corridors and spaces (see site design guidelines, chapter 6), shown in
figure 5-9. While both are important to the total retail environment, the primary
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 9
should read as the dominant pedestrian flow pattern. Transitions between these
different domains should be well defined.
5.8.5 Retail Space Allocation
A primary goal of the Lionshead Master plan is to increase both the amount and
the quality of retail space in the pedestrian core. The sunny south-facing sides of
buildings (for example, at the Lifthouse Lodge and the creek side of the VA core
site) are ideal for restaurants. The shadier north-facing sides are more
appropriate for retail uses that do not benefit as much from a direct relationship
with the outdoors. Use of ground floor commercial space for offices is not
recommended on the primary pedestrian mall; these businesses should be
located instead on the second story or outside the main pedestrian corridor.
5.8.6 Plazas and Nodes
Dynamic pedestrian plazas and nodes are encouraged at each significant
intersection in the retail core. Successful plazas are those that have good
sun exposure, that are located on primary pedestrian corridors, and that
are properly proportioned to encourage seating, eating, gathering and
events. Successful nodes are concentrations of activities, landmarks and
spaces where people want to congregate. Focal elements such as
fountains, landscaping, and public art help to give each node a unique
identify and serve as visual reference points. A fundamental objective of
the master plan is to introduce these qualities in the Lionshead core.
The central Lionshead public plaza, for example (shown in figure 5-10),
presents an opportunity to create a vibrant center of activity surrounded by
active retail and restaurant spaces and animated with an ice rink. The
development of a small infill building at the north edge of the plaza is
recommended to define the space and introduce additional retail
opportunities. The building could incorporate an underground service and
delivery corridor to the North Day Lot transportation center. A food and
beverage operation on a rooftop deck over this structure could provide a
unique vantage point marking the new north Lionshead pedestrian portal
and opening views into the central Lionshead plaza and up to the
mountain.
Because the Lionshead pedestrian mall is also an emergency vehicle access
corridor, its proportions and the design of the elements within it must
accommodate the turning movements and clearance requirements of fire trucks
and other large vehicles.
5.18 North Day Lot
At the time the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted the North
Day Lot was identified as a potential location for a central transit facility. During
subsequent study of the site in 2008 and 2009 it was determined that the Town
would not pursue locating a transit center on this site. In lieu of a transit center
the North Day Lot has been programmed to provide affordable housing along
with a skier drop-off parking lot.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 10
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 11
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 12
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
~
t7
===------------r~~--1---'1
I
I
I 1
I f'...1
I "-II
I I I
I I
lC!J_J-~J,
J
0 ........
./ ~
~/
./
MAP 0
MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK
PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDORS
OPEN SPACE CONNECTIONS
LIR~~~L~~E~D
MASTERPLAN
1_~:::~::~:'::::5H0 ~~ l!.--------J. 2/19/2013
•
T ,":\
I 1\ \
I I \ \
I I \ \
I I , \
I
/
I
r-T
I
I
I
I
MAPQ
MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK
PEDESTRIAN WALKS
AND PATHS
PRlMARY PEDESTRIAN WALK
SECONDARY PEDESTRIAN WALK :----~ ~~-------PEDESTRIAN PATH ----------------~--~ L~~~~L~~E~D
M j\ST E ~L,,--,j\~,,-
1:.;:~:.:,w~~~Wl1-J~ 2/19/2013
-I
I / 1\
I / II
/ / I I
/ 1 I \
1 1 I I
1 / I \
'1/ I I
~----------?'
T I~ -1 I I -------------
I I I: :I;():
I : ,
Q LANDMARKS (POTENI1AL LOCAnONS)
o PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN PORTALS
VIiHlCULAR PORTALS
LIR~~~L~~E;:\D
MASTERPLAN
Es~:.,::,,~~~s H0 ~ Wl1-----J_
2/19/2013
'-'::::=~
<?
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
(
MAPT
MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK
OVERALL PEDESTRIAN
CORRIDORS AND CONNECTIONS
-~~l / ~
CON1lNUOUS PED:S~~YCLEPATH~ // ~ -__
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD --L IONSHEAD
WEST LIONS HEAD CIRCLE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR EAST L10NSHEAO CIRCLE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR NORm L10NSHEAD PEDESTRIAN PORTAL REDEVELOPMENT
21-AS T ER P LANINlCRMTITANT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS FOR WEST L10NSHEAD PEDESTRIAN PORTAL NEW PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION rnROUGHSOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD OVERFLOW PARXlNG
CONCERT HALL PLAZA AND THE MONTANEROS I.~~~:.,::~~~s H0 ~~ r-l----J 2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 18
View Corridor #4
V. SITE ANALYSIS
Address: Lionshead Pedestrian Mall
Legal Description: Tract C, Lionshead 6th Filing
Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
Land Use Plan Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Current Land Use: Green space/Walkway
Geological Hazards: None
Site Area: Proposed park area approx. 13,000 square feet
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoning
North: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
South: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
East: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
West: Mixed Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 19
VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
LRMP AMENDMENT:
According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, amendments to the Master
Plan must address the following review criteria:
1. How have conditions changed since the plan was adopted?
Since the adoption of the plan, many elements of the plan have been address by
redevelopment projects. The Arrabelle was constructed with an ice rink in a different
configuration than detailed in the exhibits in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan by moving the elements of a public plaza programmed for Sundial Plaza. The
recommendations include building an ice rink at the central Lionshead public plaza
(shown as Sundial Plaza) and an infill building in the hillside at Sundial Plaza
between the Landmark and the Lifthouse. Instead, an ice rink with strong retail
surrounding it was constructed at the Arrabelle, which is now the de facto central
Lionshead public plaza instead of Sundial Plaza. The North Day Lot
recommendations changed from a transit center to employee housing and skier drop
off. Employee housing was constructed on the site, and skier drop off was moved to
the Lionshead Parking Structure. The walkway between the North Day Lot and the
pedestrian mall remains a pedestrian thoroughfare to connect the pedestrian bridge,
First Chair, Billy’s Island Grill and the pedestrian mall.
2. How is the plan in error?
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is not in error. With all that has
occurred, it is necessary to adjust the recommendations to reflect current conditions
and future needs. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan provides
recommendations for the Lionshead Retail Core, which consists of the Vail
Associates Core Site (now the Arrabelle), the surrounding pedestrian mall
environment, and the retail faces of adjacent buildings. The recommendations
include building an ice rink at the central Lionshead public plaza (shown as Sundial
Plaza) and an infill building in the hillside at Sundial Plaza between the Landmark
and the Lifthouse. Instead, an ice rink with strong retail surrounding it was
constructed at the Arrabelle, which is now the de facto central Lionshead public
plaza instead of Sundial Plaza. Commercial infill is unnecessary due to the influx of
redevelopment and new commercial space in Lionshead. Further, the plan does not
contemplate the Town’s interest in using Town owned property for public uses
instead of commercial infill. There is a need for a centrally located park in Lionshead
that is not being met. Vail Village has numerous pocket parks but Lionshead does
not have similar amenities. The plan recommends park space within the Lionshead
retail core, but does not specify a location for such park space, and Sundial Plaza is
the only publicly-owned location suitable for a centrally located park space in the
Lionshead retail core.
3. How would an addition, deletion, or change to the plan be in concert with the
plan in general?
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 20
The proposed amendments are in concert with the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan policy objectives, plan objectives and specific recommendations. By
recommending a park at Sundial Plaza within the core of Lionshead, the proposed
amendments help to fulfill policy objective 2.3.1, which states, “Lionshead can and
should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment
for guests and residents.” The amendments recommending a park instead of
commercial infill also fulfills policy objective 2.3.2, which states, “We must seize the
opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through
expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues,
conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational
improvements.” The proposed amendments are in concert with the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan objective to create and enhance the north-south
connection between the gondola ski yard and the North Day Lot and the specific
action to “create new walkways and plazas and replace deteriorated pavements.”
The central Lionshead public plaza has moved to the Arrabelle, so an ice rink has
already been constructed as recommended. Further, a public park at Sundial Plaza
would activate the space similar to the intent of the recommended ice rink. The
public park would also be in concert with Section 4.10.3, Public Art and 4.10.4,
Youth Recreation (see Section IV of this memorandum), by providing a playground,
climbing wall and water feature that doubles as public art. While a public park would
replace any commercial infill of the property, the commercial infill at the Arrabelle
surrounding the ice rink eliminates the need to infill Sundial Plaza with a commercial
building. Instead, it provides a space to recreate and ensures a visual connection
between the north side of the property and Vail Mountain.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the
Town.
The Town has established development objectives including enhancing the
livelihood of the commercial cores, as well as providing new experiences and
options for guests. Another development objective is to create pedestrian
connectivity into and within the commercial cores. A third objective is to provide
park and recreation space throughout the town. The proposed park meets the
above objectives.
This public park furthers the vision of the Vail 20/20 Strategic Plan, where the
community vision called for Vail to be a “premier mountain resort community…
achieved through world-class recreational..opportunities.”
The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan pedestrian circulation recommendations
in Chapter 1 include the following:
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 21
• Develop, with public-private cooperation, two continuous pedestrian axes
(north-south and east-west) through Lionshead. Create new walkways and
plazas and replace deteriorated pavements.
• Install a snowmelt system in the Lionshead pedestrian mall.
• Create a new north Lionshead pedestrian portal in conjunction with
development of a public transportation facility on the North Day Lot.
The proposed public park and recreation facility, with a new snowmelted walkway
connecting the North Day Lot to the pedestrian mall is clearly consistent with the
above recommendations.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities needs.
Staff believes the proposed park does not impact transportation facilities, utilities and
schools. It does provide a much needed parks and recreation facility in Lionshead
and will serve as a destination, thus potentially shifting pedestrians to this area.
Further, the design will allow for continued light and air at the subject and
surrounding properties.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
Staff believes the proposed public park does not impact congestion, automotive
safety, traffic flow and control, access and maneuverability. The proposed park
does positively impact pedestrian safety and the removal of snow from the street,
with the inclusion of a new snowmelted walkway from the North Day Lot to the
pedestrian mall. Pedestrian convenience is improved with a straightened walkway
with an improved visual connection to Vail Mountain from the North Day Lot. The
improvements do not encroach into adopted View Corridor #10, which is a view to
Vail Mountain from the top of the stairs adjacent to the North Day Lot.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
Staff believes that the proposed public park will improve the character of the area by
providing a playground that doubles as public art within the core of Lionshead. The
park will provide free recreational amenities including playground equipment, a
climbing wall and a water/fire feature with seating to the public that will be both a
destination and an additional side activity to compliment the adjacent shopping,
restaurants, the Gore Valley Trail, the ski yard, mini golf and activities on Vail
Mountain. The scale and bulk of the playground structures, which include three
elements roughly 15 feet tall, serves as a compliment to the varied architectural
styles of the adjacent mixed use buildings.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 22
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LRMP AMENDMENT:
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town
Council for the proposed amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Staff’s recommendation is based upon a review of the criteria and findings as outlined in
this memorandum and from the evidence and testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval of this request; the Community Development Department
recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
“The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval for proposed amendments to the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8,
Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the recommendations for
the central pedestrian plaza (Sundial Plaza) in Section 5.8.6,
Plazas and Nodes, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and
setting forth details in regard thereto.”
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request, staff recommends that the
following findings be made as part of the motion:
“The Commission finds that the proposed amendments to the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan comply with the review
criteria outlined in Section VI of the memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission, dated January 28, 2013, and that
the amendments, as proposed, further the goals, objectives and
policies, as stated in Chapter 2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan.”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning an Environmental Commission approves, with conditions,
a conditional use permit to allow for a public park and recreation facility at Sundial
Plaza.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional
use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission passes the following motion:
“The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request for a
conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 23
(On All Levels of a Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a
public park and recreation facilities (playground) at Sundial Plaza located within
the Lionshead pedestrian mall/Tract C, Lionshead 6th Filing, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.”
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional
use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission requires the following condition:
“The associated Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan amendments shall be
adopted by the Vail Town Council prior to construction of a public park and
recreation facility.”
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional
use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 28,
2013, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and
Environmental Commission finds:
1. The proposed conditional use permit is in accordance with the purposes of the
Zoning Regulations and the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District.
2. The proposed conditional use permit and the conditions under which it will be
operated or maintained are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed conditional use permit complies with each of the applicable
provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permit, Vail Town Code.”
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Existing and proposed site plans
C. Artist renderings of public park
2/19/2013
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I 7 0
S F R O N T A G E R D W
E LIONSHEAD CIR
L
I
O
N
S
H
E
A
D
P
L
W
L
I
O
N
S
H
EA
D
C
I
R
L I O N S H E A D M A L L
I 7 0
I
!!!!
!!!!!
Subject Property
0 100 20050Feet
S u n d i a l P l a z aSundial P l a z aA P a r t o f T r a c t C , L i o n s h e a d 6 t h F i l i n gA P a r t o f T r a c t C , L i o n s h e a d 6 t h F i l i n g
This map was crea ted b y th e Town of Vail GIS Tea m. Use of this map sh ould be for ge neral p urp ose s only. The Town o f Vail do es not warran t the accuracy of the information contained herein.(whe re sh own, parcel line wo rk is app ro ximate )
Last Modified: January 18, 2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
ITEM/TOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, an ordinance repealing and
re-enacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010, re-establishing the approved development plan
and development standards for site coverage, density and landscaping for Special
Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, in accordance with Section 12-9A-10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an accommodation unit, an office and
a meeting room, at the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot E, Block 2, Vail
Village 5th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130002)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, upon first reading.
BACKGROUND: On February 11, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission
forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for Ordinance No. 5, Series
of 2013, by a vote of 7-0-0 with the following conditions:
1. This approval includes two revised plan sheets A4.0 and A5.4 dated February 8, 2013.
2. The applicant shall receive permission from the adjacent property owner (Vail Associates)
for access for construction in conjunction with any building permits.
3. Approval of an amendment to the SDD is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of
Vail approval of the associated design review application.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ord 5 memo
Ord 5 Series 2013
Ord 5 Series 2013 Exhibit A
Tivoli PEC Packet
2/19/2013
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting
Ordinance No. 7, Series Of 2010, re-establishing the approved development plan and
development standards for site coverage, density and landscaping for Special Development
District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, in accordance with Section 12-9A-10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an accommodation unit, an office
and a meeting room, at the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot E, Block
2, Vail Village 5th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130002)
Applicant: Robert Lazier, represented by Bill Reslock
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Robert Lazier, represented by Bill Reslock, is requesting first reading of Ordinance
No. 5, Series of 2013, which will allow for a major amendment to Special Development District No.
37, Tivoli Lodge, to allow for an increase in site coverage and gross residential floor area and a
reduction in landscaping to facilitate additions to a meeting room, office and accommodation unit
(hotel room).
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 5, Series
of 2013, upon first reading. For reference, the following are attached: Ordinance No. 5, Series of
2013 (Attachment A) and the Planning and Environmental Commission memorandum dated
February 11, 2013, including all attachments except the draft ordinance (Attachment B).
II. BACKGROUND
Staff’s memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission reflected review of the set of
plans, dated December 21, 2012. The applicant provided updated plans amending the office
addition and dormer on the north elevation, dated February 8, 2013. On February 11, 2013, the
Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Vail
Town Council for Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, by a vote of 7-0-0 with the following conditions:
1. This approval includes two amended plan sheets A4.0 and A5.4 dated February 8, 2013.
2. The applicant shall receive permission from the adjacent property owner (Vail Associates)
for access for construction in conjunction with any building permits.
3. Approval of an amendment to the SDD is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of
Vail approval of the associated design review application.”
2/19/2013
2
III. ACTION REQUESTED
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, on first reading,
the Vail Town Council should pass the following motion:
“The Vail Town Council approves on first reading, Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, an
ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 7, Series Of 2010, re-establishing the
approved development plan and development standards for site coverage, density and
landscaping for Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, in accordance with
Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an
accommodation unit, an office and a meeting room, at the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386
Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing, and setting forth details in
regard thereto.”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013, on first reading,
the Vail Town Council should pass the following conditions:
1. Approval of an amendment to the SDD is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town
of Vail approval of the associated design review application.”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010, on first reading,
the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Vail Town Council makes the
following findings:
1. “That the amendment complies with the design criteria, based upon the review outlined
in Staff’s February 11, 2013, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission; and
2. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals,
objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with
the development objectives of the Town, based upon the review outlined in Staff’s
February 11, 2013, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and
3. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate
for the surrounding areas, based upon the review outlined in Staff’s February 11, 2013,
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and
4. That the amendment does promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
the Town, and does promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town
in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established
character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality, based upon the
review outlined in Staff’s February 11, 2013, memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission.”
VII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013
B. PEC memo dated February 11, 2013
2/19/2013
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013 1
ORDINANCE NO. 5
SERIES 2013
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 7, SERIES OF
2010, RE-ESTABLISHING THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SITE COVERAGE, DENSITY AND
LANDSCAPING FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 37, TIVOLI LODGE,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12-9A-10, AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, VAIL
TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITION TO AN ACCOMMODATION UNIT, AN
OFFICE AND A MEETING ROOM, AT THE TIVOLI LODGE, LOCATED AT 386
HANSON RANCH ROAD/ LOT E, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 5TH FILING, AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the
"Town"), is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Colorado and the Vail Town Charter;
WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have
been duly elected and qualified; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2003 established Special Development
District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, per the approved development plan submitted by Robert
and Diane Lazier; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2007 repealed and reenacted Special
Development District No. 27, Tivoli Lodge, per the approved development plan
submitted by Robert Lazier; and
WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations permits major
amendments to previously approved development plans for Special Development
Districts; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to re-establish Ordinance No. 7,
Series of 2010, to amend the Approved Development Plan and density control
requirements, to allow for an increase in gross residential floor area and site coverage,
a reduction in landscaping and a change to approved setbacks; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning
Regulations, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on
February 11, 2013 on the major amendment application and has submitted its
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 7-0-0; and
WHEREAS, the proposed major amendment to the Special Development District
is in the best interest of the town as it meets the Town’s development objectives as
identified in the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the approval procedures of Article 12-9A, Vail Town Code, have
been fulfilled; and
Attachment C
2/19/2013
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013 2
WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have
been sent to the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public
health, safety, and welfare to re-establish Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli
Lodge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2007 is hereby repealed and re-enacted so
that Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, reads as
follows:
(additions shown in bold; deletions in strikethrough)
Section 1. Special Development District No. 37 Established
Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, is established for
development on two parcels of land, legally described as Lot E, Block 2,
Vail Village 5th Filing, and Lot 3, First Amendment, Vail Village 5th Filing,
which comprise a total of 22,760 square feet (0.5225 acres) in the Vail
Village area of the Town of Vail. Said parcels may be referred to as “SDD
No. 37.” Special Development District No 37 shall be reflected as such on
the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail. The underlying zoning for
Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, shall be Public
Accommodation (PA) District (Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing) and
Parking (P) District (Lot 3, First Amendment, Vail Village 5th Filing). Lot 3,
First Amendment, Vail Village 5th Filing, is used for parking purposes
only and is not factored into development standards except parking.
Section 2. Development Plan
An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the
development, uses and activities of a special development district. The Vail
Town Council finds that the Approved Development Plan for Special
Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, complies with each of the
requirements set forth in Sections 12-9A-5 and 12-9A-6 of the Town Code
2/19/2013
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013 3
of Vail. The Approved Development Plan for Special Development District
No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, shall be comprised of materials submitted in
accordance with Section 12-9A-5 of the Town Code of Vail and those
plans prepared by Resort Design Associates International, entitled "Tivoli
Lodge Approved Development Plan Office Copy, dated as approved by
the Vail Town Council on March 5, 2013. May 15, 2003.” Amendments
made by Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 are outlined in the plan
prepared by Reslock and Sullivan, LLC entitled “Tivoli Lodge Page A2.0
dated as revised on Feburary 8, 2010” which are shown in Exhibit A of
Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010.
Section 3. Development Standards
In conjunction with the Approved Development Plan described in Section
2 herein, the following development standards are hereby approved by
the Vail Town Council. These standards are incorporated in the Approved
Development Plan to protect the integrity of the development of Special
Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge. The development standards for
Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge are described below:
A. Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory Uses: The permitted,
conditional, and accessory uses allowed in Special Development
District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, shall be those uses listed in Sections 12-
7A-2, 12-7A-3, and 12-7A-4 of the Town Code of Vail, as may be
amended.
B. Lot Area: The minimum lot area for Special Development District No.
37, Tivoli Lodge, shall be 22,760 square feet (0.5225 acres). Lot E,
Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing shall be 17,707 square feet (0.4065
acres).
C. Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for Special Development District No.
37, Tivoli Lodge, shall be as indicated on the Tivoli Lodge Approved
Development Plan, described in Section 2 herein.
2/19/2013
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013 4
D. Height: The maximum allowable building height for Special
Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge shall be fifty-six feet (56'),
and as indicated on the Tivoli Lodge Approved Development Plan,
described in Section 2 herein.
E. Density Control: The maximum allowable Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA) for Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, shall be
27,901.5 square feet and the maximum allowable density shall be one
(1) dwelling unit, sixty-two (62) accommodation units, and one (1) Type
III Employee Housing Unit, and as indicated on the Tivoli Lodge
Approved Development Plan, dated May 15, 2003. Said Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be allocated as follows:
a. Accommodation Units (62): 24,451 square feet
b. Dwelling Unit (1): 3,000.5 square feet
c. Type III Employee Housing Unit (1): 450.0 square feet
F. Site Coverage: The maximum allowable site coverage shall be sixty
four percent (64%) or 11,380 square feet sixty-three percent (63%)
of the total lot area of Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing, and as
indicated on the Tivoli Lodge Approved Development Plan, described
in Section 2 herein.
G. Landscaping and Site Development: At least twenty six percent
(26%) or 4,682 square feet thirty percent (30%) or 5,312 square feet
of the total lot area of Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing shall be
landscaped. In no instance shall the hardscaped areas of the
development site exceed twenty percent (20%) of the minimum
landscaped area. The landscaping and site development shall be as
indicated on the Tivoli Lodge Approved Development Plan, described
in Section 2 herein.
H. Parking and Loading: The minimum number of off-street parking
spaces shall be forty (40) and the minimum number of loading and
delivery bays shall be one (1), and as indicated on the Tivoli Lodge
Approved Development Plan, described in Section 2 herein.
2/19/2013
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013 5
Section 4. Conditions of Approval
The conditions of approval required as part of Ordinance No. 12, Series of
2010, have been met. Specifically, the condition that the Developer
provides deed-restricted housing that complies with the Town of Vail
Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of one
(1) employee on the Tivoli Lodge development site, and that said deed-
restricted employee housing shall be made available for occupancy, and
that the deed restrictions shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk &
Recorder, prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for
the Tivoli Lodge were met. The required deed-restricted employee
housing units shall not be eligible for resale and the units shall be owned
and operated by the hotel and said ownership shall transfer with the deed
to the hotel property. No other conditions shall be required as part of the
amendments within Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 or Ordinance No. 5,
Series of 2013.
Section 5. Amendments
Any amendments to Special Development District No. 37 shall follow the
procedures and regulations outlined in Article 12-9A, Vail Town Code.
Section 6. Time Requirements
SDD No. 37 shall be governed by the procedures outlined in Article 12-9A
of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Should the addition proposed as part
of the major amendment within Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 not
commence within three years of the adoption of Ordinance No. 7, Series
of 2010, Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 will be void, thus reinstating
Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2003. Should the addition proposed as
part of the major amendment within Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013
not commence within three years of the adoption of Ordinance No. 5,
Series of 2013, Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013 will be void, thus
2/19/2013
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013 6
reinstating Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010.
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would
have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in
this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced,
nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision
amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or
any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or
part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of February, 2013 and
a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 5th day of March, 2013,
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
_____________________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
ATTACHED: EXHIBIT A: PLANS
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: February 11, 2013
Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment
to a Special Development District, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend Special Development District No. 37,
Tivoli Lodge, to amend the approved development plan to increase gross
residential floor area and site coverage and amend the approved setbacks,
located at 386 Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130002)
Applicant: Robert Lazier
Planner: Rachel Dimond
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Robert Lazier, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council
on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, to allow
for an increase to gross residential floor area and site coverage, and an amendment to
the approved setbacks.
Staff is recommending approval, with conditions, of the applicant’s proposal, based
on the criteria established in Section VII of this memorandum. Staff’s recommended
conditions include the elimination of the office addition and modification of the flat roof
dormer on the north elevation.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 37,
Tivoli Lodge. The request includes:
• Addition of 1,005 square feet of gross residential floor area to accommodation
unit #520 to create a 2,220 square foot three bedroom suite
• Addition of 180 square feet to the office on first floor, an increase from 200
square feet to 380 square feet, which adds 180 square feet in site coverage and
reduces landscaping by 180 square feet
• Addition of 450 square feet to convention room above existing garage, an
increase from 950 square feet to 1400 square feet, which changes the rear
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 2
setback on the first floor to zero feet (already zero feet in this location below
grade) and reduced landscaping by 450 square feet
• Combination of three dormers on north elevation into one flat roof dormer
This proposal results in the following changes to SDD #37:
• Amendment to Section 2, Development Plan to include new pertinent plans.
• Amendment to Subsection 3E, Density Control, to increase total GRFA from
27,901.5 square feet to 28,906.5 square feet, and an increase of AU GRFA from
24,451 square feet to 25,456 square feet.
• Amendment to Subsection 3F, Site Coverage, to increase total allowable site
coverage by 180 square feet from 11,200 square feet to 11,380 square feet.
• Amendment to Subsection 3G, Landscaping and Site Development to reduce
minimum landscaping by 630 square feet from 5,312 square feet (30%) to 4,682
square feet (28%)
• No changes to number of parking spaces
III. BACKGROUND
Special Development District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, was established by Ordinance No.
12, Series of 2003. The SDD allowed for increased height, loading and delivery in the
front setback and a deviation from required parking. The Tivoli Lodge provided one on-
site employee housing unit, streetscape improvements, a paved walkway on Hanson
Ranch Road and paid a transportation impact fee for increased vehicle trips. The Tivoli
Lodge received their certificate of occupancy in 2005.
On May 18, 2010, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010,
which allowed for the conversion of a meeting room to an accommodation unit. The
Tivoli Lodge received a building permit for the conversion on December 29, 2010 but
allowed the permit to expire before any work commenced. A second building permit
was issued on October 19, 2012 and is still active.
IV. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoning
North: Residential Public Accommodations
South: Open Space Agriculture and Open Space
East: Residential Public Accommodations
West: Open Space Agriculture and Open Space
V. ZONING ANALYSIS
Legal Description: Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th Filing
Zoning: SDD No. 37, Public Accommodations (PA) District
Lot Size: 17,707 square feet/ 0.4065 acres
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 3
Development
Standard
Allowed
PA District
Allowed
SDD No. 37
Proposed Net
Change
Dwelling Units/Acre 25 DU/acre
unlimited EHU,
AU, FF/TS
1 DU
62 AU
1 EHU
1 DU
62 AU
1 EHU
No change
GRFA (max)
GRFA- AUs
41,430 sq ft 27,901.5 sq ft
24,451 sq ft
28,906.5 sq ft
25,456 sq ft
+1,005 sq ft
Site Coverage (max) 65%/ 11,510 sq ft 63%/ 11,200 sq ft 64%/ 11,380 sq ft +180 sq ft
Landscaping (min) 30%/ 5,312 sq ft 30%/ 5,312 sq ft 26%/ 4,682 sq ft -630 sq ft
Setbacks 20 feet Per approved plan Per approved plan Decreased
rear
setback
Parking (min) 51 spaces* 40 spaces 40 spaces** No change
Height (max) Sloping roof
48 feet
56 feet 56 feet No change
*Increase in meeting room from 950 sq ft to 1400 sq ft requires 2 additional parking
spaces.
** 22 spaces on site. Lot 3, First Amendment, Vail Village 5th Filing, also part of SDD 37
provides 18 spaces. No new spaces being proposed and 11 space deviation is being
requested.
Use Parking requirement Spaces required
1 DU 1.4 spaces/ DU 1.4 spaces
1 EHU 1.4 spaces/ DU 1.4 spaces
62 AU 0.7 spaces/AU 43.4 spaces
1,400 sq ft meeting room 1 space/330 sq ft 4.24 spaces
TOTAL 50.44= 51 spaces
VI. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the
review of this proposal (Note: Click on the underlined sections for links to the
documents. You will need internet connection to access links):
Vail Land Use Plan
• Goals: 1.0 General Growth/Development & 3.0 Commercial
Vail Village Master Plan
• Goal #2:
• East Village, Sub-Area (#7)
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 4
• #7-2 Tivoli Lodge Infill
Title 12, Vail Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code
• Chapter 12-1, Title, Purpose And Applicability
• ARTICLE 12-9A: SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDD) DISTRICT
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA
The Vail Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal
criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special
Development District. It shall 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.
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.
Staff believes many of the proposed changes to building design are compatible
and sensitive to the immediate environment, neighborhoods and adjacent
properties. However, Staff believes the proposed first floor office addition on the
north side and the change to the dormers on the north elevation are out of
character and visual integrity with the rest of the building. The office addition
creates a conflict with the adjacent entry as the new roofline is not architecturally
compatible with the existing façade and changes the nature of the entry to the
building. The flat roof dormer proposed on the north side of the building is
uncharacteristic of the architectural character of the building and the varied
architecture in the surrounding neighborhood. The dormer would fit the character
of the building if it had a sloped roof form similar to the dormer on the south
elevation. With these modifications, Staff believes the proposed dormer would
comply with this criterion.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Staff believes that the proposed additions to the existing accommodations unit,
meeting room and office provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activities. There is a need for hot beds in this
neighborhood, and this addition will help supply this need with a larger three
bedroom suite. A larger meeting room improves a workable relationship between
this building, Vail Village and the nearby ski mountain, as groups who visit Vail
need a variety of meeting rooms for events. The neighborhood has similar uses
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 5
and density, which is compatible with the Tivoli Lodge. Staff believes the
proposal meets this criterion.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
12-10, Vail Town Code.
At the establishment of this SDD, a reduction in parking was provided, allowing
40 spaces instead of 48 spaces as required by Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code.
In 2010, meeting space was converted to an accommodation unit, which reduced
required parking to 47 spaces. Typically, when changes of use applications are
submitted to the Town of Vail, parking is assessed for the change in use and not
for the entire project. The proposed amendments would require an incremental 2
parking spaces. Because this is an SDD, an overall analysis was performed for
parking on the overall site, resulting in a total of 51 required spaces for this site.
Use Parking
requirement
Spaces required
1 DU 1.4 spaces/ DU 1.4 spaces
1 EHU 1.4 spaces/ DU 1.4 spaces
62 AU 0.7 spaces/AU 43.4 spaces
1,400 sq ft
meeting room
1 space/330 sq ft 4.24 spaces
TOTAL 50.44= 51 spaces
The 40 spaces provided by this SDD (22 on site and 18 on Lot 3, First
Amendment, Vail Village 5th Filing) would now create a deficit of 11 spaces.
Therefore, the proposal requires increased deviation from the requirements of
Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code. However, the meeting room space will likely be
used by hotel guests or people who are walking or taking buses from other
locations in Vail Village and Lionshead and would not generate a need for
additional parking. Staff believes the existing 40 spaces is adequate for the
Tivoli Lodge.
D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan
and Town policies.
Staff believes that this application complies with certain elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and Town policies. Specifically, the application complies
with the Vail Village Master Plan, which states “the development of short term
accommodation units is strongly encouraged.” Further, this application meets
the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan, including accommodating “most of the
additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas).” The Vail Land Use
Plan also calls for hotels to be located in Vail Village and Lionshead, which this
application continues to do.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 6
Staff finds the proposed shed roofs on the first floor additions conform to the Vail
Village Design Consideration, which states “Shed roofs are frequently used for
small additions to larger buildings.” Staff believes the proposed flat roof dormer
does not conform to the Vail Village Design Considerations, which states,
“The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to
form a consistently unifying backdrop for the architecture and
pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs, which tend to stand out
individually or distract visually from the overall character…
Freestanding shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs can be found
in the Village but they are-generally considered to be out of
character and inappropriate.”
However, Staff believes the proposed flat roof dormer can be modified to match
the dormer on the south elevation, which would then comply with the above
design considerations.
Staff finds this proposal does not require mitigation of employee housing.
Accommodation units are assessed for employees per unit, and no new units are
being added. The office and meeting room space are considered accessory to
the lodge use, and thus, are not separately assessed employee housing. Staff
believes that no further mitigation of development impacts should be required for
this application because of the minor nature of the proposed changes, and the
positive impacts of a larger AU in Vail Village.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
Staff believes that the proposal is in compliance with this criterion, as there are
no natural or geologic hazards that need to be mitigated.
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.
Staff believes the proposed additions are not responsive and sensitive to natural
features and vegetation. While no trees need to be removed, landscaping is
going to be removed. However, the removal of vegetation is mitigated on the
north side with the existing evergreen trees that will block the addition. On the
south side, the undevelopable open space directly adjacent to the property
provides a natural buffer that allows the addition to remain sensitive to overall
natural features. The office addition on the north side seems out of place and not
compatible with the existing architecture, and thus, is not responsive to the
overall aesthetic quality of the community and the building itself.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and off-site traffic circulation.
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 7
Staff believes that this proposal complies with this criteria, as the circulation
system that is designed for both vehicles and pedestrians will not be effected.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Staff believes that this application will affect landscaping, as it reduces
landscaping by 180 square feet on the front (north) side of the building, and by
450 square feet on the rear (south) side of the building. Trees to be removed will
be relocated on site. While landscaping is being reduced, it will have minimal
impact on the optimization and preservation of 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 that this criteria is not applicable, as there is no phasing plan or
subdivision plan to be enacted as part of this project.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, Staff recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions,
to the Vail Town Council for the applicant’s request.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation for approval, with conditions, for this major amendment to a special
development district, the Department of Community Development recommends the
Commission pass the following motion:
“Based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February
11, 2013, and evidence and testimony presented at this hearing, the Planning
and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with
conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the applicant’s request for a major
amendment to a Special Development District, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10,
Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend Special Development
District No. 37, Tivoli Lodge, to amend the approved development plan to
increase gross residential floor area and site coverage and amend the approved
setbacks, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5th
Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.”
2/19/2013
Town of Vail Page 8
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of
approval of this application, the Community Development Department recommends the
Planning and Environmental Commission pass the following conditions:
1. This approval does not include the office addition on the north elevation because
this element of the proposal is not architecturally compatible with the structure.
2. The proposed flat dormer on the north elevation shall be amended to match the
dormer on the south elevation.
3. The applicant shall receive permission from the adjacent property owner (Vail
Associates) for access for construction in conjunction with any building permits.
4. Approval of an amendment to the SDD is contingent upon the applicant obtaining
Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application.”
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of
approval of this application, the Community Development Department recommends the
Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated February
11, 2013, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and
Environmental Commission finds:
1. That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 37,
Tivoli Lodge, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-
8, Vail Town Code.
2. That the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission,
based upon the testimony and evidence presented, that any adverse effects
of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying
zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided.
3. That the request is consistent with the development goals and objectives of
the Town.”
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant’s request
C. Architectural Plans
D. Draft Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2013
E. Tivoli existing and proposed photos and elevations
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
TO: Rachel Dimond
Town of Vail
Community Development
FROM: William Reslock, Architect
DATE: January 31, 2013
RE: Tivoli Lodge
386 Hanson Ranch Road
REMODEL
______________________________________________________________________________
We are proposing various alterations to the existing Tivoli Lodge at 386 Hanson Ranch Road.
This will be a major amendment to the existing SDD.
1. We are proposing an addition to the existing Room 520, to create a three bedroom suite.
This will be an addition of 1005 sf of finished space utilizing existing unfinished floor
area. In order to achieve this, we will be adding two dormers to the existing roof as
shown on Sheet A5.4 on either side of the ridge on the left side of the page.
2. On the hallway on Level 4, we propose a dormer addition to the north side. This addition
utilizes existing attic storage space. The dormer design will help stop the shedding of ice
and snow off the roof to the ground below. This is visible on Sheet A5.3.
3. An office addition of 180 sf to the existing 200 sf office will create a larger
administrative space of 380 sq which is greatly desired. This will result in an additional
180 sf of site coverage. The elevations on sheet A5.4 and A5.5 show the materials will
match the existing building.
4. We are proposing an addition to the convention room of 450 sf with the existing 950 sf
room. This will cr eat e a space of 1400 sf, which will greatly increase the hotel's ability to
attract meeting and conferences during the fall, spring and summer. This will not result in
any additional site coverage because it is located over the existing parking level.
5. Additional exterior improvements included four French balconies on the north side and
six new French balconies on the south side to improve the existing room quality. There
will also be three new patios outside of the existing rooms on the south side to improve
quality.
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
Existing North Elevation
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
Existing South Elevation
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
Existing West Elevation
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
Existing East Elevation
2/19/2013
2/19/2013
Existing Level 5
2/19/2013
2/19/2013