Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-19 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., NOVEMBER 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: Citizen Participation: (15 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda: 1) Resolution No. 15, Series of 2013 - Animal Control 2014 IGA 2) Proclamation No. 7, Series of 2013 - Declaring December 10, 2013 as "Colorado Gives Day" (5 min.) 3. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report: (5 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Castle Peak Care Community Funding Request (30 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Lisa Pease, Augustana Care ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation and ask questions. 5. ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Amending Section 12-21-2, 12-21-11 and 12-21-14 of the Vail Town Code Regarding Hazard Regulations and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto (10 min) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve changes to Ordinance 12- 21-2, 12-21-11, and 12-21-14 in order to maintain in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program. BACKGROUND: The State of Colorado has adopted higher standards for floodplain management. The major changes to previous requirements include provisions to freeboard, critical facilities, and floodway surcharge criteria. Communities have until January 14, 2014 to adopt local regulations consistent with the new standards in order to remain in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and be eligible for grant funding through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the changes to Ordinance 12-21-2, 12-21-11, and 12-21-14 in order to maintain compliance. 6. ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series 2013, an ordinance 11/19/2013 providing for the levy assessment and collection of town property taxes due for the 2013 tax year and payable in the 2014 fiscal year. (10 min.) PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve or approve with amendments BACKGROUND: Please see attached memo STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve or approve with amendments 7. ITEM/TOPIC: Presentation on the Timber Ridge Redevelopment Project Program (30 min. ) PRESENTER(S): George Ruther, Community Development Director, Jen Wright, Wright and Company, Gary Gorman, Gorman & Company, Inc. and Rick Pylman, Pylman & Associates. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Authorize the Town Manager to sign the development application facilitating the redevelopment of Timber Ridge as proposed. BACKGROUND: On October 15, 2013, the Vail Town Council authorized the Town Manager to enter into a pre-development agreement with Gorman & Company, Inc. to facilitate the redevelopment of the easternmost 5.24 acres of the Timber Ridge Apartments. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the developer was to return to the Town Council with a presentation on the proposed redevelopment. The purpose of this agenda item is to meet that required obligation and obtain the Town Council's agreement on the proposed project program. Authorization from the Town Council for the Town Manager to sign the development application shall indicate the acceptance of the project program by the Town Council. Please refer to the staff memorandum dated November 19, 2013 for a more detailed description of the project program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council instructs the Town Manager to sign the development application to facilitate the redevelopment of the easternmost 5.24 acres of the Timber Ridge Apartments as proposed. Once signed the applicants will be prepared to submit a complete development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review by no later than November 29, 2013, in accordance with the signed Pre-development Agreement. The development application is currently scheduled for final review by the Planning & Environmental Commission on Monday, December 16, 2013. 8. ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013, a resolution adopting the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (45 min. ) PRESENTER(S): George Ruther, Community Development Director and Tom Braun, Principal, Braun Associates, Inc. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Approve with Modifications, or Deny Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013 11/19/2013 BACKGROUND: On April 16, 2013, the Vail Town Council instructed town staff to prepare a new master plan for Gerald R. Ford Park. In doing so, the Town Council provided the following direction: The new plan shall be a compilation of the 1974 Vail Plan, 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update. A series of goals, objectives, policies and actions steps were to be developed to clarify the community's expectations for the Park and guide future decisions about improvements with the Park. The concept of sub area planning within the Park was supported. While the Park was to be planned in its entirety, sub area plans and illustrative graphics were to be used to further clarify opportunities within the respective areas of the Park. The new plan was to incorporate both current improvements already underway within the Park but also capture and articulate future improvement opportunities. The Plan was to have an approximate ten year life span with periodic updates and amendment considerations when needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council approves the proposed 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, as modifidied by the Planning & Environmental Commission, based upon a review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings. 9. ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Amending Section 13-7-8 of the Vail Town Code Regarding Recovery of Costs in Enforcement Actions and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. (5 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. BACKGROUND: The Town Council desires to amend the Vail Town Code to provide for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in successful court actions to enforce violations of Section 13-7-8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. 10. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (8:35 p.m.) 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation: 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda: 1) Resolution No. 15, Series of 2013 - Animal Control 2014 IGA 2) Proclamation No. 7, Series of 2013 - Declaring December 10, 2013 as "Colorado Gives Day" ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No 15 Series of 2013 Proclamation No. 7, Series of 2013 11/19/2013 Resolution No. 15, 2013 RESOLUTION NO. 15 Series of 2013 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND THE COUNTY OF EAGLE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the “Town”), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the “Charter”); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the “Council”) have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, the Town and the County of Eagle (the “County”) wish to enter into a 2014 Intergovernmental Agreement (the “IGA”) authorizing the County to provide animal control services within the Town limits; WHEREAS, the Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to provide animal control services; and WHEREAS, The Council’s approval of Resolution No. 15, Series of 2013, is required to enter into an IGA NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Council hereby approves and authorizes the Town Manager to enter into the IGA with the County for animal control services on behalf of the Town in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit A and in a form approved by the Town Attorney. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of November, 2013. _________________________ Andrew P. Daly Town Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 • INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO AND THE TOWN OF VAIL This Agreement made this day of , 2013, by and between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, a body corporate and politic (the "County") and the Town of Vail, a municipal corporation (the "Town"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Town desires to contract with the County for the performance of the hereinafter described Animal Services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rendering such Animal Services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, this Intergovernmental Agreement is authorized pursuant to Sections 29-1-201 and 30-11-101, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, and Article XIV, Section 18, of the Colorado Constitution. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. TERRITORY COVERED. The territory covered by this Agreement is all of that certain property legally described as the Town of Vail. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. Emergency On-Call Service is defined as any emergency call received by the County for which Animal Service assistance is required and no Animal Service Officer is on duty to respond . Shelter means The Eagle County Animal Shelter located at 1400 Fairgrounds Road, Eagle, Colorado, and any other shelter facility operated or designated by County. Unclaimed Day is defined as a calendar day or any part thereof during which an unclaimed animal is confined in Shelter on behalf of the Town. SECTION 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES. 11/19/2013 The County agrees to provide General Animal and Emergency On-Call Services within the Town of Vail as follows : A. General Animal Services shall include: i. A minimum of 50 hours of patrol per month, consisting of inspection tours looking for violations or responding to complaints. ii. Administration and enforcement of the current Title 6, Animals of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail presently in effect, and as may be subsequently amended. iii. The County shall provide the Town with monthly reports and an annual report of services provided pursuant to this Agreement . Such reports shall include, by way of example only, the number of calls for service, number of animals sheltered, number of Unclaimed Days, and number of citations issued, as they apply to the Town of Vail. iv. Animal .sheltering services for animals attributable to the Town, of the nature and quality customarily provided at the Shelter. Animals attributable to the town are animals impounded within the Town of Vail and animals owned by persons dwelling, permanently or temporarily, in the Town of Vail. B. Twenty-four (24) hours per day Emergency On-Call Service (via County answering service when the Shelter not open). i. Emergency On-Call Service will be provided during the period when an Eagle County Animal Service Officer is not on duty . In the event that an Eagle County Animal Service Officer is not immediately available to respond to an incident or emergency, the Town of Vail will provide available personnel to secure the scene and administer control of the situation until the Eagle County Animal Service Officer arrives to resolve said incident. SECTION 4 . OFFICIAL STATUS. For the purpose of performing the Animal Services and functions set forth in this agreement, Eagle County Animal Services shall enforce, as the Town's agent, the Municipal Ordinances relating to animals now in effect and as amended from time to time. SECTION 5. EQUIPMENT. The County shall furnish and supply, at its sale expense, all necessary labor, supervision, equipment, motor vehicles, office space, and operating and office supplies necessary to provide the services to be rendered hereunder. SECTION 6. COMPENSATION. 11/19/2013 The Town of Vail agrees to pay the County, monthly, the sum of $3,200.00 for General Animal Services . On-Call Emergency Service shall be billed at: $50.00 per hour. The Town of Vail agrees to pay the County, on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for General Animal and On-Call Emergency Services rendered the previous month. All fees and expenses recovered at or for the Shelter will remain with the County. All court fines and costs will remain with the court of venue. The County shall administer the County's Dog license Program for the Town. Monies collected from residents of the Town shall belong to the County. SECTION 7. PERSONNEL. The Eagle County Animal Services Officer shall have full cooperation from the Town of Vail, its public works, its police officers and/or their respective officers, agents, and employees, so as to facilitate the performance of this Agreement. The rendition of Animal Services provided for herein, the standards of performance, the diScipline of officers, and other matters incident to the performance of such services and the control of personnel so employed, shall remain in the County . All persons employed in the performance of such Animal Services for the Town of Vail, pursuant to this agreement, shall be County employees, except for Town personnel used to secure the scene as described in Section 3. SECTION 8. LIABILITY AND INSURANCE. A. The County, its officers and employees, shall not be deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the Town or of any officer or employee thereof. Likewise, the Town, its officers and employees, shall not be deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negligent acts, errors or omissions of the County or by any officer or employee thereof. B. The County agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless to the extent allowed by law, the Town, its respective agents, officers, servants and employees of and from any and all loss, costs, damage, injury, liability, claims, liens, demands, action and causes of action whatsoever, arising out of or related to the County's intentional or negligent acts, errors or omissions or that of its agents, officers, servants, and employees, whether contractual or otherwise. Likewise, the Town agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless to the extent allowed by law, the County, its respective agents, officers, servants and employees of and from any and all loss, costs, damage, injury, liability, claims, liens, demands, action and causes of action whatsoever arising out of or related 11/19/2013 to the Town's intentional or negligent acts errors or omissions or that of its agents officers, servants and employees, whether contractual or otherwise. C. The County and the Town shall respectively provide its own public liability, property damage, and errors and omissions insurance coverage as each party may deem adequate and necessary for any potential liability arising from this Agreement. Further, the County and the Town, respectively, shall name, subject to the approval of each respective party's insurance carriers, the other respective party as a co-insured under such insurance policies to the extent of any potential liability arising under this Agreement and, upon reasonable written request, shall furnish evidence of the same to the other respective party. SECTION 9 . TERM AND TERMINATION. This Agreement is effective January 1, 2014 and shall end on the 31st day of December, 2014. Either party shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause at any time by giving the other party thirty (30) days' prior written notice of termination. Upon termination, the County shall be entitled to compensation for services performed prior to such termination (calculated by prorating the monthly rate for the number of days the County performed General Animal Services and adding all charges for any additional services, including Emergency On Call Services, performed by the County during that time), and both parties shall thereafter be relieved of any and all duties and obligations under this Agreement. Obligations of the Town of Vail and the County, respectively, after the current fiscal year, are contingent upon funds for the purpose set forth in this Agreement being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. SECTION 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Notices. All notices, requests, consents, approvals, written instructions, reports or other communication by the Town of Vail and the County, under this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have given or served, if delivered or if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid or hand delivered to the parties as follows : Town of Vail: Town Attorney Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 County of Eagle: Eagle County Attorney P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 11/19/2013 Either party may change the address to which notices, requests, consents, approvals, written instructions, reports or other communications are to be given by a notice of change of address given in the manner set forth in this paragraph A. B. This agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon or grant to any third party any right to claim damages or to bring any lawsuit, action or other proceedings against either the Town or the County because of any breach hereof or because of any terms, covenants, agreements or conditions contained herein . C. No modification or waiver of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or provision herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith. D. This written Agreement embodies the whole agreement between the parties hereto and there are no inducements, promises, terms, conditions, or obligations made or entered into either by the County or the Town other than those contained herein. E. This Agreement shall be binding upon the respective parties hereto, their successors or assigns and may not be assigned by anyone without the prior written consent of the other respective party hereto . F. All agreements and covenants herein are severable, and in the event that any of them shall be held invalid by a court'of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be interpreted as if such invalid Agreement or covenant were not contained herein. G. The Town has represented to the County and, likewise, the County has represented to the Town, that it possesses the legal ability to enter into this Agreement. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that either of the parties hereto did not possess the legal ability to enter into this Agreement, this Agreement shall be considered null and void as of the date of such Court determination. 11/19/2013 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its ATIEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By:___________ By:______________ Clerk to the Board of Sara Fisher, Chairman County Commissioners ATIEST: TOWN OFVAIL By:___________By:______________ Town Clerk Manager 11/19/2013 TOWN OF VAIL PROCLAMATION NO. 7, SERIES OF 2013 A PROCLAMATION DECLARING DECEMBER 10, 2013 AS “COLORADO GIVES DAY” WHEREAS, charitable giving in the Town of Vail, Colorado is critical to providing support that local nonprofit organizations need to make our community a desirable place to live; and WHEREAS, research shows an increase in online giving both locally and nationally, and many believe it is the future of philanthropy; and WHEREAS, Community First Foundation and FirstBank have partnered in an effort to increase charitable giving in our community through the online giving initiative Colorado Gives Day; and WHEREAS, Colorado Gives Day in 2012 raised $15 million in a single 24-hour period via online donations at coloradogives.org, a website allowing donors to direct their contributions to one or more of the thirty (30) local, Eagle County, charities featured on the site, making it an ideal resource for facilitating charitable giving to our locally-based nonprofit organizations; and WHEREAS, Colorado Gives Day is December 10 this year, and all citizens are encouraged to participate because all donations, large or small, can make a difference to nonprofits in need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Vail Town Council declares THAT: Tuesday, December 10, 2013, will be known as Colorado Gives Day in our community. SIGNED this 19th day of November, 2013. ________________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 Eagle County Gives Organizations -2013 Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Bravol Va i l Bright Future Foundation for Eagle County Can Do Multiple Sclerosis Eagle River Watershed Council Eagle River Youth Coalition Eagle Valley Child Care Association Eagle Valley Humane Society Eagle Valley Land Trust Early Childhood Partners Education Foundation of Eagle County Family Learn i ng Center Habitat for Humanity of Eagle and Lake Counties Mountain Valley Horse Rescue Red Ribbon Project Roundup River Ranch Ski & Snowboard Club Vail ! Small Champions SOS Outreach Swi'ft Eagle Charitable Foundation The Literacy Project The Samaritan Center of the Rockies, Inc. United Way of Eagle River Valley Vail Community Television Corporation Vail Mountain Rescue Group Vail Symposium Vail Valley Charitable Fund Vail Valley Foundation Vail Valley Salvation Army Vail Veterans Program Walking Mountains Sci ence Center Local Chapters of Statewide/Regional Organizations, participating with Eagle County Gives in 2013: American Red Cross Mile High Region Colorado West Mental Hea lth/Mind Springs Catholic Charities -Western Slope 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report: PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Castle Peak Care Community Funding Request PRESENTER(S): Lisa Pease, Augustana Care ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation and ask questions. ATTACHMENTS: CPSCC Brochure CPSCC Budget CPSCC Government Contributions TOV Contribution Proposal CPSCC Powerpoint 11/19/2013 Making our Community Whole 11/19/2013 I’m proud to join many of you in supporting the Castle Peak Senior Community, which will bring assisted living, skilled nursing care, short- term rehabilitation and memory care to the Vail and Eagle County area. I invite everyone in our community to contribute so we can make this project a reality. This is an investment in something we will all need. — Merv Lapin, Chair of Capital Campaign Committee Eagle County’s older adults tend to leave home because they can’t find extended care. Those left behind lose the talent and wisdom of older neighbors and the community suffers economically. By joining Augustana Care and Eagle County in supporting this project, you can help those who live here remain here. — Timothy H. Tucker, President/CEO of Augustana Care 11/19/2013 The experience, generosity and insights of older generations, combined with the enthusiasm of other generations, make our community whole. Yet, most of us know older people who need extra support to stay in our beautiful valley. One day, the same may be said of each of us. In the past, care was provided by family. But families today are smaller and women— the vast majority of caregivers—often work, so many older adults live alone. The reality is, we need to look beyond family for care and support. In Eagle County, the number of older adults is increasing rapidly. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of adults aged 75 and older is projected to increase by 222 percent. Currently, older adults in Eagle County must travel long distances to find assisted living, skilled nursing, memory care or transitional rehabilitation services. They have to leave our community at the time they most need its support. In 2013, Eagle County purchased five acres in Eagle Ranch that, with your help, will become the site of the Castle Peak Senior Care Community. The county chose the respected nonprofit organization Augustana Care to develop and own the care community. Together with Eagle County, a capital campaign committee of dedicated volunteers and other concerned individuals, Augustana Care has embarked on a $4.4 million capital campaign to construct and equip the Castle Peak Senior Care Community. The campus will include assisted living rental apartments, skilled nursing, memory care suites and short-term rehabilitation. Please join us by participating in this effort and providing financial support to this initiative, which is so critical to maintaining the multi-generational fabric of Eagle County. 1 A Care Community for Eagle County 11/19/2013 2 As a life-long physician in Eagle County, I realize aging brings a variety of challenges. We have an obligation to provide an option for extended care to those who add so much to the fabric of our community. Everyone benefits—those who love—and are loved. —Jack Eck, MD 11/19/2013 • Eagle County’s population of adults 65 and older is predicted to increase faster than any other Colorado county’s 65-plus population between 2010 and 2030. • A recent study shows that nearly 70 percent of people who turned 65 in 2007 will need long-term care at some point; about 20 percent will spend five or more years in long-term care. • Many baby boomers and others in their 70s and 80s will leave Eagle County if suitable care is not available, resulting in an annual $43 million loss to the local economy. • The average 75-year-old suffers from three chronic conditions and takes five prescription medications. While most people want to stay in their homes as they grow older, fewer family members are available to provide care. • The Alzheimer’s Association projects that by 2025, the number of people age 65 and older with Alzheimer’s disease is estimated to reach 7 million—a 40-percent increase from those currently affected. Nearly 15 percent of caregivers live an hour or more from loved ones with Alzheimer’s. Out-of-pocket expenses for long-distance caregivers are nearly twice as much as local caregivers’ expenses. 3 Five critical reasons to invest in the Castle Peak Senior Care Community: Responding to Change Like Vi and Byron Brown, most people prefer to remain in their communities as they grow older. 11/19/2013 There is a gap between the community’s need for assisted living, skilled nursing, memory care and short-term rehabilitation and available services. Addressing this gap will strengthen Eagle County’s ability to attract and retain residents of all ages: • The availability and quality of medical care are among the top reasons people rank a community as a desirable place to live. • Older adults make our communities better, both from a volunteer standpoint and economically. • Residents of Eagle County who must travel long distances to find care for themselves or loved ones experience greater stress than those who live in an area where care is readily available. • The Castle Peak Senior Care Community is projected to create 100 jobs during construction and 65 permanent jobs when operating. • The financial structure of the Castle Peak Senior Care Community will allow it to be self-sustaining. As volunteers, neighbors and grandparents, older adults fill gaps in our communities we would not otherwise be able to address. 4 Closing a Gap to Strengthen our Community The availability and quality of medical care are among the top reasons people rank a community as desirable. 11/19/2013 5 Augustana Care brings more than a century of proven experience to our valley. Eagle County brings land and other resources needed to get Castle Peak Senior Care Community built with manageable debt. Our public-private partnership has all the components for success. Together, we can make this project happen. — Sara Fisher, Eagle County Commissioner Since my sister in Minnesota moved to Augustana Care’s Feeney Manor, she is getting exactly the kind of care she should be getting. I think Augustana Care’s experience with older generations and others will serve us well in Eagle County. We’re all getting older and it is good to know Augustana Care will be here if we need care. — Mary Pownall 11/19/2013 With a history that spans 115 years, Augustana Care is dedicated to helping older adults live life to the fullest. A non-profit organization responsible for 23 care communities in Minnesota and Colorado, Augustana Care is an acknowledged leader in providing responsive programs and services to older generations. • Augustana Care’s culture of person- centered care is provided in settings that offer the comforts of home. Castle Peak Senior Care Community will have self- contained “neighborhoods” that offer private housing to every resident. • Augustana Care values older generations’ talents and experience, and focuses on providing the care residents need—when and where they need it. • Augustana Care connects residents to the people and things that mean the most to them. • Augustana Care’s leaders strive for a future where more people age in place through community-based services such as adult day programs, more people return to independent lifestyles through medical care and therapy, and residents experience fewer re-hospitalizations. Augustana Care helps connect residents to the people and things that mean the most to them. 6 Augustana Care: Experience and Expertise 11/19/2013 7 The Castle Peak Senior Care Community is projected to create 100 jobs during construction and 65 permanent jobs when operating. 11/19/2013 • The care community will be designed to serve people at all economic levels. • When fully occupied, it is expected to serve more than 110 people annually. • Castle Peak Senior Care Community will be located on a five-acre site at the intersection of Capital Street and Sylvan Lake Road in Eagle Ranch, selected for its lower altitude, more moderate climate, lower cost and easy walking distance to local amenities. The care community will have the capacity to expand if demand for services increases. • The 62,000-square-foot complex will include the following: - 20 assisted living rental apartments - 22 skilled nursing private units - 12 memory care private suites - 10 transitional care private suites • The campus will include the following amenities: - Common dining areas - Multi-use activity spaces - Gym - Therapy rooms - Lounge areas • Construction costs are estimated at $240 per square foot. • Outdoor areas surrounding the Castle Peak Senior Care Community will include the following: - Large semi-circular terrace area - Garden areas including a medicinal healing garden - Multiple partially shaded patios and courtyards - Rooftop terrace with planting areas for memory care residents - Courtyard areas and walkways - Park area with a three-hole putting green Castle Peak Senior Care Community At a Glance 8 11/19/2013 Your gift will help build the Castle Peak Senior Care Community. Gifts to the capital campaign are tax deductible to the extent allowed by the Internal Revenue Service. Project costs and funding sources are listed below. Project Costs: $15,100,000 Construction costs 2,600,000 Architecture, design and entitlement 1,645,000 Land* 1,500,000 Reserves and contingency 1,400,000 Furniture, fixtures and equipment 800,000 Financing and structure 400,000 Marketing and pre-opening Total Cost: $23,445,000 Project Funding: $12,000,000 Long-term conventional debt 4,400,000 Eagle County loan (subordinated debt) 1,645,000 Eagle County land purchase* 1,000,000 Augustana Loan (subordinated debt) 4,400,000 Capital Campaign goal Total Funding: $23,445,000 Gift Range $# of Gifts Required $ Per Range Cumulative % of Goal Cumulative $ CAMPAIGN GIFT TABLE Making our Community Whole: The Capital Campaign for Castle Peak Senior Care Community Lead Gifts $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 23% $1,000,000 500,000 1 500,000 34% 1,500,000 250,000 3 750,000 51% 2,250,000 100,000 7 700,000 67% 2,950,000 Major Gifts $50,000 5 250,000 73% 3,200,000 25,000 14 350,000 81% 3,550,000 15,000 10 150,000 84% 3,700,000 10,000 25 250,000 90% 3,950,000 Community Gifts $5,000 20 100,000 92% 4,050,000 2,500 30 75,000 94% 4,125,000 Under 2,500 Many 275,000 100% 4,400,000 *Land is owned by Eagle County and will be leased to Augustana Care for $1 per year. 11/19/2013 Naming Site # Available Naming Amount Skilled nursing building 1 $1,000,000 Assisted living building 1 $500,000 Memory care household, transitional care household and assisted living dining area 3 $250,000 Dining/activity terrace and two skilled nursing kitchen/dining/living households 3 $100,000 Multi-use activity room, gym, assisted living kitchen, club room 4 $100,000 Activities/craft room, lobby, roof terrace, north courtyard, putting green 5 $50,000 Outdoor garden areas 2 $25,000 Lounge areas, conference room, staff lounges 6 $25,000 Patios 4 $25,000 Family dining room, library/business center 2 $25,000 Donors of $10,000 or more will be recognized on a donor recognition plaque at the Castle Peak Senior Care Community. Donor Recognition and Naming Opportunities Donors of $25,000 or more to the Castle Peak Senior Care Community campaign may commemorate their gifts through named gift opportunities. 11/19/2013 Castle Peak Senior Care Community Capital Campaign DONOR PlEDGE FORM Please return to Augustana Care/Castle Peak Senior Care Community, PO Box 2127, Edwards, CO 81632 Thank you! Donor Name(s)_______________________________________________________________________ Address____________________________________________________________________________ City___________________________________ State__________________ Zip___________________ Phone______________________________ E-mail________________________________________________ Signature_____________________________________________ Date__________________________ q I would like to make a one-time gift of $ _______________. q My check is enclosed, made payable to Augustana Care. q Please charge my credit card: ____Visa ____MC ___AmEx ____Diner’s Club #_____________________________________________Expiration Date___________________________ Signed______________________________________________________________________________ q I pledge a gift of $_______________________, payable on or before__________________________ Payment Schedule____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ (Payment dates – pledge payments may extend over a three- to five-year period.) q My employer participates in a matching gift program. Name of employer______________________ q I would like my donation to be anonymous. (Optional) My donation is in memory/in honor (circle one) of__________________________________ Please send an acknowledgment to the following: Name_______________________________________________________________________________ Address_____________________________________________________________________________ 11/19/2013 Capital Campaign Committee Merv Lapin, Chair Susie Davis Doris Dewton Kaye Ferry Louise Funk Dan Godec Deb Luginbuhl Melissa MacDonald Jerry Sibley Pam Smith Rick Smith Jon Stavney Augustana Care: Timothy H. Tucker, President and CEO Kay Gudmestad, Vice President, Fund Development Lisa M. Pease, Director of Development, Colorado Assisted by Eagle County: Kathy Chandler-Henry, Commissioner Sara Fisher, Commissioner Jill Ryan, Commissioner Jill Klosterman, Director of Housing Tori Franks, Housing Specialist 11/19/2013 For more information, contact Lisa Pease Director of Development, Colorado Augustana Care/Castle Peak Senior Care Community PO Box 2127 Edwards, CO 81632-2127 (970) 471-4864 lpease@augustanacare.org Castle Peak Senior Care Community is a project of Augustana Care, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. There’s a sadness in watching people leave because there isn’t a place to care for their needs or their spouses’ needs. We need to affirm our seniors’ life experience and the many ongoing contributions they offer. They’ve been very active in their community and devoted volunteers. Their friends, and sometimes their families, are here. We need to keep them in our community. —Doris Dewton and her husband, Richard Gretz 11/19/2013 CastlePeakSeniorCareCommunity SUBJECTTOCHANGE DEVELOPMENTUSES Total Construction Gon~truroonContinfrnI'f FeesandInsurance FurnitureandFixtures TotalConstructionCost $13,253,335.00 I ~'~IJ~,OQ $858,551.00 S 1,379,700.00 $16,416,908.00 ArchitectandEnginee.ting LandPlanning Estimating FeesandPermits TestsandStudies TotalEntitlementCosts s 1,235,000.00 $127,855.00 $33,500.00s1,066,567.00 $.125,484.00 $2,588,406.00 FundraisingConsultantandMaterials D_1....Ioo_~.p__., Legal Fees DeveloperFee TotalFinancingandStructureCosts $300,000.00 ,!JCC,OOO.OOs255,000.00 $ $810,000.00 Salaries MarketingMaterials PreopeningEvents TotalMarketingandPreopeningCosts s 150,000.00 $150,000.00 $85,000.00 $385,000.00 Owner'sContingency DebtServiceReserve Lease-upReserve OperatingReserve TotalContingency s 229,000.00 $600,000.00 $5001°00.00 $292,000.00 $1,621,000.00 TOTALPROJECTCOSTS $21,821,314.00 DEVELOPMENTSOURCES Total LongTermConventionalDebt(USDARD) FundraisingNeed(Gap) EagleCountyContribution(notincludinglandcost) A~tanaContribution $12,024,000.00s4,397,314.00 $.4,400,000.00 $1,000,000.00 TOTAL~OURCH~OERUND~Sl1JilU1400 11/19/2013 c:..u.Peal SenIor c:_CommunltJ 111l"_Pro FonnII YfIIIt y.,Y-y".Year Y...Yf1tII Year Year Yar ReYenue 1 2 3 4 5 •7 8 9 10 NursingFacillll8s $2,125,341 $4,n4,247 P,527••$5,172.271P.121.7IO$5.9'78,31 sa.1315,_11,301,22518.471,884 ...,...... Conbibullonll 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 other Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 ToIIlRevenue B'25,34I $4,n4~7P,527....!!Jm:Il1 !!!.121,71O P,878,3-'11 18,1.,_1I,301~!!471,8104 51,048,514 Expense NLnIng $101.470 $1,818,2111 $2,21O_1IO $2,U7.<tOO$2,SIIS,W$2,455.7.:1$2.517.124 $2,510,052 S2,844.WSl.710,887 MedicalRecords 32,118 33,-34..)41 35,03535.111 38,l1:li 38••38,814 41,101 43,_ SocIaJ Servk:ea 122,,017121,414 121_CZ3132,4111 135.7291H.1-tI '.....884 1110_157.254 181,117 Therapeutic Programs 118.557 10&,8711 1C111.,J1'111.1"113.1178117.M 121,SOI 121,SIII 132,_'''857DIetary2044,3114 Il00,_-~108,300 12.4.....I4S,~l1li2,&20 IIIZ,SII 7rI2,"72U53 Housekeeping 74.11"143.901 ,....172,7R178,2111?1.TI113.330 111,"190,7311114,151 Malntenanc:e 344,817 41',0lI0 ~)44 450.152 48"'87 .',se 484,128 &01,437522,41.538,718 Laundry 11._62,_-i.lIS••II.H2 ".-71,an 73,841 n,21181,131 Administration 1111.SIS 7306,762 71.)111 m,2I1 7U,0504 7112,-100.133 101,841 I,II,NO 825,0IIt AncIllaries 115.711 248,483 SD,1C12 SOI,424311,131 SZ4,C1i8 332.138 340,443 348,154 357,878 DepnIcI.tIon 715.108 711,1181 71.,111717.1711717,788 711,se718,731 721.0111 722,721725,111 Amortfzation 7,1437,143 rl43 7,1437,1437,?137,1437,1437,143 7,143 Inl8Alst 420,"'8 0420,14'41.~412,Il0l407,229 401,_385,_388,Sl51 382.420 Sf5.857 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ToI8lExpenae $3.720.124 $5,422.o:ze 11.03.'24 18,138,257 .,210.172 ••387,~1I11,411.48311.114,8711 ••741.834 ••au,312 Eacea of Reftnue,Gainsand other~ueOVerElIpenle !!"594,978)($s..7.77!!J ~60<!ll~'5)($466.9881 ($4211,Q9})~390.B!OI ($352,421)($313,65~.($274,11-40)[$238,728) Exceu of Raoven_,GaInsand 0dIer Rev8nueOVerExpenH (S"S9-4.978)($147778)($50-015)($468.9881 (M29 092)($390,aD)($352427)($313,655)($274,11-40)($238.728) Add: DeprecIation AmoItImIIDn IrdIIrest 715.508 7,143 420.845 715,_ 7,143 420,1411 71ea1 -;1143 41l13li2 717.175 7,1043 412,,808 717,788 7,143 407,2211 718.811 7,'"113 401,:118 119,735 7,143 3a5,258 721,015 1.143 388,i51 722,7211 7.143 382.420 125.188 1,143 375,857 CahAvailableFor Debt Senlc:e Debt Servlc:a ($451.4791 $496,201 $8311011870,340 f703,0411 173I,=t.1189?OIl $803,4$6 $837,352"1871,2511 $420,848 $420.8411 157:2578 '572,5711$Ii72,5711 $572,.411 »12.571 $572,578 $S72,57e $572.578 Page3C1f4 11/19/2013 c..tIe.......lor C....ComIlWIIity 10Va.ProForma CoYange RMIo (107)'18 ,11 117 123 129 134 140 148 152 BaghII..c.h $1,SII2.028 P4f.<464 14115.101 1438._$480,58'$515.733 S581._".178 S350.111O ....168 C8ItI AYIIIaIIIaFe DellI 5e!vIca:(451.479)4118.201 1137.101 870,2AO703,049 738.21'789,7011 83.465 837.352 871,258 Add:I_In AaIunII.,.,..158.81.18.832 (7.800)3,.,$,4483,518 3._USO 3.713 3.l1li ~In"'"P.,.aI"""_113,233 a.•7A 11._11.43111.141 12,271 (a.87Vl 10.377 10.m -'-In Aauad IIIIInII 55.071 0 (450)(488)(a2)(4l1li)(517)(53e)(1165)(674) Less:DIbt &eM:.(4211.848)(420.841)(l72,S7I)(172,578)(672,678)(572.578)(572,678)(e'2.511)(572.578)(572,878)rna-In~""""(141.100)(88.SS7)(32,187)(8.5111)(t.71S)(t.m)(7.0115)(7.272)(7.484)(7,140) I_In AIpIId InIInnca (3.5GO)(105)(108)(13)(15)(III)(100)(102)(105)(108) 1_111..............",.(12,BOG)(12,100)(12,100)(12,800)(12,I0Il)(25.800)(25,800)~OOO)("'000)(84.000) ......lnl:'lllt-..ve (57 ,2IiI)(57.218)(57 .211)(57,251)(57,251)(17,211)(17.211)P.2II)(57.218)(57.251)__In........(12,-,(12,100)(12.100)(12,II1II)(12,II1II)(12,100)(12,8110)'2,100)(2UCID)(32,000) ~tI~DIbt ~S11~"':!!!!l "211~"2US!! TOCII c....IIIV_End '541.484 $4116.608 ~3I1503 i!!!15811 1615.733 1&9'1583 5448.178 1301'110 El168 138311111 TOCII AniiuaI'-ro--t III c.h tP45,~($50158}($57.105)S22_165184575,830 ($144,814)($M"J 511._125._ PIIgII4of4 11/19/2013 Castle Peak Senior Care Community Schedule of Governmental Contributions Committed As of November 13, 2013 Eagle County – approximately $1.1 million  $988,000 for the contribution of 3 acres of land for Phase 1 construction  $100,000 to $200,000 in unreimbursed staff time Town of Eagle – Total of $600,000  $400,000 in fee recalculations from a 1.0 EQR to a .25 EQR  $45,000 in tap fee waivers  $155,000 to be paid over a 3 year period Town of Gypsum – Total of $200,000  $200,000 to be paid over a 3 year period approved on 11/12/2013 Town of Avon – Total of $200,000  $50,000 approved for inclusion in the 2014 budget approved on 11/12/2013  $150,000 funding in future years – further discussion of the funding mechanism to be utilized for this additional amount will be discussed at their meeting on November 26, 2013 11/19/2013 Castle Peak Senior Care Community Capital Campaign Proposal The Town of Vail, November 19, 2013 11/19/2013 Castle Peak Senior Care Community: Castle Peak Senior Care Community (CPSCC) is a 64-unit skilled nursing and assisted living facility that will be located in Eagle, Colorado. Castle Peak will be the first project of its kind in Eagle County and will serve all income levels. The project will include: 20 assisted living apartments, 22 private skilled nursing units, 10 private rehabilitation suites and 12 private memory care suites. While the focus at CPSCC is on senior care, the skilled nursing, rehabilitation care and memory care units may serve people of all ages. History and Project Progress: In 2009, the Eagle County Commissioners sat down to discuss the greatest opportunities and challenges facing Eagle County. A topic that easily fit both categories was the lack of senior care services. In 2010, with the full understanding that Eagle County Government did not have the expertise to own or operate a senior living facility, it released an RFP for a senior living developer/operator partner. Eagle County chose Augustana Care as a development partner and owner/operator of CPSCC through a rigorous community interview process in August of 2010. Since then, Eagle County and Augustana Care have been working together to develop the Castle Peak Senior Care Community. Much of the pre-development work (financial and market analysis, site selection, initial building design) took place in 2010 through 2012. So far in 2013, the Castle Peak project has made a lot of progress:  In February 2013 the project received unanimous approvals for the required zoning changes from the Eagle Town Board.  In April 2013, Eagle County Housing and Development Authority closed on the purchase of the land for the project. See the attached site plans.  In July 2013, the Capital Campaign officially launched.  In September 30, 2013, Augustana Care received approval of its loan application from USDA Rural Development Community Facilities Loan program for the $12 million long- term debt for the project.  In November 2013, the Eagle County Commissioners approved the donation of the 3- acre parcel of land for Phase 1 valued at $988,000 for the development of CPSCC. Augustana Care: Augustana Care, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, will own and operate the Castle Peak Senior Care Community. Augustana Care’s mission is to foster fullness of life for older adults and others in need through housing, health care and community-based services. Augustana Care has over 100 years of experience, owns and/or manages 23 properties in Minnesota and Colorado, and provides care to an estimated 3,000 individuals daily. Augustana Care is dedicated to helping those served to live the lives that most inspire them. Priorities are to value older generations’ talents and experience; provide the care residents need, when and where they need it; and to connect residents to the people and things that mean the most to them. 11/19/2013 Need and Benefits: Older adults are the fastest growing segment of Eagle County’s population. Eagle County’s 65+ and 75+ populations are forecasted to grow by 158.6% and 221.7% respectively, in the current decade, 2010-2020. Eagle County Population Growth: 2000 2010 % Increase 2010 2020 % Increase All ages 43,290 52,064 20.3% 52,064 68,350 31.3% 65+ 1,298 3,005 131.5% 3,005 7,772 158.6% 75+ 389 738 89.7% 738 2,374 221.7% Currently, no skilled nursing or assisted living facilities exist in Eagle County. Many of our fellow community members, are forced to move out of the county to obtain the care they require. The effects of losing our older residents are felt deeply by the friends, family and communitie s they leave behind. With Vail’s 65 and older population comprising 19% of this segment of the population in Eagle County (2010 census), clearly these services will be utilized by Vail residents in the coming years. Recent research from the CSU Economics Department shows the estimated annual cost of seniors leaving Eagle County due to a lack of housing and health care options at $43 million. It is projected that Castle Peak will serve, on average, 110 people annually, create 100 jobs during construction and 65 permanent jobs when operating. While the need for a facility like Castle Peak is easy to see, in order to ensure a successful project, Augustana Care will only be building to 53% of the total demand. Below is a chart comparing the forecasted 2014 market demand for a skilled nursing and assisted living facility to what is planned for phase one of the Castle Peak Project. The land, in Eagle Ranch, where the project will be located, can accommodate a “Phase 2.” Phase 2 is not planned and will depend on market demand, but the current design of the building will allow for an expansion of both the assisted living and skilled nursing wings along with the potential addition of independent living apartments. 2014 Demand Castle Peak Plan Skilled Nursing Units 74 44 Assisted Living Units 46 20 Total 120 64 11/19/2013 Financial Structure and Analysis: Below are the basic costs of construction of the Castle Peak Senior Care Community. Also see the attached Castle Peak Senior Care Community Development Budget. Total Cost of Project $21,824,000 USDA Rural Development Loan $12,024,000 Eagle County Loan (subordinate to USDA loan) $4,400,000 Augustana Care Loan (subordinate to USDA loan) $1,000,000 Funding Gap (private philanthropy, grants, fee waivers, etc.) $4,400,000 USDA Loan: The financing of CPSCC is structured to allow the project to be self-sustaining when 90% occupied; no additional future operational subsidies are contemplated. The project’s conventional debt is a $12,024,000 loan from the USDA RD Community Facilities Loan Program. When the project received loan approval from USDA RD, it was able to lock in a 3.5% interest rate over a 40-year term. The below market interest rate and favorable loan terms play a large role in allowing the project to achieve sustainability. Augustana Care received final loan approval September 30, 2013. The $12,024,000 loan requires a 1.25 Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR). For every dollar borrowed the project must have $1.25 to repay the debt. The project achieves 1.25 DSCR between years 5 and 6. See the attached 10-Year Proforma. Additionally, one of the conditions of the loan approval is that Augustana Care provides a 5-year operating guarantee to the project to cover any cash flow shortages. Augustana Care and Eagle County are contributing a combined $5.4 million in subordinate debt. The subordinate loans will both have 55-year terms and will carry a 2% simple interest rate. The loans will only begin to receive repayments after the project is open and operating successfully and maintains a 1.25x debt service coverage ratio on the USDA loan. After this minimum DSCR is achieved, 30% of the remaining cash flow will remain at the project in reserves and other project funds, and the remaining 70% of the cash flow will be split between Eagle County and Augustana Care. Currently, it is anticipated that Eagle County and Augustana Care will receive their first debt payments in 2022 with a full repayment of the loan in 2070. The chart below shows the required cash the project must generate to pay the USDA loan and maintain the required DSCR for a loan of $12,024,000 and a loan of 16,424,000. With a loan of 11/19/2013 $12,024,000, the project just breaks even when it reaches revenue/lease up stabilization. With a loan of $16,424,000 ($12,024,000 + $4,400,000) the project would need $251,326 in additional cash on an annual basis to cover this loan payment and required DSCR. This would translate into an increase in rents of $850 per month per resident in all of the market rate units, which would potentially send rental rates beyond what the market will support. In the pre- development phase, it became clear to the project team that increasing the conventional debt to cover the funding gap was not a viable option. Current Loan Loan with Fundraising Gap Loan Amount $12,024,000 $16,424,000 Interest Rate 3.50% 3.50% Amortization Period (years) 40 40 Annual Loan Payment $558,959 $763,501 Minimum Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) 1.25 1.25 Required Cash Available to meet DSCR $698,698 $954,376 Castle Peak Stabilized Cash Available $703,049 $703,049 Annual Excess (Shortfall) in Cash Available $4,351 $(251,326) Project Affordability: Augustana Care and Eagle County are committed to bringing a senior living project to the county that will serve residents of all income levels. Castle Peak will provide both Medicaid and Medicare units in the skilled nursing wing. The skilled nursing units comprise approximately 70% of the total units, with the assisted living units comprising the remaining 30%. The State of Colorado sets the rate the project can charge a skilled nursing Medicaid resident and the federal government determines the price the project can charge a skilled nursing Medicare resident. Additionally, private insurance sets the rates it will pay for Medicaid and Medicare residents. Castle Peak is budgeting for the highest allowable rates for these payer sources. Market and focus group research has determined what the pricing should be for the private pay assisted living units and the skilled nursing units. The research shows Eagle County residents would pay up to 20% more in rent than comparable Front Range care communities to live in a facility locally. If local rental rates were to climb beyond 20% above the Front Range comparables, Eagle County residents would most likely choose to move rather than pay the increased local rates. The project has budgeted for rental rates (both private pay and Medicaid/Medicare) that are within our market’s acceptable range. Increasing the rents beyond the acceptable range would price the lower income residents out, which would result in an entirely private pay facility. Augustana Care and Eagle County contributions: 11/19/2013 Augustana Care is investing $1,000,000 in cash to the project. Eagle County is investing $4,400,000 in cash to the project; these cash contributions have been approved through the USDA RD loan application and will be treated as subordinate debt. When the project is operational, Eagle County’s only involvement will be as a subordinate lender. Having the loan in place, will allow Eagle County recourse if the project encounters financial difficulty or Augustana Care were to want to use the facility as anything other than a senior living/healthcare facility. Eagle County Housing and Development Authority purchased 5 acres of land for the project in April 2013 for $1,645,000. On November 12, 2013, Eagle County donated approximately 3 acres of the land upon which “Phase 1” of the care community will be constructed. The value of this donation is $988,000. This amount is not included in the subordinate debt and will not be repaid by CPSCC to Eagle County. All of the funds Eagle County is contributing to the project are a result of the refinance of the debt on Lake Creek Village Apartments, a property owned by Eagle County. Additionally, Augustana Care and Eagle County have been covering employee salaries for work on this project since 2010. Each organization’s salary contributions are estimated at well in excess of $200,000. Neither Augustana Care nor Eagle County will be collecting a developer fee, an estimated savings to the project in excess of $1,000,000. As stated above, as a condition of the USDA RD loan approval Augustana Care will be guaranteeing the project’s cash flow for the first 5 years of operation. The Capital Campaign: As explained above, the costs of building the Castle Peak Senior Care Community are more than Eagle County and Augustana Care can contribute. The project cannot support additional conventional debt without severely affecting the affordability to the residents. In July 2013, Augustana Care officially launched a, one-time, $4.4 million dollar capital campaign to raise the remaining funds needed to make Castle Peak a reality. Augustana Care hired Lisa Pease, a resident of Eagle County, to manage the capital campaign. Lisa is supported by a group of Eagle County volunteers, who have made personal contributions to the capital campaign. Merv Lapin and Dr. Tom Steinberg, both long-time Vail residents, serve as the campaign’s chairman and honorary chairman, respectively. As of November 13, 2013 the campaign has raised (in cash and pledges) $1,767,587 40.17% of the total goal. This amount includes commitments from the Towns of Eagle, Gypsum and Avon. The Town of Vail: Augustana Care respectfully requests that the Town of Vail contribute $200,000 towards the capital campaign and help make our community whole by making the Castle Peak Senior Care Community a reality. The capital campaign can accept pledges with payment terms over a three-year period. The capital campaign must raise 75-85% ($3,300,000-$3,740,000) of the campaign goal in order to break ground on the construction of the building. The goal for ground breaking is late spring/early summer 2014. 11/19/2013 The Towns of Gypsum and Avon have also received capital campaign requests for donations of $200,000 each. On November 12th, the Town of Gypsum approved a $200,000 donation to be paid over a three year period, and the Town of Avon approved the addition of $50,000 to be added to their 2014 budget with further discussion of the future donations to bring the total to the $200,000 requested to occur on November 26 th. The Town of Eagle was the first town the capital campaign approached. The Town of Eagle has pledged a total contribution package of $600,000. Eagle will contribute $155,000 over 3 years and has agreed to waive building and development fees up to $45,000 for a total cash contribution of $200,000. The remaining $400,000 of Eagle’s contribution is in the form of water tap fee re-calculations. The capital campaign committee is soliciting contributions from all the municipalities, unincorporated metro districts (if allowable), local businesses, foundations and individuals. The availability and quality of medical care are among the top reasons people rank a community as a desirable place to live. While not yet assessed and quantified, it is believed that having a complete spectrum of services will allow our older population to more freely commit their time and financial resources to their community in Eagle County knowing they will have a choice to stay here if they so desire. Additionally the development of Castle Peak will provide Vail residents the option of relocating a loved one in need of care to Eagle County. This will prevent current residents from having to make the difficult decision to leave the community to care for a loved one elsewhere. By filling the gap in housing and health care for seniors, the services at the Castle Peak Senior Care Community will complement the medical industry in our county. Augustana Care has a history of leadership by sharing best practices with a variety of community partners and service providers. Potential collaborations include and are not limited to, inter-generational programming with the schools, utilization of local hospice services and the potential establishment of internships with students pursuing healthcare degrees at Colorado Mountain College. All of these partnerships will potentially benefit the residents of Vail. Augustana Care will continue to leverage new technologies and innovative practices to best serve the needs of our aging population throughout Eagle County. Medicaid, Medicare and USDA RD loan regulations all prohibit Castle Peak from providing waitlist preference to Eagle County residents or reserving units in exchange for capital campaign donations, at any level. In Augustana Care’s experience, a ll of the residents that reside in skilled nursing or assisted living communities choose this type of living environment because they need care and/or services. Augustana Care’s waiting lists are developed based on people’s need for services and care. At Augustana Care’s assisted living community, Elk Run, in Evergreen, Colorado, 80% of the residents come from the Evergreen community. The other 20% of the residents move to Elk Run to be closer to a family member that lives in Evergreen. Elk Run experiences a 50% annual turnover rate. It is anticipated that Castle Peak will experience similar lease-up and turnover patterns allowing Vail residents who need additional care and services the option to move to Castle Peak and remain close to friends, family and community. Thank you for this opportunity and for your consideration of this proposal. 11/19/2013 Respectfully Submitted, Castle Peak Senior Care Community Capital Campaign Committee and Honorary Council Capital Campaign Committee: Merv Lapin - Chair Susie Davis Doris Dewton Dan Godec Peter Feistmann Kaye Ferry Louise Funk Topper Hagerman Deb Luginbuhl Melissa MacDonald Pam Smith Rick Smith Jon Stavney Capital Campaign Committee Honorary Council: Dr. Tom Steinberg - Chair Dr. Bill and Martha Bevan Dr. Kent and Martha Petrie Martha Head and Dr. John Feagin Dr. Jon Feeney Dr. William Foutz Dr. Phil Freedman John and Linda Galvin Renee and Dave Gorsuch Paul Gotthelf Sheika and Pepi Gramshammer R.A. “Chupa” Nelson Monica and Buz Reynolds Staff Support: Lisa Pease, Director of Development, Colorado Kay Gudmestad, Vice President of Fund Development Tori Franks, Eagle County Housing Department 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 Va i l a n d E a g l e C o u n t y De m o g r a p h i c s • V a i l i s h o m e t o 1 6 % o f t h e 6 5 a n d o l d e r p o p u l a t i o n i n Ea g l e C o u n t y p e r t h e 2 0 1 0 c e n s u s d a t a • E a g l e C o u n t y P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h : 20 0 0 2 0 1 0 % In c r e a s e 20 1 0 2 0 2 0 % Increase Al l a g e s 4 3 , 2 9 0 5 2 , 0 6 4 2 0 . 3 % 5 2 , 0 6 4 6 8 , 3 5 0 3 1 . 3 % 65 + 1 , 2 9 8 3 , 0 0 5 1 3 1 . 5 % 3 , 0 0 5 7 , 7 7 2 1 5 8 . 6 % 75 + 3 8 9 7 3 8 8 9 . 7 % 7 3 8 2 , 3 7 4 2 2 1 . 7 % 11/19/2013 Ma r k e t D e m a n d 20 1 4 D e m a n d C a s t l e P e a k P l a n Sk i l l e d N u r s i n g U n i t s 7 4 4 4 As s i s t e d L i v i n g U n i t s 4 6 2 0 To t a l 1 2 0 6 4 Th e H i g h l a n d G r o u p : C a s t l e P e a k Ma r k e t S t u d y : J a n u a r y 6 , 2 0 1 3 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 • M i s s i o n i s t o f o s t e r f u l l n e s s o f l i f e f o r o l d e r a d u l t s a n d o t h e r s i n n e e d th r o u g h h o u s i n g , h e a l t h c a r e a n d c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d s e r v i c e s . • N o n p r o f i t 5 0 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) o r g a n i z a t i o n • H i s t o r y o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s p a n s 1 1 5 y e a r s • A u g u s t a n a c a r e s e r v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e d a i l y • A u g u s t a n a C a r e c u r r e n t l y o w n s a n d / o r m a n a g e s 2 3 c a r e c o m m u n i t i e s ( 1 i n Co l o r a d o i n E v e r g r e e n ) Au g u s t a n a C a r e M i s s i o n a n d F a c t s 11/19/2013 Ar t i s t R e n d e r i n g 11/19/2013 Ca s t l e P e a k w i l l b e 6 4 u n i t s , s e r v i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 0 p e o p l e an n u a l l y , a l l i n c o m e l e v e l s , a n d i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g :  22 S k i l l e d N u r s i n g U n i t s fo r p e o p l e w i t h c h r o n i c c a r e c o n d i t i o n s ; s t a f f e d wi t h 2 4 - h o u r l i c e n s e d s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s  20 A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A p a r t m e n t s co n s i s t i n g o f p r i v a t e s t u d i o , 1 b e d r o o m an d 2 b e d r o o m a p a r t m e n t s w i t h s e p a r a t e b e d r o o m , b a t h r o o m , k i t c h e n a n d li v i n g s p a c e s w i t h 2 4 - h o u r n o n - l i c e n s e d s u p p o r t a v a i l a b l e .  12 M e m o r y C a r e S u i t e s in a s e c u r e e n v i r o n m e n t f o r p e o p l e w i t h d e m e n t i a re l a t e d d i s e a s e s  10 T r a n s i t i o n a l C a r e S u i t e s fo r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n s e r v i c e s w i t h t e m p o r a r y 2 4 ho u r n u r s i n g c a r e a n d i n t e n s i v e t h e r a p y , a n t i c i p a t i n g a r e t u r n h o m e w i t h i n 90 d a y s o r l e s s . CO M P O S I T I O N O F T H E C A R E C O M M U N I T Y 11/19/2013 Si t e P l a n 11/19/2013 As s i s t e d L i v i n g C o m m o n A r e a 11/19/2013 Co m m o n s G r o u n d F l o o r Fl o o r p l a n s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e - p r e l i m i n a r y pl a n 11/19/2013 As s i s t e d L i v i n g - S e c o n d F l o o r Fl o o r p l a n s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e - p r e l i m i n a r y pl a n 11/19/2013 Wh a t a H o u s e h o l d i s … … Fl o o r p l a n s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e - p r e l i m i n a r y pl a n 11/19/2013 Nu r s i n g - F i r s t F l o o r Fl o o r p l a n s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e - p r e l i m i n a r y pl a n 11/19/2013 Nu r s i n g - S e c o n d F l o o r Fl o o r p l a n s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e - p r e l i m i n a r y pl a n 11/19/2013 Fi n a n c i a l S t r u c t u r e o f t h e P r o j e c t $2 1 , 8 2 4 , 0 0 0 T o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t Fu n d i n g $1 2 , 0 2 4 , 0 0 0 U S D A r u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t l o a n 4, 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 E a g l e C o u n t y s e c o n d a r y s u b o r d i n a t e d d e b t to b e r e p a i d f r o m s u r p l u s f u n d s a f t e r p r o j e c t h a s su f f i c i e n t r e s e r v e s 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 A u g u s t a n a C a r e s e c o n d a r y s u b o r d i n a t e d d e b t to b e r e p a i d f r o m s u r p l u s f u n d s a f t e r p r o j e c t h a s su f f i c i e n t r e s e r v e s 4, 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 A u g u s t a n a C a r e c a p i t a l c a m p a i g n t o r a i s e f u n d s to c o v e r t h e f u n d i n g g a p $2 1 , 8 2 4 , 0 0 0 T o t a l p r o j e c t f u n d i n g 11/19/2013 St r e n g t h s o f F i n a n c i a l S t r u c t u r e • U S D A R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t L o a n a p p r o v a l re c e i v e d w i t h 4 0 y e a r t e r m a t 3 . 5 % i n t e r e s t • S u b s t a n t i a l i n i t i a l i n v e s t m e n t s b y E a g l e C o u n t y an d A u g u s t a n a C a r e i n t h e f o r m o f s u b o r d i n a t e d de b t r e p a y a b l e o n l y f r o m s u r p l u s c a s h • D e b t l e v e l s a l l o w t h e c a r e c o m m u n i t y t o b e s e l f - su s t a i n i n g a t 9 0 % o c c u p a n c y • O n e t i m e c a p i t a l c a m p a i g n t o b u i l d P h a s e I 11/19/2013 Be n e f i t s t o T o w n o f V a i l • R e s i d e n t s w i l l n o l o n g e r n e e d t o t r a v e l l o n g d i s t a n c e s o r re l o c a t e o u t o f t h e c o u n t y t o r e c e i v e t h e c a r e t h e y n e e d • A b i l i t y t o a t t r a c t a n d r e t a i n r e s i d e n t s o f a l l a g e s w i l l b e st r e n g t h e n e d • C o u n t y e c o n o m i c l o s s e s o f ~ $ 4 3 m i l l i o n a n n u a l l y d u e t o la c k o f s e n i o r h o u s i n g a n d h e a l t h c a r e o p t i o n s w i l l b e re d u c e d • E s t i m a t e d j o b c r e a t i o n : 10 0 d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d 6 5 pe r m a n e n t w h e n f u l l y o p e r a t i o n a l • H i g h p o t e n t i a l f o r l o c a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n s a n d b u s i n e s s re l a t i o n s h i p s 11/19/2013 Th e C a p i t a l C a m p a i g n Wh e r e w e a r e t o d a y • A m o u n t R a i s e d T o D a t e - $ 1 , 7 6 7 , 5 8 7 – 4 0 . 1 7 % of g o a l • M u s t r e a c h 7 5 t o 8 5 % o f $ 4 . 4 m i l l i o n g o a l t o br e a k g r o u n d ( $ 3 . 3 t o $ 3 . 7 m i l l i o n ) • A p p r o a c h i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , c o r p o r a t i o n s , fo u n d a t i o n s a n d i n d i v i d u a l s – p a y m e n t s o v e r 3 ye a r s a c c e p t e d • R e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t i n g a $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 c o n t r i b u t i o n 11/19/2013 Pl e a s e v i s i t ww w . c a s t l e p e a k . o r g 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Amending Section 12-21-2, 12-21-11 and 12-21-14 of the Vail Town Code Regarding Hazard Regulations and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve changes to Ordinance 12-21-2, 12-21-11, and 12-21-14 in order to maintain in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program. BACKGROUND: The State of Colorado has adopted higher standards for floodplain management. The major changes to previous requirements include provisions to freeboard, critical facilities, and floodway surcharge criteria. Communities have until January 14, 2014 to adopt local regulations consistent with the new standards in order to remain in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and be eligible for grant funding through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the changes to Ordinance 12- 21-2, 12-21-11, and 12-21-14 in order to maintain compliance. ATTACHMENTS: Memo Ordinance No 19, Series of 2013 11/19/2013 To: Town Council From: Public Works Date: 11-19-13 Subject: Ordinance 19 Series 2013 I. BACKGROUND The State of Colorado has adopted higher standards for floodplain management. The major changes to previous requirements include provisions to freeboard, critical facilities, and floodway surcharge criteria. Communities have until January 14, 2014 to adopt local regulations consistent with the new standards in order to remain in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and be eligible for grant funding through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). Town staff previously sent the existing Town Ordinance, 12-21, to the CWCB NFIP Coordinator for compliance review. In order to be in compliance the ordinance has been modified as attached. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the changes to Ordinance 12-21-2, 12-21-11, and 12-21- 14 in order to maintain compliance. 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 19 SERIES 2013 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-21-2, 12-21-11 and 12-21-14 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE REGARDING HAZARD REGULATIONS 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 have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, the State of Colorado has adopted higher standards for floodplain management; and WHEREAS, communities have until January 14, 2014 to adopt local regulations consistent with the new standards in order to remain in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and be eligible for grant funding through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 12-21-2: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this chapter, the words contained in this section are defined as follows: ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING: Flooding occurring on the surface of an alluvial fan or similar landform, which originates at the apex and is characterized by high velocity flows; active processes of erosion, sediment transport, and deposition; and unpredictable flow paths. APEX: A point on an alluvial fan or similar landform below which the flow path of the major stream that formed the fan becomes unpredictable and alluvial fan flooding can occur. AREA OF SHALLOW FLOODING: A designated AO, AH, or VO zone on a community's flood insurance rate map (FIRM) with a one percent (1%) chance or greater annual chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet (3') where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. BASE FLOOD: The flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: The elevation shown on a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Zones AE, AH, A1-A30, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO, V1-V30, and VE that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a one percent chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year. 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 BASEMENT: Any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. BLUE HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: An area impacted by a snow producing a total static and dynamic pressure less than six hundred (600) pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and/or a return interval in excess of twenty five (25) years. CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION (CLOMR): FEMA’s comment on a proposed project, which does not revise an effective floodplain map, that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodplain. CRITICAL FACILITY: A structure or related infrastructure, but not the land on which it is situated, as specified in (critical facility section of ordinance), that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during and after a flood. CRITICAL FEATURE: An integral and readily identifiable part of a flood protection system, without which the flood protection provided by the entire system would be compromised. DEVELOPMENT: Any manmade change in improved and unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. ELEVATED BUILDING: A nonbasement building: a) built, in the case of a building in zones A1- 30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, to have the top of the elevated floor, or in the case of a building in zones V1-30, VE, or V, to have the bottom of the lowest horizontal structure member of the elevated floor elevated above the ground level by means of pilings, columns (posts and piers), or shear walls parallel to the floor of the water and b) adequately anchored so as not to impair the structural integrity of the building during a flood of up to the magnitude of the base flood. In the case of zones A1-30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, "elevated building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill or solid foundation perimeter walls with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of floodwaters. In the case of zones V1-30, VE, or V, "elevated building" also includes a building otherwise meeting the definition of "elevated building", even though the lower area is enclosed by means of breakaway walls if the breakaway walls met the standards of section 60.3(e)(5) of the national flood insurance program regulations. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION: For the purposes of determining rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced before the effective date of the FIRM. "Existing construction" may also be referred to as "existing structures". FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: The land in the floodplain subject to a one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area is designated as zones A, AE, AH, AO, A1-99, VO, V1-30, VE or V, on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). on the flood hazard boundary map (FHBM). After detailed ratemaking has been completed in preparation for publication of the FIRM, zone A usually is refined into zones A, AE, AH, AO, A1-99, VO, V1-30, VE or V. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): An official map on which the federal emergency management agency has delineated both the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)areas of 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The official report provided by the federal emergency management agency that includes flood profiles and water surface elevation of the base flood as well as the flood boundary-floodway map. FLOOD OR FLOODING: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: A. The overflow of inland or tidal waters. B. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM: Those physical structural works for which funds have been authorized, appropriated, and expended and which have been constructed specifically to modify flooding in order to reduce the extent of the areas within a community subject to a "special flood hazard" and the extent of the depths of associated flooding. Such a system typically includes hurricane tidal barriers, dams, reservoirs, levees or dikes. These specialized flood modifying works are those constructed in conformance with sound engineering standards. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and floodplain management regulations. FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD PRONE AREA: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of Flooding). FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. FLOODWAY (REGULATORY FLOODWAY): The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. FUNCTIONALLY DEPENDENT USE: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, but does not include long term storage or related manufacturing facilities. GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA: An area within the town of Vail which may be subject to rockfalls, mudflows, debris flows, debris avalanches, and unstable soil, slopes or rocks. HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Any structure that is: A. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the department of interior) or preliminarily determined by the secretary of the interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the national register; 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 B. Certified or preliminarily determined by the secretary of the interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; C. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the secretary of interior; or D. Classified as historically significant per title 10, chapter 2, "Special Historic And Architectural Structures", of this code. LEVEE: A manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. LEVEE SYSTEM: A flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with sound engineering practices. LETTER OF MAP REVISION (LOMR): FEMA’s official revision of an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), or both. LOMR’s are generally based on the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFE’s), or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL (LOMR-F): FEMA’s modification of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) based on the placement of fill outside the existing regulatory floodway. LOWEST FLOOR: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable nonelevation design requirement of section 60.3 of the national flood insurance program regulations. MEAN SEA LEVEL: For purposes of the national flood insurance program, the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown on a community's flood insurance rate map are referenced. NEW CONSTRUCTION: For the purpose of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, "new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after December 4, 2007, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN: See the definition of Flood Hazard Zone. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle which is: A. Built on a single chassis; 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 B. Four hundred (400) square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; C. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and D. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. RED HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: Any area impacted by a snow avalanche producing a total static and dynamic pressure in excess of six hundred (600) pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and/or a return interval of less than twenty five (25) years. SLOPE: As defined in section 12-2-2 of this title. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, i.e., the 100-year floodplain. START OF CONSTRUCTION (For Other Than New Construction Or Substantial Improvements Under The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 97-348)): Includes substantial improvement and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within one hundred eighty (180) days of the permit date. The "actual start" means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for basement, footings, piers or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the "actual start of construction" means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure. Market value shall be determined by a qualified assessor designated by the administrator. The market value of a structure is determined either: A. Before the improvement or repair is started; or B. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions. 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION: The height, in relation to the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929 (or other datum, where specified), of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas. VIOLATION: The failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community’s floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in Section 60.3(b)(5), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. ZONE OF INFLUENCE: Any area in a potential avalanche hazard zone where detailed information is not currently available but which may be impacted by said hazard. These zones of influence shall be designated on the appropriate maps of the administrator of the town. Section 2. Section 12-21-11 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 12-21-11: FLOOD HAZARD ZONES: A. Lands to which this ordinance applies: The ordinance shall apply to all Special Flood Hazard Areas and areas removed form the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) within the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail, Colorado. Purpose: To promote public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: 1. Protect human life and health; 2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; 3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; 4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in floodplains; 6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood prone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood blight areas; 7. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in a flood area; 8. Ensure that those who occupy the floodplain assume the responsibility for their actions; 9. Protect the natural areas required to convey flood flows and retain flow characteristics; and 10. Obtain and maintain the benefits to the community of participating in the national flood insurance program. B. Basis For Establishing S: The areas of special flood hazard Special Flood Hazard Areas identified by the federal emergency management agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled, "The Flood Insurance Study For Eagle County, Colorado, And Incorporated Areas" dated December 4, 2007, with accompanying flood insurance rate maps and flood boundary- 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 floodway maps (FIRM and FBFM) and any revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. C. Designation Of The Floodplain Administrator: The town engineer or designee is hereby appointed the floodplain administrator to administer and implement the provisions of this chapter and other appropriate sections of 44 CFR (national flood insurance program regulations) pertaining to floodplain management. D. Duties And Responsibilities Of The Floodplain Administrator: Duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Maintain and hold open for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter. 2. Review all permit applications to ensure that the requirements of this chapter have been satisfied and that the proposed improvement will be reasonably safe from flooding. 3. Review, approve or deny floodplain use and modification permits to determine whether proposed improvements meet the provisions of this chapter. 4. Review evidence prior to the issuance of a floodplain use permit that all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, state, or local government agencies from which prior approval is required. Conditional floodplain use permits may be issued contingent upon receipt of the above mentioned agency permits. 5. Review and verify that no new habitable structure is constructed within the flood hazard zoneSpecial Flood Hazard Area. 6. Review and verify that a licensed professional engineer or professional land surveyor certified the location of the 100-year floodplain on all development applications that are adjacent to, or partially located within the 100-year floodplain, that are proposing improvements that may affect the floodplain. 7. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of Special Flood Hazard Zone the areas of special flood hazards (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions) the floodplain administrator shall make the necessary interpretation. 8. Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the Colorado division of emergency management Colorado Water Conservation Board, prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the federal emergency management agency. 9. Assure that the flood carrying capacity within any altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained. 10. When base flood elevation data have not been provided in accordance with subsection B of this section, the floodplain administrator shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation data and floodway data available from federal, state or other source, in order to administer the provisions of subsection F of this section. 11. When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, the floodplain administrator must require that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 shall be permitted within zones A1-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one-half foot (1') (1/2’) at any point within the community. 12. Under the provisions of 44 CFR chapter 1, section 65.12, of the national flood insurance program regulations, a community may approve certain development in zones A1-30, AE, AH, on the community's FIRM which increases the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one-half foot (1') (1/2’), provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM revision through FEMA (conditional letter of map revision). E. Floodplain Permits: 1. Floodplain Use Permit: a. Purpose: The floodplain use permit is a permit to allow temporary grading within the floodplain and allow for necessary public infrastructure improvements within the floodplain. A floodplain use permit may be issued under at least one of the following conditions: (1) Temporary grading in the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator, in which the site is returned to its existing grade and conditions; (2) Utility construction/maintenance within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator which is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the 100-year floodplain; (3) Stream bank stabilization within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator and is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; (4) Public infrastructure construction/maintenance approved by the floodplain administrator including, but not limited to, roads, bridges, recreation paths, walks, stream drop structures, and stream erosion control measures which are deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; b. Floodplain Use Permit Application Submittal Requirements: Applicants shall provide the following information prior to design review or any review by the planning and environmental commission: (1) Site plan at an engineering scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevations of the proposed landscape/grade alterations, existing and proposed structures, relevant landscape/topographic features, and the location of the foregoing in relation to the 100-year floodplain. The floodplain line shall be provided on a plan certified by a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor. (2) Detailed topographic cross sections provided by a licensed professional surveyor of the area proposed to be altered, showing existing and proposed conditions. (3) Description of the extent to which any floodplain will be altered including why, when, how, and when it will be replaced back to its original configuration, and addressing each relevant criterion in subsection E3 of this section. (4) Copy of all other necessary approved permits (i.e., building permit, public way permit, ACOE permit, dewatering permit, DOW permit, CDHPE permit, etc.). 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 (5) If required by the floodplain administrator, an engineered floodplain analysis of the impacts to the floodplain prepared by a qualified licensed professional engineer. (6) Submitted application for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if applicable. (7) Any additional information deemed necessary by the floodplain administrator. 2. Floodplain Modification Permit: a. Purpose: A floodplain modification permit is a permit to allow construction of improvements and/or modifications to the adopted floodplain for all other uses, improvements, or modifications to or within the floodplain that do not fall within the guidelines of the floodplain use permit. However, no habitable structures or improvements shall be allowed to be constructed within the floodplain. b. Floodplain Modification Application Submittal Requirements: Applicants shall provide the following information prior to design review or any review by the planning and environmental commission: (1) Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement and crawl space) of all new and substantially improved structures within or adjacent to the floodplain. (2) Description of the extent to which any floodplain will be altered including why, when, how, and when it will be replaced back to its original configuration, and addressing each relevant factor in subsection E3 of this section. (3) Signature of the owners of all property subject to an impact by the proposed improvement. (4) A site plan drawn to an engineering scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevations of the proposed landscape/grade alterations, existing and proposed structures, relevant landscape/topographic features, and the location of the foregoing in relation to the 100-year floodplain. The floodplain line shall be provided on a plan certified by a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor. (5) Detailed topographic cross sections provided by a licensed professional surveyor of the area proposed to be altered, showing existing and proposed conditions. (6) Copy of all other necessary approved permits (i.e., building permit, public way permit, ACOE permit, dewatering permit, DOW permit, CDHPE permit). (7) An engineered floodplain analysis of the impacts to the floodplain prepared by a qualified licensed professional engineer. (8) Copy of submitted application for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if applicable. (9) Environmental impact report, per chapter 12 of this title. (10) Any additional information deemed necessary by the floodplain administrator. 3. Review, Criteria And Findings: At the discretion of the floodplain administrator, floodplain use permits may be reviewed by the floodplain administrator or the PEC. All floodplain modification permits shall be reviewed and approved by the floodplain administrator and the PEC. 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 a. Criteria: The following factors shall be used to make a determination in issuance of floodplain permits: (1) The effects upon the efficiency or capacity of the floodway; (2) The effects upon persons and personal property upstream, downstream and in the immediate vicinity; (3) The effects upon the 100-year flood profile and channel stability; (4) The effects upon any tributaries to the main stream, drainage ditches and any other drainage facilities or systems; (5) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; (6) The susceptibility of the proposed improvement and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (7) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; (9) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (10) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions including maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems; (11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; (12) The effect the proposed changes will have any adverse environmental effect on the watercourse including, without limitation, erosion of stream banks and stream side trees and vegetation and wildlife habitat; (13) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; (14) The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; (15) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area. b. Findings: The following findings shall be made before granting of a floodplain permit: (1) That the proposed use or modification adequately addresses the findings in subsection E3a of this section, as determined by the floodplain administrator, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved; (2) That the proposed use or modification is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) That the proposed use or modification is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 (4) That the proposed use or modification 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. 4. Permit Fees: The town council shall set a floodplain permit schedule sufficient to cover the cost of town staff time, consultant fees, and incidental expense. 5. Expiration Of Permit: A floodplain permit shall expire two (2) years after its date of issuance if the permittee has not started construction under the permit. F. Provisions For Flood Hazard Reduction: 1. General Standards: In all areas of special flood hazards Special Flood Hazard Areas, the following provisions are required for all new construction and substantial improvements: a. Habitable structures or improvements shall not be permitted to be constructed within the 100- year floodplain. Improvements that may be approved for construction within the 100-year floodplain include: (1) Temporary grading in the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator, in which the site is returned to its existing grade and conditions; (2) Utility construction/maintenance within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator which is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; (3) Stream bank stabilization within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator and is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; (4) Public infrastructure construction/maintenance approved by the floodplain administrator including, but not limited to, roads, bridges, recreation paths, walks, stream drop structures, and stream erosion control measures which are deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; b. An insignificant impact to the floodplain shall be defined as: An improvement in the floodplain that is a public benefit that meets the criteria set out in subsection F1A of this section and causes no negative impacts to adjacent properties and no permanent localized cumulative increase in the adopted base flood elevations (BFE) greater than 0.25 vertical feet. The applicant shall apply for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if applicable; c. All new structures or improvements, unless otherwise specifically provided for within this chapter, shall not influence the 100-year floodplain and shall maintain a minimum clear distance from the 100-year floodplain of one foot (1') in both the horizontal and vertical directions; d. Floor plans and elevations illustrating that the lowest floor elevations including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,of the new or substantially improved structure, shall be elevated to at least one foot (1') above the base flood elevation; e. All approved new or modified improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the improvement resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy; f. All new approved construction or modified improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 g. All new approved construction or modified improvements shall be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage; h. All existing nonconforming structures located within the 100-year floodplain that may require maintenance shall not negatively impact the adopted BFEs or adjacent properties in any way, unless as provided by subsection F1a of this section; and shall increase conformity and flood protection as required by the floodplain administrator (i.e., floodproofing, flotation prevention, flood resistant materials, etc.); i. All existing nonconforming structures that may require maintenance to operational systems that are within the floodplain shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; j. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system; k. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from the systems into floodwaters; and l. On site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 2. Standards For Areas Of Shallow Flooding (AO/AH Zones): Located within the areas of special flood hazard established in subsection B of this section, are areas designated as shallow flooding. These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of one to three feet (3') where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow; therefore, the following provisions apply: a. All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities) elevated one foot (1’) above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least 2 3 feet if no depth number is specified). b. All new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures have the lowest floor (including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities) elevated one foot (1’) above above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least 2 3 feet if no depth number is specified), or; together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that one foot (1’) above below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. c. A registered professional engineer or architect shall submit a certification to the floodplain administrator that the standards of this chapter are satisfied. d. Require within zones AH or AO adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. 3. Floodways: Floodways located within areas of special flood hazard Special Flood Hazard Area established in subsection B of this section, are areas designated as floodways. Since the 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply: a. Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. b. If this subsection F is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this subsection F. c. Under the provisions of 44 CFR chapter 1, section 65.12, of the national flood insurance regulations, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA. (Ord. 28(2007) § 5) G. Properties Removed From Floodplain By Fill 1. A Floodplain Permit shall not be issued for the construction of a new structure or addition to an existing structure on a property removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F), unless such new structure or addition complies with the following: a. Residential Construction: The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including ductwork), must be elevated to one foot above the Base Flood Elevation that existed prior to the placement of fill. b. Non Residential Construction: The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including ductwork), must be elevated to one foot above the Base Flood Elevation that existed prior to the placement of fill, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that the structure or addition is watertight to at least one foot above the base flood level that existed prior to the placement of fill with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. H. Critical Facilities 1. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the Regulatory Floodplain. 2. Construction of new critical facilities in the Regulatory Floodplain shall be permissible if no feasible alternative site is available, provided a. Critical facilities shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above the base flood elevation or to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher. If there is no available data on the 500-year flood, the permit applicants shall develop the needed data in accordance with FEMA mapping guidelines. 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 b. Access to and from the critical facility shall be protected to the elevation of the 500- year flood. Section 3. Section 12-21-14 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 12-21-14: RIGHT OF APPEAL: Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his/her rights to appeal the decision of the administrator in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. In addition, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his/her rights to seek a variance from the requirements of this chapter. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 17 of this title. Variances specific to Flood Hazard Zones, 12-21-11, shall be governed by chapter 17 of this title and may be granted under the following conditions; A. The Appeal Board may grant variances and place conditions upon them as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this ordinance as stated in 12-21- 11(A). B. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. C. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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. 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2013 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of November, 2013 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of December, 2013, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ___ day of ______________, 2013. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series 2013, an ordinance providing for the levy assessment and collection of town property taxes due for the 2013 tax year and payable in the 2014 fiscal year. PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve or approve with amendments BACKGROUND: Please see attached memo STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve or approve with amendments ATTACHMENTS: Mil levy 11/19/2013 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Finance Department DATE: November 14, 2013 SUBJECT: Mil Levy Ordinance I. SUMMARY Authorization for the collection of property taxes in 2014 II. DISCUSSION You will be asked to approve the attached mil levy ordinance upon first reading on Tuesday evening. This ordinance authorizes the collection of property taxes in 2014 based upon 2013 assessed valuations of property within the town’s boundaries. Eagle County is responsible for assessing values and for collecting property taxes on our behalf. The town is required by Colorado state law to certify the mil levy by December 15 of each year. Since two readings of an ordinance are required, we will bring the first reading on Tuesday and the second reading on December 3rd to enable us to meet the December 15 date. The attached ordinance is based on preliminary assessed valuations from the county (as of August, 2013). The town’s base mil levy as shown in the ordinance is 4.69 mils and the abatement levy is .015 mils. Abatement results when a taxpayer protests an assessed valuation after the normal protest period and is refunded a portion of the tax already due or paid. The abatement mil levy allows the town to recoup the refunded amount. This abatement levy of .015 mils equates to an additional $1.19 per year for a $1 million home and $4.35 per year for $1 million commercial property. The property tax authorized by the attached ordinance will generate $4.3 million in revenue in 2014, representing approximately 8% of the town’s total revenue. The estimated total net assessed valuation for 2014 is an increase of 7.4% from the prior year’s assessed valuation for property located in Vail. 11/19/2013 Ordinance 20, Series of 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 20 SERIES OF 2013 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TOWN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES DUE FOR THE 2013 TAX YEAR AND PAYABLE IN THE 2014 FISCAL YEAR. WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town Council to provide for the levy, assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 2013 year and payable in the 2014 fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: 1. For the purpose of defraying part of the operating and capital expenses of the Town of Vail, Colorado, during its 2014 fiscal year, the Town Council hereby levies a property tax of 4.705 mills upon each dollar of the total assessed valuation of $914,686,500 for the 2013 tax year of all taxable property within the Town, which will result in a gross tax levy of $4,303,842 calculated as follows: Base mill levy 4.690 $4,289,880 Abatement levy .015 _ 13,962 Total mill levy 4.705 $4,303,842 Said assessment shall be duly made by the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as directed by the Colorado Revised Statutes (1973 as amended), and as otherwise required by law. 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 affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, 11/19/2013 Ordinance 20, Series of 2013 any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 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, this 19th day of November, 2013. A public hearing shall be held hereon at 6 P.M. on the 3rd day of December, 2013, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. ______________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Presentation on the Timber Ridge Redevelopment Project Program PRESENTER(S): George Ruther, Community Development Director, Jen Wright, Wright and Company, Gary Gorman, Gorman & Company, Inc. and Rick Pylman, Pylman & Associates. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Authorize the Town Manager to sign the development application facilitating the redevelopment of Timber Ridge as proposed. BACKGROUND: On October 15, 2013, the Vail Town Council authorized the Town Manager to enter into a pre-development agreement with Gorman & Company, Inc. to facilitate the redevelopment of the easternmost 5.24 acres of the Timber Ridge Apartments. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the developer was to return to the Town Council with a presentation on the proposed redevelopment. The purpose of this agenda item is to meet that required obligation and obtain the Town Council's agreement on the proposed project program. Authorization from the Town Council for the Town Manager to sign the development application shall indicate the acceptance of the project program by the Town Council. Please refer to the staff memorandum dated November 19, 2013 for a more detailed description of the project program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council instructs the Town Manager to sign the development application to facilitate the redevelopment of the easternmost 5.24 acres of the Timber Ridge Apartments as proposed. Once signed the applicants will be prepared to submit a complete development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review by no later than November 29, 2013, in accordance with the signed Pre-development Agreement. The development application is currently scheduled for final review by the Planning & Environmental Commission on Monday, December 16, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Town Council Memorandum Timber Ridge Market Study November 2013 Town Council Submission Timber Ridge Redevelopment - Elevations 11/19/2013 To: Vail Town Council From: George Ruther, Director of Community Development Date: November 19, 2013 Subject: Redevelopment of the Eastern One-Half of Timber Ridge Village Apartments I. Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Vail Town Council with a summary of the proposed redevelopment of the eastern one-half of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments located at 1280 North Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. A summary presentation of the redevelopment proposal is required pursuant to the terms outlined in the Pre-Development Agreement, executed by and between the Town of Vail and Gorman and Company. The summary presentation will address the following topics: • Proposed Project Program • Project Next Steps In the end, the Vail Town Council is being asked to direct the Town Manager to sign the development application, on behalf of the Town of Vail, to allow the project, as proposed, to proceed through the Town’s development review process. II. Proposed Project Program 1. Town Council instructed staff to enter into discussions with Jen Wright and Gary Gorman on the redevelopment of Timber Ridge. All parties agreed that an RFP process was not needed as that process has failed to achieve our objectives on three previous occasions. 2. Town staff entered into a 120-day exclusive negotiations process with Jen Wright and Gary Gorman. 3. Assume no financial subsidies will be provided by the Town. ($8 million gap) 4. A “bottom up” approach based upon carrying capacity of the site has been used to determine development potential. (ie parking requirement, type of construction, surface parking, landscape areas, livability, etc.). This approach has resulted in a project which is financially feasible and can be constructed unlike the previous three attempts. 5. Easternmost 5.24 acres of Timber Ridge. Lots1 -5, a resubdivision of Lion’s Ridge Subdivision, Block C, Town of Vail. 6. Site designated Housing Zone District. Development shall be in full compliance with the development regulations prescribed for the District. 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 2 7. Assemblage of four, three-story tall buildings containing at least 113 dwelling units. At least 70% shall be deed restricted pursuant to zoning requirements. 8. Based upon a recently completed market study, a mix of one and two bedroom units (26%/74%) 9. Eighty-four (84) two bedroom units ranging in size from 870 square feet to 933 square feet and twenty-nine (29) one bedroom units ranging in size from 597 square feet to 633 square feet. 10. Capable of housing at least 233 persons (1.5 persons/unit average x 29 one bedroom units = 43.5 persons) (2.25 persons/unit average x 84 two bedroom units = 189 persons) 11. Each unit is provided with its own entrance off of a shared exterior stairwell. 12. Each unit is provided with a washer and dryer, gas furnace, energy star rated kitchen appliances and a 360 cubic foot storage closet (5’x8’x9’). 13. 153 surface parking spaces total. 1 parking space per one bedroom unit and 1.47 parking spaces per two bedroom unit. 14. >25 du/acre. Density calculation takes into account steep slopes and unbuildable areas of the site. 15. 35-year ground lease with no upfront or annual payment. Improvements revert to the Town at the end of the 35-year term. 16. Financial provisions ensure the improvements are in good repair at the end of the 35-year term. 17. Town obligated to mitigate rockfall hazard. +/- $100,000 initial construction cost with annual maintenance required. Developer obligated to pay for Frontage Road turn lane improvements. 18. Deed restriction required consistent with the Housing Zone District 70%/30% 19. Initial pre-application meetings with Fire and PW. Project proposal is consistent with Town requirements. 20. CDOT application and meetings pending. Town to apply for CDOT access permit on behalf of the project. 21. Development application submitted by November 25, 2013. Final PEC meeting on December 16, 2013. Schedule based upon construction start by late spring 2014. II. Project Next Steps A preliminary project schedule has been created to facilitate the successful outcome for this project. The next steps for the project include: • Deed restriction discussion with the Vail Town Council • Final Lease Agreement negotiations with the Vail Town Council • Rockfall mitigation approval • Transit stop improvements discussion 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 3 • Development application submittal to the Town of Vail by November 29th • Final development application review by the PEC on December 16th • Conceptual design application review by the DRB on December 18th • Final design application review by the DRB on January 8th or 22nd • Submit building permit application by March 15th • Issuance of building permit by May 1st This schedule is subject to change as discussions regarding this project continue. 11/19/2013 Market Study Apartment Property in Vail, Colorado November 2013 Prepared by: Rees Consulting, Inc. PO Box 3845 Crested Butte, CO 81224 970.349.9845 melanie@reesconsultinginc.com 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 1 Organization of the Report ...................................................................................................... 1 Consultant Qualifications ........................................................................................................ 1 1. Project and Site Description ................................................................................................ 3 Number, Type and Size of Units ............................................................................................. 3 Amenities ............................................................................................................................... 3 Unit Design ............................................................................................................................. 3 Rents ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Utilities .................................................................................................................................... 4 Access and Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 5 Parking ................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Location Analysis ................................................................................................................ 6 Street Address/Street Boundaries .......................................................................................... 6 Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................................ 6 Proximity to Services .............................................................................................................. 8 Shopping and Dining ........................................................................................................... 8 Public Transit ...................................................................................................................... 9 Bike and Pedestrian Access ............................................................................................... 9 Parks .................................................................................................................................. 9 Marketability ........................................................................................................................... 9 3. Identification of Market Area Boundaries ........................................................................11 4. Market Conditions ..............................................................................................................13 Rents .....................................................................................................................................13 Vacancies ..............................................................................................................................14 5. Competitive Analysis ......................................................................................................17 Selection of Comparables......................................................................................................17 General Description ...............................................................................................................19 Income, Rent and/or Employment Restrictions ......................................................................21 Resident Profiles ...................................................................................................................22 Lease Terms .........................................................................................................................23 Amenities ..............................................................................................................................23 Parking ..................................................................................................................................25 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................26 Unit Mix .................................................................................................................................26 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. Unit Size ................................................................................................................................28 Vacancies ..............................................................................................................................28 Rents .....................................................................................................................................30 Discounts/Incentives ..............................................................................................................31 Condominium Rentals ...........................................................................................................32 6. Demographic Trends and Economic Conditions .............................................................33 Market Area Demographics ...................................................................................................33 Demographic Trends .............................................................................................................35 The Economy ........................................................................................................................40 7. Demand Analysis ...........................................................................................................44 Demand from Market-Area Renters .......................................................................................44 Rental Demand from Job Growth ..........................................................................................46 Rental Demand from Down Valley .........................................................................................47 8. Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................48 Design Considerations ..........................................................................................................48 Unit Mix ..............................................................................................................................48 Unit Size ............................................................................................................................48 Sound Abatement ..............................................................................................................49 Utilities ...............................................................................................................................49 Parking ..............................................................................................................................49 Marketability of Location ........................................................................................................50 Overall Market Conditions .....................................................................................................50 Responsiveness to Demographic and Economic Trends .......................................................50 Competition ...........................................................................................................................51 Demand for Rental Housing ..................................................................................................51 Rents .....................................................................................................................................52 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 1 Introduction Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to assess the marketability of the proposed redevelopment of approximately half of the Timber Ridge apartment property in Vail, Colorado . Timber Ridge is now owned by the Town of Vail. Gorman and Company in team with Wright and Company, a long-time Vail Valley real estate development firm, proposes to demolish 102 units built in 1981 and now in very poor condition and to replace them with 112 one- and two-bedroom apartments. This report evaluates the design and site, analyzes the location, assesses the competition, provides information on demographic trends and economic condition and determines if demand exists for the proposed units. Conclusions and recommendations are made on design, unit mix, rents and amenities. Organization of the Report This report consists of eight major sections: 1. Project and Site Analysis 2. Location Analysis 3. Identification of Market Boundaries 4. Market Conditions 5. Competitive Analysis 6. Demographic Trends and Economic Conditions 7. Demand Analysis 8. Conclusions and Recommendations Consultant Qualifications Over the past 20 years, Melanie Rees has become an industry leader in housing market analysis with clients that include private and non-profit developers, public housing authorities, lenders and local governments. Her focus is on areas throughout the mountain west where housing costs are high, including the amenity-rich resort communities. The firm’s services generally fall within three categories: housing needs assessments, project specific market studies and strategic planning and program development . Rees Consulting is an approved market analyst for programs administered by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority and the Colorado Division of Housing. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 2 Work in the Vail Valley has included:  The Vail Commons Master Plan, through which both ownership townhomes and employee rental units were developed as part of a mixed -used property on a 6.4 acre site acquired by the Town of Vail. The 52 townhomes are located on top of a grocery store yet, with grade separations and other design elements, appear and function as a residential property.  Housing needs assessments covering all of Eagle County completed in 1995, 2001 and 2007 in team with RRC Associates of Boulder.  Market studies for multiple apartment developments including Lake Creek Village, River Edge, River Run and, as a subcontractor, Middle Creek.  Workforce housing impact study for the Eagle River Station, a large mixed use development now in early development stages.  Consultation during the past year with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District on modifications to their extensive, valley-wide employee housing program. Rees Consulting has prepared market studies for numerous apartment properties in mountain communities including: Project Name Location 960 East Durango Animas Village Durango Breckenridge Terrace Breckenridge Crested Butte Flats Crested Butte Fox Run Fraser Gold Hill Village Central City Lake Creek Village Edwards Melody Ranch Jackson, WY Merced de las Animas Durango Middle Creek Vail Mountain Village Steamboat Springs Pence Miller Avon Pinewood Village Breckenridge River Edge Avon River Run Avon Swan River Village Breckenridge Tabernash Apts., Grand County Valle de Merced Durango 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 3 1. Project and Site Description Number, Type and Size of Units A total of 113 one- and two-bedroom apartments and one leasing/management office are planned. Of the total, 74% will have two bedrooms and two full bathrooms and 26% will be one-bedroom units. All will be flats. The proposed apartments will range in size from 597 to 633 square feet for one bedroom and from 870 to 933 square feet for two bedrooms. The overall average size will be 889 square feet in size. All units will have a deck measuring 95 or 115 square feet. Proposed Unit Type and Size Unit Type # of Units Unit Size Deck Sq.Ft. 1 BR 17 597 95 1 BR 12 633 115 2 BR/2 BA 42 870 95 2 BR/2 BA 36 911 115 2 BR/2 BA 6 933 115 Total/Average 113 820 Amenities The units will have:  A large exterior storage closet off of the balconies that average around 33 square feet in size for the one-bedroom units and 57.5 square feet for the two-bedroom units;  Coat closets by the entrance door;  Walk-in closets;  Large kitchens with ample counter space and cabinets;  Microwaves  Energy star appliances The property will have an on-site leasing/management office located at the southwest corner of Building B on the first floor. The 597 square foot office will have the same exterior dimensions as a one-bedroom unit. Unit Design All of the units will have: 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 4  An “L” shaped kitchen with room for table;  A single entrance into the living room;  A stackable washer and dryer and mechanical room accessed from a door in the kitchen; The one-bedroom units have a full bathroom with large vanity accessed through the bedroom. The two-bedroom units will have a master bedroom suite with walk-in closet and full bathroom. The second bedroom will be located directly across the hall from a full bathroom. Units will be accessed via interior stairs that lead to the front doors. There are no corridors. Given the cold, snowy weather in Vail, the interior stairs will not only be safer in winter but will also shield against cold air entering the units every time the door is opened. Rents Rents have not yet been finalized. A range of $1,200 to $1,300 per month is being considered for the one-bedroom units and the rent for the two -bedroom units will range between $1,600 and $1,700 per month. Assuming the midpoint of the range, , rents on a per-square-foot basis will range from $1.77 for the largest two-bedroom apartments to $2.09 for the smaller one-bedroom units, with an average of $1.90. Rents by Unit Type Unit Type # of Units Unit Size Rent Rent/SF 1 BR 17 597 $1,200 - $1,300 $2.09 1 BR 12 633 $1,200 - $1,300 $1.98 2 BR/2 BA 42 870 $1,600 - $1,700 $1.90 2 BR/2 BA 36 911 $1,600 - $1,700 $1.81 2 BR/2 BA 6 933 $1,600 - $1,700 $1.77 Total/Average 113 820 $1,548 $1.90 Utilities The cost of water, sewer and trash collection will be covered by base rent. Residents will be responsible for their own electricity and gas. Heat will be forced air gas. While these systems are far more efficient that the electric baseboard heat in the existing Timber Ridge units, they are generally less efficient and most costly to operate than hot water heating systems. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 5 Access and Infrastructure Road access and other infrastructure is in place to serve the 102 apartments that will be demolished. The existing access off of the Frontage Road is proposed to be replaced with one new vehicle entry point from the existing Frontage Road. Parking A total of 152 surface parking spaces are planned. This equates to a ratio of 1.34 spaces per unit. One space will be provided free of charge for each unit. An additional space will be provided for $75 per month on a first come/first served basis. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 6 2. Location Analysis Street Address/Street Boundaries The project is located in the town of Vail on the north side of I-70, a major east-west interstate highway through Colorado, at 1280 North Frontage Road. It is about 1.5 miles west of Exit 176, one of three exits in Vail off of I-70. Project Location Map Surrounding Land Use The property is in a primarily residential area. More specifically:  Immediately to the east of the parcel are Simba Run Vail Condominiums, which include about 70 one- and two-bedroom, amenity-rich condominiums that are primarily marketed as short-term visitor rentals.  Only the east half of the existing Timber Ridge Apartments are to be redeveloped, meaning that the existing apartments will border the west side of the redevelopment. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 7 These apartments will remain as workforce housing, with units master leased by Vail Resorts for their employees, until it is redeveloped at a future date .  The US Post Office is located just beyond Timber Ridge to the west, at 1300 North Frontage Road. The mountainside, with some luxury single- family homes at the top of the hill and a road serving residential areas, Lions Ridge Loop, borders the north end of the property. The photo shows the hillside looking north from the eastern access to the property. The south end of the site is bordered first by a pedestrian/bike path, followed by the Frontage Road, and then I-70, with each path/road separated by a natural grass median. The photo is looking southeast from the west access to the property. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 8 Vicinity Map Proximity to Services Shopping and Dining The nearest major grocery stores are City Market and Safeway, located less than one mile west of the property along North Frontage Road. These are reachable via bus transit, personal vehicle, or the bike and pedestrian trail, which has only a slight incline traveling west . Several other amenities are located within the same development as the Safeway, including a bank, barber, UPS store, dental office, child care center, liquor store, coffee shop, Sports Authority, 7-Eleven and a Holiday Inn. Restaurants include a pizza place, sub shop, café, sushi restaurant and quick serve options, including Subway, McDonalds and Qdoba. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 9 Public Transit A covered bus stop is located at the existing western access to Timber Ridge apartments. This bus stop will be redesigned and reconstructed as part of the construction of turn lanes into Timber Ridge and the proposed apartments. A landscaped entrance will be provided to serve as a transition between the two properties. The stop is serviced by the West Vail Red and Green bus routes year round and provides service every 40-minutes in the summer (May 27 through mid-December), once per hour in the spring (April 15 through May 26), 30-minute intervals during peak hours in the winter (December 10 through April 14). In the winter, the site is also served by the Lionsridge route at varying intervals. Buses run between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. each day, with service offered until about 2 a.m. in the winter. Routes traverse the length of the North and South Frontage Roads, fr om West Vail to Vail Village. Bike and Pedestrian Access The property is bordered by a bike and pedestrian path on the south, traveling along much of the Frontage Road. It is located just over one half mile west of the pedestrian overpass bridge, which ends in Vail near the Lionshead Ski School and Gondola. A vehicle, bike and pedestrian underpass that would traverse under I-70, allowing more convenient access to the heart of Vail and Lionshead is in the planning phase. The Town of Vail has hired a firm to study the feasibility and environmental impacts of the underpass, and has committed to provide 30% of the project’s funding. The north end of the underpass would connect with North Frontage Road very near the east side of the Timber Ridge parcel in front of the Simba Run condominium complex. The underpass has been discussed for years, but appears to be moving forward although financing and construction could take several years . This underpass would enhance Timber Ridge’s already very convenient location. Parks The redevelopment will include a modest park areas for residents. Otherwise, Town of Vail parks and numerous mountain trails and federal open spaces are easily accessed from the property via the bike and pedestrian trails, bus service, and personal vehicles. Marketability The site is very marketable. It is in a primarily residential area with easy access to groceries and other necessary goods and services. With a bike/pedestrian path running along the property and a bus stop serviced by two public transit routes, it is very convenient. A car is not required to reach most job sites, shopping, skiing and Vail’s other resort amenities. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 10 Views of the mountains to the south, southwest and southeast are desirable, as well as the southern sun exposure for units facing that direction . Noise from traffic is of concern for south facing units, however, given the proximity to I-70 and bus/truck traffic along the Interstate and the Frontage Road. The apartments will be situated such that some will be facing toward the north and south and others will be facing west and east, providing options based on views, sun exposure, highway noise and other preferences.  Units on the north side of the buildings will provide views of the side of the mountain and some will also view the parking lot, but will be more protected from I-70 noise than other units;  Units facing south will have greater sun exposure in the winter and provide views of the mountains, but will be most prone to highway noise;  Units facing west and east will have limited mountain views and varying degrees of sun exposure during the day, and moderate exposure to noise from the Interstate . The project will retain trees along the south border, helping to mitigate the sight and sounds of traffic. Nonetheless, the use of advanced soundproofing in units to protect against such noise should help the marketability of units. The site is highly visible; it can be seen from I-70, both frontage roads and much of the town. The redevelopment, which has already received coverage in the Vail Daily newspaper, will be well known, particularly since Timber Ridge is adjacent to the Post Office, which most Vail residents will at least occasionally visit. This exposure will benefit marketing efforts. It will not be difficult to provide directions to potential residents when they make inquiries. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 3. Identification of Market Area Boundaries The primary market area (PMA) for the proposed project includes the towns of Vail and Avon and the unincorporated community of Eagle-Vail in between. It includes Census Tracts 5.02, 5.03, 7.01, 7.02 and 7.03. These boundaries were selected based on the following factors:  The communities are in close proximity with only minor physical separation; from the Timber Ridge site to the heart of Avon is eight miles. Beyond Avon, communities are distinct and separated by large areas of undeveloped land.  Vail and Avon are similar in terms of their economies and jobs offered; both are home to destination ski areas, high-end accommodations, boutique shopping and fine dining. Down valley communities are very different with big-box retailers and commercial development that primarily serves the local population.  The rental inventory is similar throughout the market area with apartment properties that primarily target low-wage year-round employees or seasonal workers.  Demographic characteristics are also similar within the PMA, yet very distinct from those in down-valley communities, as described in the Demographic Trends and Economic Conditions section of this report. Primary Market Area Map 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 12 The PMA does not include the Beaver Creek resort, Arrowhead or other development to the west. While it includes the residential units accessed by the Piney Lake Road, there are no apartment projects in this remote area, and likely few units occupied as long -term rentals. The PMA includes approximately 42% of the housing units in Eagle County, but only 33% of its households and 29% of the county’s population. The up-valley communities of Vail and Avon have proportionately more second/vacation homes than the down -valley communities of Edwards, Wolcott, Eagle and Gypsum, which accounts for the higher percentage of hou sing units within the PMA compared to population . Approximately 35% of the population within the PMA resides in Vail. More reside in Eagle-Vail, which is primarily a residential community where many local residents live. Through annexations to the east, Avon now encompasses undeveloped areas, but also takes in several apartment projects that are covered in the Competitive Analysis section of this report. Population and Housing Units, 2010 Eagle County Vail PMA Population 52,197 5,305 15,257 Housing units 31,312 7,230 13,064 Households 19,236 2,604 6,294 Housing Occupancy rate 61.4% 36.0% 48.2% Source: 2010 Census 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 13 4. Market Conditions This section of the report examines both current and historical occupancy levels/vacancy rates and rents throughout Eagle County. It identifies trends and provides context for interpreting the information presented on seven comparable properties in the Competitive Analysis section of this report. Two sources of data were used:  The Multifamily Rent and Vacancy Survey published by the Colorado Division of Housing. It is conducted twice yearly in the first and third quarters. The survey is flawed by an inconsistent sample. It reported on around 1,200 units from 2008 through 2011 but, as of the first quarter of 2013, covered only 831 units. The properties covered by the survey are not disclosed. Nonetheless, it is useful for examining historical trends.  Reports compiled and published by Polar Star Properties, which manages three of the seven properties examined in the Competitive Analysis section of this report. Their report covers nine properties (plus two seasonal housing projects owned by Vail Resorts, which were excluded from this analysis). The reports provide detailed project- by-project information that allows comparison of up valley and down valley performance and monthly occupancy levels that illustrate seasonality in the market . Historical data, however, is no longer published. Rents Rents are generally higher in the market area than down valley.  Eagle Villas, a LIHTC project in Eagle, has an average per square foot rent of $1.04.  Lake Creek, a project in good condition in Edwards with employment restrictions only (i.e., no income or rent limits) rents for $1.16 per square foot, on average.  Timber Ridge in Vail, which is in poor condition and managed by the same company as Lake Creek, commands an average rent of $1.37.  Middle Creek, a LIHTC project in Vail with 44 market rate three-bedroom units, rents for the most, at $1.97 per square foot. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 14 Rents by Property, July 2013 Location Avg. Rents Avg. Rents/SF Buffalo Ridge Avon $1,341 $1.27 Buffalo Ridge II Avon $924 $1.69 EagleBend Avon $995 $1.36 Eagle Villas Eagle $1,036 $1.04 Kayak Crossing Avon $1,576 $1.31 Lake Creek Edwards $1,023 $1.16 Middle Creek Vail $1,262 $1.97 Timber Ridge Vail $1,026 $1.37 River Run Avon $1,275 $1.28 Overall $1,162 $1.35 Source: Polar Star Properties Rents are starting to rise after several post-recession years when rates dropped and discounts were widespread. The overall average rent increased 3% between July 2012 and 2013, and the per-square-foot average grew by 15%. Change in Average Rents July 2012 – July 2013 2012 2013 Avg. Rent/Unit $1,159 $1,162 Avg, Rent/SF $1.17 $1.35 Source: Polar Star Properties Vacancies The following chart illustrates that apartment vacancy rates remained low through 2009, shot upward in 2010, started to decline in 2011 and dropped to their lowest point in three years by the first quarter of 2013. More specifically:  Vacancy rates remained low through 2009, long after the recession caused rental markets to soften throughout much of the country. This was due to the strong influence that construction has on jobs and the economy in the Vail Valley; construc tion projects initiated while the development boom continued through 2007 were not completed until 2009.  In 2010, vacancies shot upward from a combination of job losses and Vail Resorts terminating their master leases on many units. Their need to import seasonal 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 15 employees dropped when high unemployment freed up many local workers to fill seasonal ski resort positions. Vail Resorts had extremely high vacancies in the seasonal worker properties they owned, as was the case at other Colorado ski resorts.  Vacancy rates also vary by season. Rates are consistently lower in the first quarter of each year than in the third quarter. The high vacancy rate of 14.2% in the third quarter of 2012 is an anomaly. It was likely due to turnover and reporting inconsisten cies rather than a sudden short-term spike in the vacancy rate. Multifamily Vacancies, 2008-2013 Source: Colorado Division of Housing The following table shows that down-valley properties have similar occupancy levels as those within the market area. This means that, as occupancies levels peak during the ski season and as they continue to rise in general with the economy’s recovery, moving down valley will not be a viable alternative to the decreasing availability and rising rents in the Vail area. 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 1st Qtr 08 3rd Qtr 08 1st Qtr 09 3rd Qtr 09 1st Qtr 10 3rd Qtr 10 1st Qtr 11 3rd Qtr 11 1st Qtr 12 3rd Qtr 12 1st Qtr 13 2.7% 2.9% 2.1% 3.5% 6.0% 8.0% 5.7% 6.7% 7.9% 14.2% 4.5% Va c a n c y R a t e 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 16 Occupancy Levels by Property, July 2013 # Units Occupancy Rate Buffalo Ridge 68 93% Buffalo Ridge II 176 90% EagleBend 294 94% Eagle Villas 120 90% Kayak Crossing 50 98% Lake Creek 270 96% Middle Creek 142 98% Timber Ridge 198 87% River Run 117 93% Total/Average 1435 93.2% Source: Polar Star Properties 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 17 5. Competitive Analysis This section of the report examines seven apartment properties within the primary market area. It covers:  General description including location, age, number of units, condition and photos;  Income and/or rent restrictions;  Resident profiles;  Lease terms;  Amenities;  Parking;  Utilities;  Unit mix;  Unit size;  Vacancies;  Rents, per unit and per square foot; and  Discounts/incentives. This section also provides information on the rents charged for condominium rentals located within the PMA. The proposed units, being unlike existing apartment projects in the area, will be the most comparable to condominium rentals in terms of design, location, amenities and rents. This is because the proposed units will target a higher income population than projects with income and/or rent restrictions and will be much newer and in a superior location than other market rate apartment properties. Selection of Comparables The selection of properties was based primarily on location and target market served. All apartment properties that are located within the primary market area and offer at least some market rate units were included. The only apartment projects within the PMA that were not examined as part of this analysis are:  Riverview Apartments, a 72-unit rent subsidized Section 8 complex in Eagle-Vail serving very low income households;  Three seasonal employee projects owned by Vail Resorts: First Chair, Vail, a 124-bed project completed in 2011; River Edge, Avon, a 103-unit project built in 1997; and The Tarnes, Avon, a 136-unit project built in 2000;  18 rental units located at Vail Commons above retail space; and  36 units in two projects (Buzzard Park and Creekside) owned by the Town of Vail and rented to Town employees. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 18 Combined, the six comparable properties have a total of 1,046 units. These units house approximately 30% of the renter households residing in the market area. Property Location Map 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 19 General Description EagleBend is on the north bank of the Eagle River on a long narrow site with buildings running east/west. It is near the center of Avon, yet is in a quiet location. Rents are higher for units located directly on the river. Even though it was built in 1990, the 294-unit property appears to be well maintained and in good condition and has attractive, mature landscaping. http://www.eaglebendapartments.com/ Buffalo Ridge is in Avon on the north side of I- 70 along a hillside yet in an isolated location. The four-story buildings are aligned east/west; all units face south with views. It was developed as two separate projects for financing purposes. In total, there are 244 units. One phase with 68 units is owned by a non-profit housing corporation and managed by Polar Star Properties. The remaining 176 units are owned/managed by Corum Real Estate Group. http://www.buffaloridgeapts.com/ http://buffaloridgeapartments.com/ Kayak Crossing is located on the river west of Vail near Dowd Junction, the area in the immediate vicinity of the I-70 Minturn exit. The 50-unit property has access to fishing and a kayak launch on site. The units are in three- story buildings with interior stairs. The unit mix is unusual; most units have five bedrooms designed initially to function as housing for seasonal Vail Resort employees. Polar Star Properties now manages all units for year round employees. The property appears to be in excellent condition. http://www.kayakcrossing.com/ 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 20 River Run is a 117-unit condominium project that functions as an apartment property. It offers a mix of one-, two- and three- bedroom units. It is nicely landscaped and on the Eagle River next to Kayak Crossing in a quiet location that is convenient to either Vail or Avon. http://www.riverrunvailvalley.com/index.as px Middle Creek is a LIHTC property completed in 2004. It is owned and managed by Coughlin and Company. The 142 units are located on south sloping hillside just to the north of I-70. Buildings range from three stories served by stairs to eight stories with an elevator. Most parking is in a central garage. http://www.middlecreekvillage.com/ Timber Ridge has 199 units, all with two bedrooms and one bath. Vail Resorts master leases a portion of the units for its employees. The current lease is for 98 units. At its pre-recession peak, VR master leased 170 units. Timber Ridge does not have a web site. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 21 General Description of Competing Properties Buffalo Ridge Buffalo Ridge II EagleBend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Management Polar Star Properties Corum Real Estate Grp Polar Star Properties Polar Star Properties Coughlin and Company Texas Capital Partners LLC Corum Real Estate Grp Address 0930 Swift Gulch Rd. 1020 Swift Gulch Rd. 0010 Stonebridge Dr. 0033 Kayak Ct. 145 N. Frontage Rd. W. 41929 Hwy 6 1208 N. Frontage Rd. W. Location Avon Avon Avon Avon Vail Avon Vail Property Type 4 stories (garden level w/3 floors above) 4 stories (garden level w/3 floors above) 3 stories 3 stories 3 – 8 stories 3 - 4 stories Unit Type flats flats flats flats flats flats; lofts, townhomes flats Year Built 2003 2003 1990 2000 2003-04 1985 1981 General excellent excellent good good excellent good poor Total Units 68 176 294 50 142 117 199 Income/Rent Restrictions 50% AMI 40 6 60% AMI 92 91 80% AMI 68 120% AMI 294 50 None 44 45 117 199 Income, Rent and/or Employment Restrictions  At Buffalo Ridge there are no income restrictions, but rents must not exceed rates that are affordable for households with incomes at 80% AMI.  Buffalo Ridge II has a combination of LIHTC units at 50% and 60% AMI and market rate units that have an Eagle County employment restriction. All but four of the 44 studios and four of the 44 one-bedroom units are LIHTC restricted at 50% and 60%, respectively, whereas 52 of the two-bedroom units have LIHTC restrictions and 36 are market.  Of the 142 units at Middle Creek, 97 are income restricted, 91 at 60% AMI and 6 at 50% AMI. The three-bedroom units are the only ones without income restrictions . About 10% of the inquiries are from persons/households with incomes above the 60% AMI restriction. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 22  At Timber Ridge at least one member of each household must be employed in Eagle County; however, there are no income or rent restrictions imposed.  River Run has no employment, income or rent restrictions.  Kayak Crossing, which is owned by a non-profit corporation, has income restrictions of 120% AMI, but no rent restrictions. Resident Profiles The resident profiles vary by property. In general, they reflect the way in which demographic trends vary within Eagle County. Residents living at apartment properties in Vail tend to be single, living alone or with a roommate(s), or couples without children. The two properties in the Dowd Junction area, located about mid-way between Vail and Avon, have some families with children, but most households are adult-only. The properties farther down valley in Avon are more family oriented with larger households and many children .  Buffalo Ridge has a wide mix of residents with single persons living alone in the studios and about a 50/50 mix between singles living alone and couples in the one-bedroom units. Approximately 40% to 50% of the LIHTC two-bedroom units have families with children. The non-LIHTC two and three-bedroom units serve both roommate and family households. About half of the residents move in from locations outside of Eagle County.  At Middle Creek, approximately 80% of residents move to the property from out of state. The rest typically move from down-valley locations, with some occasionally coming from elsewhere in the Vail area. About 60% of the property’s one-bedroom units are occupied by two persons, whereas only about 10% of its two-bedroom units are occupied by just one person.  Timber Ridge attracts residents who are new to the area, most coming from out of state. Rarely does it draw residents from other properties in the Vail area. It is in such poor condition that it is considered to be the last choice for persons who want to live in Vail. About 40% to 50% of units are occupied by roommate households, with the rest being evenly split between singles living alone and couples. Very few children live at Timber Ridge.  While about half of the residents at River Run move there from out of state, the property attracts about 40% of its residents from the Vail area and another 10% from 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 23 down valley. About 40% of its one-bedroom units are occupied by two persons, whereas 10% of its two-bedroom units have one occupant.  EagleBend is a family-oriented project where the majority of residents are Hispanic. Most have children. About 80% of the property’s one-bedroom units have two occupants. Very few, if any, of the two-bedroom units are lived in by only one person. Lease Terms Most properties now offer only one-year leases. Timber Ridge has seven six-month leases for which it charges $50 more per month. Buffalo Ridge II also offers six month leases but at no additional cost. When occupancy levels were lower in 2010 and 2011, management was more flexible and offered six month or month-to-month leases. Property managers schedule most of their leases to expire in the late summer or fall so that units can be leased quickly as the ski season approaches. During the summer of 2012, Polar Star sought 18-month leases in order to carry tenants through until the ski season the following year. Leases that expire in the spring typically take the longest to fill; however, property managers reported little trouble filling vacancies that occurred in the spring and early summer of this year. Amenities None of the apartment properties could be considered Class A yet most offer the amenities most desired by renters in mountain resort communities, including balconies/patios, extra storage space and on-site laundry. None of the properties provide in-unit washers and dryers, yet River Run, the only one with hookups, reports that many residents provide their own appliances. Other properties report that residents bring in portable washers and dryers. Although two properties offer free WI-FI in their community building/room, none have internet service throughout the property. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 24 Amenities by Project Buffalo Ridge Buffalo Ridge II Eagle Bend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Community Room X X X Playground X BBQ X X X X X On Site Office X X X X X Covered Parking X X Private Garages 60 $100/mo 85 $100/mo Balconies/patios X X X X X Walk-in Closets X X X Storage Closets X X X X X Free WI-FI X in community room X in clubhouse Cable TV X X X X in VR units Washers/Dryers W/D Hookups X Central Laundry X X X X X - 2 X X - 2 Microwaves X X Other: Air conditioning Air conditioning Basketball Hot tub Sauna Fitness Ctr Pets Allowed $300 dep $25/mo $300 dep $10/mo Cats only $300 dep $25/mo $300 dep $25/mo $300 dep $200 2nd $25/mo $400 dep $25/mo $300 dep All properties allow pets and all but EagleBend allow dogs. Most charge a $300 pet deposit, half of which is non refundable. All except Timber Ridge charges rent for pets, typically $25 per month. River Run has the most amenities. Designed as condominiums, the property has a nicely furnished clubhouse with billiards, copy/fax machines and free WI-FI. Units have fireplaces, ceiling fans and, in some units, vaulted ceilings. EagleBend has many amenities including a playground; the only property that provides one. The leasing office for Polar Star’s three properties is located at EagleBend . Polar Star provides bilingual staff at its three properties as well as basic cable TV that residents can upgrade if desired. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 25 Timber Ridge offers the fewest amenities, but does have storage closets and an on-site leasing office. Parking Parking has to be carefully managed at some properties, especially during the peak ski season . While all have good proximity to a public transit stop with the exception of Buffalo Ridge, most residents have cars. They often do not use their cars for transportation to their jobs since parking is unavailable or very expensive in close proximity to where they work. Most properties have parking policies and enforced regulations. Polar Star properties issues two parking passes for the three-bedroom units at all of their properties and only one pass for two-bedroom units in some cases. They report that parking continues to be problematic for many of their residents and results in regular booting of unauthorized vehicles.  At Buffalo Ridge, there are 60 private garages for 68 units, which rent separately for $100 per month. The property also has 95 surface parking spaces for a ratio of 2.28 spaces per unit, or roughly 0.9 spaces per bedroom. At this ratio, parking is tight.  Buffalo Ridge II has 85 garages that rent for $100 per month plus one surface space per unit with a few additional spaces for visitors. Parking is a challenge. While the property is served by a school bus, the nearest public transit stop is at the bottom of the hill. Managers are attempting to restore transit service.  Kayak Crossing offers only surface parking free of charge. Although the number of spaces is unknown, parking is ample for their resident’s needs.  Middle Creek has 22 surface parking spaces; the rest are in a central garage. Many residents (typically 30% to 40%) do not have cars. One space is provided free of charge for the LIHTC units; $75 is charged per space for all other spaces, whether surface or in the garage. Management reports parking is adequate.  Property managers do not know the number of surface parking spaces at River Run but parking is adequate and there are no fees for parking.  Timber Ridge has 220 surface parking spaces for its 199 units. One space is provided per unit free of charge. A $75 monthly fee is charged for 15 additional parking spaces. Because of its convenient location next to a transit stop, day skiers park illegally on site to avoid $30 per day parking fees in the town’s public garages. Parking regulations are enforced by towing with a $200 charge to retrieve cars. Even discounting the problems caused by day skiers, spaces are inadequate for residents and their guests during the peak ski season. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 26 Utilities Most properties charge residents for some or all utilities in addition to rent . At Middle Creek, hot water and heat are provided as part of rent for LIHTC units; $45 per month is charged for gas heat and hot water in the three-bedroom units. Timber Ridge is the only property where residents are responsible for all of their utilities with water/sewer and trash covered by rent . Buffalo Ridge is the only property that has air conditioning necessita ted by its location on a south-facing slope with south-facing windows. Utility Charges by Property Buffalo Ridge Buffalo Ridge II Eagle Bend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Type of Heat Hot water Hot water Hot water Gas Hot water Electric baseboard Electric baseboard Utility Provided Heat X X X X X Hot Water X X X X X Water/Sewer/ Trash X X X X X X Electricity X X X Gas X X X X Utility Charges None Studio $79 1 BR $170 $100 $150 $59 2 BR $185 $110 $170- $175 $180 $95 3 BR $200 $190 $200 $45 $127 4 BR $220 - $240 Unit Mix Most of the comparable properties offer at least three types of units . Timber Ridge is the only exception; all units have two bedrooms and one bathroom . Just over half of all comparable units have two bedrooms. Only one property, River Run, provides two-bedroom/two- bathroom units. The other properties offer only one bathroom in their two -bedroom units. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 27 Unit Mix by Property Buffalo Ridge Buffalo Ridge II Eagle Bend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Total % of Total Studios 44 45 89 8.5% 1 BR 4 44 112 29 38 227 21.7% 2 BR/1 BA 24 88 138 2 24 199 475 45.4% 2 BR/2 BA 59 59 5.6% 3 BR 40 44 21 44 20 169 16.2% 4+ BR 27 27 2.6% Total 68 176 294 50 142 117 199 1046 100.0% Buffalo Ridge has a high proportion of large units, while Buffalo Ridge II has smaller units – most are studios or have one bedroom. Buffalo Ridge has three different two-bedroom/one- bathroom floor plans. EagleBend has a unit mix which is commonly found in apartment properties in urban market areas with more two-bedroom units than any other type. EagleBend has three different one- bedroom floor plans and four designs for its two -bedroom units. The unit mix at Kayak Crossing is atypical. It is the only property that offers units with four or more bedrooms. It has no one-bedroom units and only two two-bedroom units. The property was originally designed to primarily provide housing for seasonal workers; however, since Vail Resorts discontinued their master leasing of units, they are now occupied on a one-year lease basis. Middle Creek offers studios through three-bedroom units; the two-bedroom units are the easiest to lease and keep occupied. Units with mountain views are popular. Most bathrooms at Middle Creek have showers only. Tubs are only in one of the bathrooms in the three- bedroom units. At River Run, the 19 two-bedroom loft units are most popular. One bedroom and bath are on the lower floor with the other bedroom and bathroom in the loft, allowing greater privacy for roommate households. The smaller two-bedroom units have 1¾ baths. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 28 Unit Size Units vary from very small 325 square-foot studios to large four-bedroom units with dens averaging 1,271 square feet. Average sizes are as follows:  360 square feet for studios;  603 square feet for one-bedroom units;  804 square feet for two-bedroom/one-bathroom units;  1,088 square feet for two-bedroom/two-bathroom units (one project only);  1,111 for three-bedroom units; and  1,271 for units with four+-bedrooms. Unit Size by Property Buffalo Ridge I Buffalo Ridge II Eagle Bend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Avg. Studios 325 395 360 1 BR 605 599 542 - 594 565 avg 495 750 603 2 BR/1 BA 846 - 953 886 avg 872 736 - 880 771 avg 828 685 -750 718 avg 750 804 2 BR/2 BA 975 1200 1088 3 BR 1199 1029 1085 940-945 1300 1111 4+ BR 1271 1271 Vacancies Among the seven properties examined, the overall vacancy rate was 7.5% as of mid-August. It was highest for studios (11.2%), followed by three-bedroom units (10.1%). It was lowest for two-bedroom/two-bathroom units (none vacant) and for one-bedroom units (1.8%). This variation by unit type appears to be typical. Property managers report that:  One- and two-bedroom units are the easiest to lease and keep occupied;  Studios typically have high vacancy rates and turnover. They are relatively easy to lease as the ski season approaches; and  Three-bedroom units are typically the last to lease. Renters prefer not to live with multiple roommates but for those who are willing to do so, the three-bedroom units are the most economical choice. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 29 Vacancies by Property and Unit Type, Mid August 2013 Buffalo Ridge Buffalo Ridge II Eagle Bend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Total Vacant Vacancy Rate Studios 10 10 11.2% 1 BR 2 1 1 4 1.8% 2 BR/1 BA 8 1 37 46 9.7% 2 BR/2 BA 0 0.0% 3 BR 4 11 2 17 10.1% 4+ BR 1 1 3.7% Total Vacant 4 20 13 1 2 1 37 78 7.5% Total Units 68 176 294 50 142 117 199 1046 Vacancy Rate 5.9% 11.4% 4.4% 2.0% 1.4% 0.9% 18.6% 7.5% Vacancies are lowest during the ski season. All property managers report that they expect 100% occupancy by November 1st if not sooner. As of mid-August:  Buffalo Ridge had a vacancy rate of 5.9%; all vacant units had three bedrooms.  Buffalo Ridge II had 20 of 176 units vacant, for an overall vacancy rate of 11.4%. All of the vacant units were under LIHTC income restrictions. Property management reported that their market units fill the fastest because many applicants have incomes higher than allowed for the LIHTC units. Half of the vacant units were studios, which typically have the highest turnover. The vacancy rate for the 325 square foot studios was 23%.  EagleBend had an overall vacancy rate of 4.4% primarily due to 11 vacant three- bedroom units; however, several of these units were leased for future occupancy.  Kayak Crossing had only one vacant four-bedroom unit, which equates to a very low vacancy rate of 2%.  The vacancy rate at Middle Creek was 1.4%. Only two units were vacant, both of which were three-bedroom units. Studio units have a high rate of turnover. Most turnover when leases expire; however, most residents stay at Middle Creek moving into a one - bedroom unit alone or into a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate. Usually all three-bedroom units turnover. Overall turnover is 60% per year with most residents leaving the area.  Timber Ridge had the highest vacancy rate by far of the comparable properties due primarily to the condition of units. Of its 199 units, 37 were vacant yet most of those were out of service; only eight units were vacant and available to rent. Adjusting for the out-of-service units drops the effective vacancy rate from 18.4% to 4%. The 98 units 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 30 master leased by Vail Resorts are always counted as occupied whether or not they are since rent is being paid on the units and they are not available for non -VR employees to rent.  River Run had the lowest vacancy rate at 0.9%; only one of its one-bedroom units was available to lease. Rents The overall weighted average rent as of August was $1,132 among the seven properties . The average ranged from:  $704 for studios;  $901 for one-bedroom units;  $1,072 for two-bedroom/one-bathroom units;  $1,443 for two-bedroom/two-bathroom units; and  $1,725 for units with four+ bedrooms. Rents by Unit Type and Property Buffalo Ridge Buffalo Ridge II Eagle Bend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Average Studios $655 50% AMI $735 mkt $744 50% AMI $704 1 BR $930 $845 60% AMI $925 mkt $785-$830 $957 $1,200 $901 2 BR/1 BA $1,220 $1020 60%AMI $1095 mkt $995-$1,065 $1,130-1,195 $1,140 $1,145 $1,075 $1,072 2 BR/2 BA $1,375 $1,475 $1,443 3 BR $1,455 $1,275- $1,345 $1,450 $1,900 $2,200 $1,650 $1,598 4+ BR $1,650 $1,800 $1,725 Average $1,341 $904 $995 $1,576 $1,260 $1,390 $1,075 $1,132  LIHTC units were priced at the maximums allowed, which were below market rates for identical units.  The market units at Buffalo Ridge II rented for $5 less per month than the same type of unit at Buffalo Ridge. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 31  EagleBend’s rates vary according to whether the unit is on or off the Eagle River . Off river units are discounted $45 to $70.  Kayak Crossing’s rents are in the middle of the range, but $200 per month lower than the same type of unit at neighboring River Run.  At Middle Creek, rents for the three-bedroom units vary by $300 per month depending primarily by location within the property; premium rents are charged for the best views. The maximum rents allowed are charged for the LIHTC and HOME units.  At Timber Ridge, $50 more per month is charged for six-month leases.  At River Run, units in the two buildings that are not on the river rent for $75 less per month than the rate shown in the table. The average rent per square foot was $1.47 in August . It ranged from $1.30 to $1.96. The rents generally decrease as the unit size increases; however, the high rents per square foot for the three-bedroom units at Middle Creek ($2.17/SF) altered this pattern, which is atypical. Rents per square foot by property varied little, ranging from $1.27 to $1.42, with the exception of Middle Creek at $1.93, again due to the unrestricted three-bedroom rents. Rents per Square Foot Buffalo Ridge Buffalo Ridge II Eagle Bend Kayak Crossing Middle Creek River Run Timber Ridge Weighted Average Studios $2.02 $2.26 $1.88 $1.96 1 BR $1.54 $1.41 $1.54 $1.42 $1.93 $1.60 $1.49 2 BR/1 BA $1.38 $1.17 $1.26 $1.36 $1.38 $1.59 $1.43 $1.36 2 BR/2 BA $1.41 $1.23 $1.29 3 BR $1.21 $1.29 $1.43 $2.17 $1.27 $1.52 4+ BR $1.30 $1.30 Average $1.27 $1.47 $1.36 $1.31 $1.93 $1.42 $1.43 $1.47 Discounts/Incentives Discounts are disappearing. In 2010 through at least the first half of 2012, discounts were common, like one to two months free rent. One property manager said, ”We were buying our occupancies.” 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 32  At Polar Star’s three properties, the net effective rents are about 10% lower than stated rents from discounts offered during the past year. One- and two-bedroom units are now commanding stated rents but "one month off" is still being offered for the larger units. Higher discounts are occasionally offered for three-bedroom units. Some older, soon to expire leases at Kayak and Buffalo Ridge are still under the two month free discounts offered in 2012.  Timber Ridge had a $500 move in incentive special in 2012 but is no longer offering any discounts.  Buffalo Ridge II is offering $500 deposits, which are usually equal to one month’s rent.  Neither Middle Creek nor River Run are offering any discounts or incentives at this time. Condominium Rentals A total of 59 unduplicated listings for long-term rentals were found over four dates in July and August in the Vail Daily and on Craig’s List. Of these, 28 were condominiums and eight were listed as townhomes. Rents for these units ranged from $1,000 to $3,800, and averaged $1,776. One-bedroom units averaged $1,104 per month; however, the sample only included six units so may not well represent the market. The average rent for the 17 two-bedroom listings was $1,762. Condominium and Townhomes For-Rent Listings Unit Type # of Listings Average Rent 1 Bdrm 6 $1,104 2 Bdrm 17 $1,762 3 Bdrm 13 $2,106 About one-third of the units were located in Avon, a few were in Eagle-Vail and the rest were in Vail. The units in Avon tended to rent for less than the ones in Vail , although the sample is too small to conclusively quantify the difference. Only 16 of the 36 condo/townhome listings provided unit siz e. Per-square-foot rents ranged from $1.15 for a large three-bedroom unit in Avon to $2.50 for a 500 square foot, one -bedroom condominium in Vail. The average was $1.62 per square foot. All of the one-bedroom units for which size was provided were small, from 500 to 540 square feet. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 33 6. Demographic Trends and Economic Conditions This section of the market study consists of three parts:  Market Area Demographics, which provides information on population, housing units, households and household composition and size of renter households.  Demographic Trends, which presents information from the 2000 and 2010 Censuses to identify trends and gain insights as to how current demographic characteristics will likely be changing in the future.  Economic Conditions, which covers jobs, wages and the distribution of jobs in Eagle County. Market Area Demographics About one-third of Eagle County’s households (6,294 households) reside in the market area . Of these, 2,604 reside within the town of Vail. 2010 Population and Housing Occupancy Eagle County Vail Market Area Population 52,197 5,305 15,257 Housing units 31,312 7,230 13,064 Households 19,236 2,604 6,294 Housing occupancy rate 61.4% 36.0% 48.2% Source: 2010 US Census While most residential units in Eagle County are occupied as primary residences (61%), only 36% of units in Vail were occupied by residents in 2010; second homes/vacation accommodations comprised the majority. In the entire market area, the housing occupancy rate was only 48% in 2010. The homes that are not occupied by members of the workforce typically create demand for workforce housing through cleaning, repair, snow removal, landscaping and similar jobs involved in operation and maintenance of the units. While one-third of Eagle County’s households reside in the market area, about 45% of Eagle County’s renter households reside in the Market Area. Relatively fewer households can afford to buy homes up valley; the only option other than commuting is to rent. Over one-half of the households in Vail and nearly 50% of those in the entire market area rent . Demographic characteristics vary by area. There are clear differences between up-valley and down-valley communities. Vail has proportionately more renters than owners, more singles and roommate households than families, and smaller renter households than down valley. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 34 Of the 3,336 renter households living in the market area in 2010:  Roommate households were the most common (37%).  Nearly 30% had only one member living alone.  Families were in the minority. About 19% were families with children and 15% were families (both couples and singles) without children. 2010 Renter Households by Type: Market Area Source: 2010 US Census In Vail, proportionately fewer renter households have chi ldren (only 8%) and more consist of singles living alone (36%) or with roommates (45%). Renter Household Composition by Area, 2010 Eagle County Vail Market Area # Renter Households 6,893 1,340 3,336 % Renter-Occupied 35.8% 51.5% 49.7% Renter Households by Type Family, no children 18% 11% 15% Family, with children 29% 8% 19% Living alone 26% 36% 29% Non-family, roommates 27% 45% 37% 100% 100% 100% Source: 2010 US Census Family, no children 15% (479 total) Family, with children 19% (800 total) Living alone 29% (899 total) Roommates 37% (1,152 total) 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 35 The average size of renter households within the market area is about 2.45 persons per unit. In Vail is it considerably smaller at 2.04 persons per renter occupied unit. The largest segment of the renter market is comprised on one- and two-person households, which combined total 61%. 2010 Renter Households by Size: Market Area Source: 2010 US Census Renter Household Size by Area, 2010 Persons per Unit Eagle County Vail Market Area 1-person 26% 36% 29% 2-person 30% 37% 32% 3-person 18% 16% 18% 4-person 14% 8% 12% 5+ person 13% 2% 8% Average size 2.68 2.04 2.45 Source: 2010 US Census Demographic Trends Between 2000 and 2010, most of the population growth in Eagle County occurred down valley . While growth in Vail was slower, the rate of growth was particularly low elsewhere within the market area. The population increased by 25% in the County (over 10,000 persons), but only 17% in Vail (774 persons) and just under 6% in the market area (908 persons). Growth in households (occupied housing units) followed a similar pattern. 1-person 29% (899 total) 2-person 32% (1,014 total) 3-person 18% (571 total) 4-person 12% (382 total) 5+ person 9% (264 total) 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 36 Total housing units, however, increased at about the same rate in the county and the market area (41%) and at a slower pace in Vail (34%), where land availability is very limited . The number of housing units grew faster than the resident population and households due to construction of second/seasonal homes. The housing occupancy rate declined by about 7 percentage points in the county, 4 points in Vail and 9 points in the market area, indicating a significant rise in second homes . Even though growth in the number of households did not keep pace with growth in second/seasonal homes, the number of units occupied by local residents increased . The market area gained 680 households (owners and renters combined) between 2000 and 2010, for an average increase of 68 households per year. Change in Population, Housing Units and Households: 2000 - 2010 Eagle County Vail Market Area Population 2000 41,659 4,531 15,326 2010 52,197 5,305 16,234 % change 25.3% 17.1% 5.9% Total Housing Units 2000 22,111 5,389 11,527 2010 31,312 7,230 16,286 % change 41.6% 34.2% 41.3% Households/Occupied Housing Units 2000 15,148 2,165 6,080 2010 19,236 2,604 6,760 # Change 4,088 439 680 % change 27.0% 20.3% 11.2% Housing Occupancy Rate 2000 68.5% 40.2% 52.7% 2010 61.4% 36.0% 41.5% Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census The increase in households within the market area was due primarily to growth in the number of renter households. The market area gained 419 renter households between 2000 and 2010, or an average of nearly 42 households per year. Renters now comprise the majority of households living in Vail (51.5%). The number of renter households in Eagle County as a whole increased by nearly 1,400 households, or an average gain of 140 households each year. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 37 Change in Renter Households: 2000 - 2010 Eagle County Vail Market Area 2000 # renter-households 5,499 1,032 2,917 % renter-households 36.3% 47.7% 48.0% 2010 # renter-households 6,893 1,340 3,336 % renter-households 35.8% 51.5% 49.3% % Change in renter households 25.4% 29.8% 14.4% # Change in renter households 1,394 308 419 Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census There were some significant changes in the composition of renter households, which varied by area:  Roommate households declined as a percentage of households in all areas, from 34% to 27% in Eagle County, from 44% to 38% within the market area and from 49% to 45% in Vail.  Renters living alone increased, especially in Vail, from 33% to 36%. The change in points between roommate households and persons living alone in Vail was very similar (4 and 3 points respectively), indicating that singles who lived together in 2000 found ways to live alone by 2010 rather than forming couples and families.  The percentage of family households, with and without children, stayed about the same in Vail but increased in the county as a whole; growth in families largely occurred down valley. Change in Composition of Renter Households: 2000 – 2010 Eagle County Vail Market Area 2000 (total renter households) 5,499 1,032 2,917 Family, no children 17% 12% 11% Family, with children 25% 7% 19% Living alone 25% 33% 25% Non-family, roommates 34% 49% 44% 100% 100% 100% 2010 (total renter households) 6,893 1,340 3,336 Family, no children 18% 11% 15% Family, with children 29% 8% 18% Living alone 26% 36% 29% Non-family, roommates 27% 45% 38% 100% 100% 100% Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 38 Changes in renter household size also varied by region:  Renter households decreased in size in both the town of Vail and the market area while size increased slightly in the county.  Renter households in all areas predominately have one or two -persons (56% to 73%), followed by 3-person households (16% to 18%).  A much larger percentage of households have three or more members in both the county (26%) and the market area (22%) than in Vail (10%). Change in Size of Renter Households: 2000 – 2010 Eagle County Vail Market Area 2000 (total renter households) 5,499 1,032 2,917 1-person 25% 33% 25% 2-person 32% 40% 33% 3-person 18% 17% 19% 4-person 14% 7% 14% 5+ person 12% 3% 8% Average size 2.67 2.11 2.54 2010 (total renter households) 6,893 1,340 3,336 1-person 26% 36% 29% 2-person 30% 37% 33% 3-person 18% 16% 18% 4-person 14% 8% 12% 5+ person 13% 2% 8% Average size 2.68 2.04 2.43 Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census The population and labor force in the Vail area is aging as is the trend in other Colorado mountain resort communities. The age of renter households increased between 2000 and 2010.  The largest increase occurred in households 35 to 44 years of age.  The percentage of households under 35 declined in all areas; although these younger households comprise a larger percentage of households in Vail and the market area than in the county as a whole. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 39  Only households with a householder under 25 years of age decreased in number as well as percentage in all areas (-21 in Vail, -150 in Eagle County and -153 in the market area). Change in Age of Renter Households: 2000 – 2010 Eagle County Vail Market Area 2000 (total renter households) 5,499 1,032 2,917 15 to 24 years 17% 21% 22% 25 to 34 years 40% 46% 44% 35 to 44 years 22% 16% 18% 45 to 54 years 14% 10% 11% 55 to 64 years 4% 5% 4% 65 years and over 3% 2% 1% 2010 (total renter households) 6,893 1,340 3,336 15 to 24 years 11% 15% 14% 25 to 34 years 36% 42% 42% 35 to 44 years 24% 19% 21% 45 to 54 years 16% 12% 13% 55 to 64 years 9% 7% 7% 65 years and over 4% 4% 3% 100% 100% 100% Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 40 The Economy The economy in Eagle County is recovering. Eagle County currently has about 37,820 jobs. This is down from the peak of about 40,500 jobs in 2008, but up from a low of 35,660 in 2010. The loss of 2,680 jobs reported by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs is much lower than a local estimate of nearly 6,000 jobs, a difference likely attributed in part to construction jobs, which are hard to track. Since 2010, total employment has increased by approximately 2,160 jobs, which equates to an average rate of growth of about 2% per year. Change in Jobs: Eagle County, 2005 – 2013 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), State Demography Section The unemployment rate in Eagle County has been declining. Unemployment reached a high of 9.6% in 2010 and declined to 8.1% in 2012. This is still much higher than pre-recession rates, which varied between about 2.9% and 3.9% between 2005 and 2008. Average Yearly Labor Force and Employment: Eagle County 2000 - 2012 Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate 2012 29,793 27,388 2,405 8.1% 2011 29,293 26,689 2,604 8.9% 2010 29,674 26,836 2,838 9.6% 2009 30,624 28,235 2,389 7.8% 2008 31,837 30,705 1,132 3.6% 2007 31,161 30,267 894 2.9% 2006 30,206 29,191 1,015 3.4% 2005 28,670 27,555 1,115 3.9% Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment 36,529 38,319 40,163 40,499 37,230 35,662 36,030 36,817 37,821 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 To t a l J o b s 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 41 Unemployment rates in Eagle County vary by season. Unemployment is lowest during the winter months (December through March) and highest during the shoulder seasons, in May and November. For those who qualify, filing for unemployment is a common way to make it through the shoulder seasons. Employment and Unemployment by Month: Eagle County July 2012 – June 2013 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment 8.0% 7.7% 7.5% 7.9% 8.4% 6.6% 6.0% 6.0% 5.8% 6.4% 9.7% 7.8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Un e m p l o y m e n t R a t e Em p l o y e d L a b o r F o r c e Employment Unemployment Rate (%) 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 42 Eagle County jobs paid an average annual wage of about $39,187 in 2012. About 40% of jobs in Eagle County are in the lowest wage sectors of accommodations and food, arts and retail trade, averaging between about $28,700 and $34,000 per year. Estimated Jobs by Sector: Eagle County 2012 # of Jobs % of Jobs Average Annual Wage (2012) Estimated Total Jobs 36,817 100% $39,187 Accommodation and food 7,487 20.3% $28,727 Arts 3,756 10.2% $32,129 Retail Trade 3,554 9.7% $33,923 Construction 3,503 9.5% $47,157 Government 3,343 9.1% $51,356 Real estate 3,073 8.3% $41,214 Other services, except public administration 2,447 6.6% $37,912 Health Services 2,219 6.0% $59,141 Professional and business services 2,139 5.8% $59,849 Admin and waste 1,965 5.3% $30,882 Finance activities 763 2.1% $63,240 Transportation and warehousing 633 1.7% $41,827 Wholesale trade 495 1.3% $67,113 Information 404 1.1% $47,511 Education 335 0.9% $39,340 Manufacturing 304 0.8% $43,719 Agriculture 205 0.6% $39,111 Management of companies and enterprise 112 0.3% $78,358 Utilities 61 0.2% $62,790 Mining 19 0.1% $49,134 Sources: 2012 Total Jobs: DOLA, State Demography Section, Jobs Projections; Jobs by Sector: 2011 DOLA, Colorado Economic and Demographic Information System (CEDIS); Wages by Occupation: 2012 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 43 Approximately 15,300 employees work within the market area, which equates to al most 56% of the employees within all of Eagle County. Wages in the market area average about 3% more than those in the county as a whole. Employees, Businesses and Average Annual Wage: Average # of Employees Average # Businesses Average Annual Wage Avon 7,596 591 $44,243 Vail 7,564 546 $45,536 Eagle-Vail 140 31 $33,967 TOTAL Market Area 15,300 1,168 $44,789 COUNTYWIDE 27,481 3,213 $43,367 % Market Area 55.7% 36.4% 103.3% Source: Economic Council of Eagle County based on Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 44 7. Demand Analysis Demand for the proposed rental units is primarily a function of:  Renter households that now reside within the market area who meet household size and income targets;  Renters who will move into the area as the result of job growth; and  Renters who now reside down valley and commute to jobs within the market area. The proposed project may attract other households. The Town of Vail is imposing a requirement that 70% of the new units must be occupied by at least one person employed in Eagle County through the zoning on the parcel. The other 30% could be leased to non- employee households including:  Retirees who are cashing out of homes they own in Eagle County and want to remain in the Vail area;  Retirees who want to move to the area for the lifestyle it offers; and  Second-home renters looking for an apartment convenient to the ski slopes and Vail’s many other amenities. The prime purpose of the proposed project is workforce housing, however. As such, this analysis of demand provides only estimates generated by existing renter households and employees who will move into the market area. Because of this, estimated demand and capture rates should be considered conservative. Demand from Market-Area Renters An estimated 3,114 renter households now reside within the market area, down slightly from 3,336 households as of the 2010 Census. The out migration of renters was due to job losses in 2009 and 2010. The proposed 113 units would need to capture 3.6% of the renter households now residing in the market area to be fully occupied. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 45 Market Area Renter Households by Income and Size, 2013 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5+-Person Total $0-10,000 211 69 6 16 0 302 $10,000-20,000 189 23 115 9 10 346 $20,000-30,000 32 157 68 99 13 369 $30,000-40,000 83 46 107 22 148 406 $40,000-50,000 123 174 43 32 2 374 $50,000-60,000 132 171 94 21 11 429 $60,000-75,000 97 126 37 54 67 381 $75,000-100,000 15 166 37 97 9 324 $100,000-125,000 16 30 36 9 7 98 $125,000-150,000 4 2 9 9 0 24 $150,000-200,000 11 32 10 0 0 53 $200,000+ 6 1 1 0 0 8 Total 919 997 563 368 267 3,114 Percent of Total 29.5% 32.0% 18.1% 11.8% 8.6% 100% Source: Ribbon Demographics With a mix of one- and two-bedroom units, the proposed property will mostly attract one- and two-person households. There may be cases when three-person households lease units (a couple with one roommate, a couple with a child or a single parent with two children), but, based on demographic trends, these households should comprise an insignificant share of the target market. There may also be an isolated case when three roommates rent a two-bedroom unit, as has occurred at Timber Ridge in the past; however, given the positioning of the project to target households with incomes higher than those served by the seasonal and LIHTC projects that now exist in the area, it is unlikely that many units will be rented to roommates who must share a bedroom. Given the proposed rents, the project will serve households with incomes between $40,000 and $100,000 per year. With rents starting at $1,250 per month (the midpoint of the range under consideration for one-bedroom units), households with incomes of $40,000 per year would need to spend 37.5% of their income on rent. This is well within the range that renters in high cost mountain resort communities typically pay. Renters with annual household incomes exceeding $100,000 should have many choices in terms of what they can afford to rent and will likely opt for units with more amenities, although some may choose to rent at the proposed property due to its convenient location. Based on these assumptions, just over 1,000 renter households now reside in the market area that are of the size and income that the proposed project will primarily target (see the table on the following page). This equates to 32% of all renter households living within the market area. A capture rate of 11% would be required to achieve 100% occupancy based solely on renters already living within the market area. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 46 Targeted Renter Households within Market Area Household Income 1-Person Households 2-Person Households Total $40,000-50,000 123 174 297 $50,000-60,000 132 171 303 $60,000-75,000 97 126 223 $75,000-100,000 15 166 181 Total 367 637 1,004 Source: Ribbon Demographics Rental Demand from Job Growth Since 2010, jobs have been increasing at an average of about 2% per year. The rate of job growth will likely increase in the future. The 2012 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment estimated that the rate of job growth in 2013 through 2015 would be 2.5%. By 2016, when the proposed units should be completed, there should be 2,908 additional jobs in Eagle County. Of total new jobs, 1,620 should be located within the market area if new jobs are distributed at the same ratio as existing jobs, with 55.7% located within the market area. Job Growth and Housing Demand Estimates Jobs Eagle County Jobs in 2013 37,821 Eagle County Jobs in 2016 40,729 Increase in Jobs Countywide 2,908 Increase in Jobs in Market Area (55.7%) 1,620 Housing Demand from New Jobs in Market Area (1.2 jobs per employee; 1.7 employees per household) 794 Rental Demand from New Jobs in Market Area (70% of total demand) 556 To calculate the housing demand generated by new jobs, the number of jobs is first divided by 1.2, the average number of jobs per employee, then by 1.7, the average number of employees per housing unit. These standards are from the 2007 and 2012 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessments. Most of the employees that will be moving to the area to fill the new jobs will rent. According to a housing survey conducted in neighboring Summit County in 2012, 70% of employees who had lived in the county for five years or less rented. It is appropriate to assume that at least that many will rent in the market area, and the percentage is likely higher given that housing costs are higher. Assuming 70% of new worker households will rent, demand for 556 additional rental units will be generated by job growth by 2016. The proposed 113 units would need to capture 20% of this demand based solely on new job growth to achieve 100% occupancy. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 47 Rental Demand from Down Valley Apartment property managers reported that only a small percentage of their residents moved in from down-valley communities. Rough estimates were around 10%. Based on this history, about 10 of the proposed units will be leased by households that alread y reside in Eagle County, but outside of the market area. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 48 8. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the market, redevelopment of the eastern half of Timber Ridge in Vail to replace 102 aging two-bedroom units with 113 more upscale apartments targeted to serve the year round population is warranted. This conclusion is based on a combination of factors:  The site is an excellent location for rental housing;  The rental market has recovered from the slump of 2010 and 2011;  Vacancies are low among competing properties and rents are starting to rise;  Competition is not likely to increase. No other new apartment properties are now planned;  Demand from one- and two-person renter households already residing in the market area with incomes in the targeted $40,000 to $100,000 range is sufficiently strong to achieve 100% occupancy with a moderate capture rate of 11%;  The economy is recovering and the number of jobs is increasing. By 2016, job growth within the market area should generate demand for over 550 additional rental units. To maximize the proposed property’s marketability and long-term livability, specific conclusions and recommendations are offered. Design Considerations Unit Mix The mix of one- and two-bedroom units will be unique among apartment properties in the market area, which is good. Most existing properties have three-bedroom units, yet property managers report these units are the most difficult to lease and have very high turnover. Small studios are also problematic with high turnover and higher than average vacancy rates. Offering two bathrooms in all two-bedroom units should be very appealing. River Run is the only apartment property in the market area that has two -bedroom units with two bathrooms; they report that the units are popular and easy to lease, especially the units with two full bathrooms. Unit Size The proposed one bedroom units will be about average in size compared to the units in competing properties. The average among existing units is 603 square foot. The p roposed units will range from 597 to 633 square feet. The two-bedroom units will be larger than most of the two-bedroom units at competing properties. The proposed units will range from 870 to 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 49 933 square feet, which compares with an average of 804 square feet for existing two- bedroom/one-bathroom units and 1,088 square feet for the only two bedroom/two-bathroom units offered at one project. The proposed units will have ample interior closets as well as exterior storage closets large enough for bikes, skis and even most kayaks. The large balconies will also be very appealing to potential residents. Sound Abatement Effective sound proofing to abate the noise from I-70 and the frontage road in the units that face the Interstate should be provided. Utilities Hot water heating should be considered in order to lower heating bills and improve inside air quality. Energy efficient heating systems and windows should be a priority as well as high value insulation. Other green building items like non-toxic paints and building materials should be used. In general, the targeted population will be environmentally conscious; green building would be a highly marketable feature that distinguishes the proposed property from other apartment and condominium rentals. As planned, residents should be responsible for their own utilities rather than charged a flat rate over which they have no control. While covering all utilities with a single fee as done at Polar Star Properties’ three complexes is convenient for residents when moving in, the proposed project will target households that are capable of providing deposits and placing utilities in their name. Residents have no incentive to conserve when flat rates are charged. Utility costs based on usage would especially appeal to retirees and second home renters who might not occupy their units full time. Parking Parking will likely be tight at times, which is common in the Vail Valley. Since the property will serve year round residents that are older and have higher incomes than the households now living at Middle Creek and Timber Ridge, all of the households will likely have at least one car. Also, unlike the other two properties in Vail, parking may be a year round issue rather than just a problem during the ski season. The proposed parking policy of one space per unit and an additional space, first come/first served, for $75 per month should be workable but should be refined to give priority to two- bedroom units for the additional space. One-bedroom units will be occupied by one person or couples who could more easily share a car than the roommate households that will occupy many of the two-bedroom units. Additional recommendations for parking: 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 50  Consider raising the fee for the additional space. Given the income levels targeted, a higher fee could be affordable and would be an incentive to find off -site parking for extra vehicles.  Prohibit parking by day skiers and limit visitor access to parking. Gated entrances or other means should be used to ensure that parking spaces are available for residents. If forced, visitors can take public transit to the property.  Attempt to locate off-site parking to which residents could be referred.  Consider rent reductions for residents who do not park on site. The space they would have been provided could be rented to other households, thereby making up the revenue from the discount. Attempt to make it financially worthwhile to live without a car or to find a place to park off-site. Marketability of Location The location is excellent in terms of convenience, access to services and facilities, availability of public transit, views and solar gain, visibility and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The remaining western half of Timber Ridge will be unattractive, however. Privacy fencing, landscaping or some combination of the two should be used to visually separate the new property from the old Timber Ridge. In the future, the western half of Timber Ridge will also be redeveloped, which will enhance the site’s already good marketability. A new name for the proposed property is needed, which will help distinguish it from the old Timber Ridge. Overall Market Conditions The rental market is strong and indicators are trending upward. Occupancy levels are increasing after the market softened in 2010 due to job losses and termination of master leases by Vail Resorts. The overall occupancy rate was about 93% in July, 2013, with levels expected to increase during the peak ski season. Rents are starting to rebound. M ost discounts and incentives have disappeared. By mid 2014, rates will probably have increased as much as 10% over current levels. Responsiveness to Demographic and Economic Trends  The proposed project will primarily target the largest segment of renter households – 61% of renter households within the market area are one- or two-person households.  The proposed project will increase the number of one-bedroom units (Timber Ridge now has only two-bedroom units), which is appropriate given the prevailing trends of an 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 51 aging population, proportionately more renters living alone, fewer renters living with roommates and relatively fewer families, with and without children, living in the market area.  Growth in the market area population has been slow compared with the rest of Eagle County, but this has been due to housing costs and the limited availability and high cost of residential land. What growth has occurred has largely been in the renter population. Homeownership up valley has been and will remain beyond the reach of most workforce households. Families with children find housing that meets their needs down valley, while renters without children are more likely to choose up valley as a place to live.  Despite the gain of 680 renter households within the market area between 2000 and 2010, growth in second/vacation homes far outpaced it. This growth in non-primary housing units generates demand for additional workforce housing through jobs created in construction, maintenance and operations. This trend will likely continue with job- generating second home growth exceeding growth in workforce housing. Competition There will be little direct competition with the proposed property. The two apartment projects in Vail primarily target seasonal and/or low-income employees. The properties in Avon are more family oriented and some are income restricted. River Run in the Dowd Junction area is the most comparable of the seven properties examined. It has the lowest vacancy rate, the largest units, the only two-bedroom units with two bathrooms, the most amenities and some of the highest rents, but it is nearly 30 years old. The availability of rental housing should be extremely low by the time the proposed property is completed. As of mid-August, which is not when occupancies peak, only 32 units were vacant among the six competing properties within the market area, not counting the 46 units vacant at Timber Ridge. These properties cannot absorb the households that will be displaced from the demolition of 102 units at Timber Ridge. Competition from other apartment properties should, therefore, not be a concern. The most direct competition will be from condominium units that are rented long -term. Most of these units are relatively old, however, with inefficient heating systems and high utilities. Some may be in locations that are equally convenient, but others are located in less desirable areas. Most are in complexes with nightly or weekly vacation rentals, a situation that is not desirable to many year round residents who dislike sharing walls with vacationing strangers. Demand for Rental Housing The demand for rental housing is more than adequate to warrant the construction of the proposed 113 income producing units. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 52  Approximately 3,114 renter households now reside in the market area. The proposed units would need to capture only 3.6% of these households to achieve 100% occupancy.  An estimated 1,004 one- and two-person renter households with incomes in the targeted range of $40,000 to $100,000 per year now reside in the market area. These are the households that the proposed project will primarily serve . To fill all units, the property will need to attract 11% of these households, which is a moderate capture rate.  Demand will likely be generated for 556 additional rental units within the market area by 2016 due to job growth. The proposed units will need to capture 20% of this demand to be fully leased.  Roughly 10% of the proposed units are likely to be leased by renters who now live down valley but would rather live in Vail. There have been no new apartments built within Vail in many years without income restrictions that moderate and middle income renters could lease. While the two apartment properties in Vail attract most of their residents fro m out of state, the proposed property will likely draw more of its residents from the market area and down valley. The estimates of demand for the proposed project are conservative because they do not take into account leasing of units to anyone other than employees. Up to 30% of the proposed 111 units will not have employment restrictions. Retirees who want to remain living in Vail, retirees who would like to move into the area and second home renters are all potential candidates for these unrestricted units. Rents The proposed rents of $1,200 to $1,300 per month for one-bedroom units and $1,600 to $1,700 per month for two-bedroom apartments should be competitive and marketable. Although the proposed rates for one-bedroom units are higher than the prevailing average, River Run, which is older and in a less convenient location, already charges $1,200 for its one -bedroom units. The two-bedroom rents will also be higher than the average of $1,443 yet rents are starting to rise and should be at least equal to or possibly greater than the proposed rents when the project is completed. The proposed rates will be lower than the average current rate of over $1,700 for two-bedroom condominiums and townhomes. On a per square foot basis, the proposed rents will average $1.90. This is considerably lower than the average of $1.93 charged at Middle Creek, the only comparable property located within Vail. Middle Creek does not have balconies or in -unit washers and dryers. 11/19/2013 November 2013 Rees Consulting, Inc. 53 Consider varying rents based on location within the property and views. Assuming that sound proofing is adequate, the south facing units with views of the mountain and ample sun should command the highest rents. The north facing units, particularly on the lower floors where views are limited by the abutting hillside, should rent for less. At Middle Creek, rent for three- bedroom units differs as much as $300 per month based on location and views. 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE NTS 11-14-13 TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT LOTS 1-5, A RESUBDIVISION OF LIONSRIDGE SUBDIVISION BLOCK C, TOWN OF VAIL, CO Town Council Submission 11-14-13 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE: NTS 11-14-13 TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT STREETSCAPE 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 BUILDING A - GROUND LEVEL PLAN TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT BUILDING A PLAN UP UP UNIT A101 - TYPE A 1 BEDROOM [597.31 SF] UNIT A102 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT A104 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT A103 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT A105 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT A106 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT A107 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT A108 - TYPE E 2 BEDROOM [933.20 SF] open to above open to above alarm & sprinkler room 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 *Note: Building B is a mirrored version of Building A with a Site Management Office occupying the 1 bedroom unit at ground level. BUILDING B - GROUND LEVEL PLAN TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT BUILDING B PLAN UPUP 9' - 7 1/2" 7' - 0 " UNIT B101 - OFFICE [597.31 SF] UNIT B102 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT B104 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT B103 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT B105 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT B106 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT B107 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT B108 - TYPE E 2 BEDROOM [933.20 SF] open to above open to above alarm & sprinkler room 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 BUILDING C - GROUND LEVEL PLAN TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT BUILDING C PLAN UPUP UP UNIT C105 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT C106 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] alarm & sprinkler room open to above open to above open to above UNIT C101 - TYPE A 1 BEDROOM [597.31 SF] UNIT C102 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF] UNIT C104 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT C103 - TYPE C 2 BEDROOM [869.62 SF]UNIT C107 - TYPE A 1 BEDROOM [597.31 SF] UNIT C110 - TYPE D 2 BEDROOM [911.11 SF] UNIT C109 - TYPE A 1 BEDROOM [597.31 SF] UNIT C108 - TYPE B 1 BEDROOM [632.55 SF] 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 BUILDING D - GROUND LEVEL PLAN TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT BUILDING D PLAN UPUP UP alarm & sprinkler room open to above open to above open to above 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 SCALE 1/4” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 11' - 11 1/2" 11 ' - 0 " 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E BEDROOM KITCHEN BATH EXTERIOR STORAGE 8' - 0 " 11' - 6" 5' - 0" MECH/LDRY 7' - 4 " 5' - 7 1/4" LIVING 11' - 6" TV 8' - 5 1 / 2 " 3' - 6 " 5' - 6 5/8" 24' - 9" FRIDGE 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE DISH WASHER 1' - 0 " 9' - 9 1 / 2 " WH WASHER / DRYER FURNACE 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 21 ' - 1 " 11' - 11 1/2" 10 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 21 ' - 1 " 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E FRIDGE30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 8' - 0 1 / 2 " BEDROOM 2 KITCHEN BATH EXTERIOR STORAGE 8' - 0 " 9' - 1 0 " TV LIVING 5' - 0" WH MECH/LDRY 5' - 2 3/8" WASHER / DRYER FURNACE DISH WASHER 5' - 7 1/4" 12' - 2" 3' - 4" 11' - 3" 12' - 2 1/2" 8' - 1 0 " 8' - 1 " 24' - 9" 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 5' - 8 " 8' - 6 " 1' - 0 " 13' - 11" TYPE A - 1 BEDROOM (597.31 SF)TYPE B - 1 BEDROOM (632.55 SF) TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT 1 BEDROOM PLANS Note: Unit areas indicated are calculated to face of exterior sheathing and include exterior storage rooms, but do not include deck areas. 11/19/2013 BERGLUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 210 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD A103, EDWARDS, CO 81632 T: 970.926.4301 11' - 0" 9' - 1 0 " 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E 11 ' - 0 " WASHER / DRYER 22 ' - 0 " BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 KITCHEN BATH 8' - 0 " 5' - 0" EXTERIOR STORAGE LIVING FURNACEWH 3' - 6 " C L E A R 1' - 9" 10' - 0" 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE MECH/LDRY 1' - 6 " BATH 10' - 0" 3' - 6" 5' - 7 1 / 4 " 12' - 3" 9' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 5' - 7 1/4" 5' - 8" 8' - 1 1 / 4 " 11' - 8 1/4" 23 ' - 1 1 " TV 5' - 6 1 / 2 " 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 34' - 9" 10 ' - 4 " 3' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 4' - 0 " FRIDGE 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E DISH WASHER 22 ' - 0 " 11' - 6" 8' - 1 " 3" 8' - 5 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E 11 ' - 0 " FRIDGE 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E WASHER / DRYER 34' - 9" 22 ' - 0 " BEDROOM 1 KITCHEN BATH 8' - 0 " 5' - 0" EXTERIOR STORAGE TV LIVING 10' - 0" 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE MECH/LDRY 1' - 6 " BATH 9' - 1 0 " 3' - 7" 3' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 5' - 7 1 / 4 " 5' - 7 1/4" 5' - 8" 7' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 12' - 1" 21 ' - 1 " 11' - 8 1/4" DISH WASHER FURNACEWH 8' - 1 0 " 5' - 8 1 / 2 " 3' - 8 1/2" 10' - 6" 3' - 6" 9' - 8 3 / 4 " 1' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 6' - 2 1/2" EQ EQ 3' - 6 " C L E A R 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 22 ' - 0 " 8' - 1 " 7' - 0 1 / 2 " BEDROOM 2 13' - 9" 8' - 6 " 1' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 10 ' - 0 " 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E 11 ' - 0 " FRIDGE 30 " X 4 8 " CL E A R F L O O R SP A C E WASHER / DRYER 35' - 9" 22 ' - 0 " BEDROOM 1 KITCHEN BATH 8' - 0 " 5' - 0" EXTERIOR STORAGE TV LIVING 10' - 0" 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE MECH/LDRY 1' - 6 " BATH 9' - 1 0 " 3' - 7" 3' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 5' - 7 1 / 4 " 5' - 7 1/4" 5' - 8" 7' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 13' - 1" 21 ' - 1 " 12' - 8 1/4" DISH WASHER FURNACEWH 8' - 1 0 " 5' - 8 1 / 2 " 3' - 8 1/2" 10' - 6" 3' - 6" 9' - 8 3 / 4 " 1' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 6' - 2 1/2" EQ EQ 3' - 6 " C L E A R 30" X 48" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 8' - 1 " 7' - 0 1 / 2 " BEDROOM 2 TYPE C - 2 BEDROOM (869.62 SF) TYPE D - 2 BEDROOM (911.11 SF)TYPE E - 1 BEDROOM (933.20 SF) SCALE 1/4” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT 2 BEDROOM PLANS Note: Unit areas indicated are calculated to face of exterior sheathing and include exterior storage rooms, but do not include deck areas. 11/19/2013 B E R G L U N D A R C H I T E C T S , L L C 21 0 E D W A R D S V I L L A G E B L V D A 1 0 3 , E D W A R D S , C O 8 1 6 3 2 T : 9 7 0 . 9 2 6 . 4 3 0 1 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 M A T E R I A L T Y P E 1 5 ” H o r i z o n t a l H a r d i P l a n k F i b e r C e m e n t L a p S i d i n g 2 7 ” H o r i z o n t a l H a r d i P l a n k F i b e r C e m e n t L a p S i d i n g 3 S t u c c o w / L i g h t S a n d T e x t u r e 4 7 / 8 ” 2 4 g a C o r r u g a t e d M e t a l S i d i n g 5 7 / 8 ” 2 4 g a C o r r u g a t e d M e t a l R o o fi n g 6 G A F T i m b e r l i n e U l t r a 4 0 y r A s p h a l t S h i n g l e s 7 D e s i g n B u i l d E n g i n e e r e d S n o w C l i p s i n s t a l l e d t h r o u g h o u t a l l r o o f s 8 2 x 4 ” T r e x S q u a r e E d g e T r i m B o a r d @ w i n d o w j a m b a n d s i l l , 2 x 6 ” @ H e a d e r 9 2 x 6 ” T r e x S q u a r e E d g e B o a r d w / 1 . 5 ” g a p b e t w e e n b o a r d s o v e r 4 x 4 T r e x p o s t . 10 1 x 8 ” T r e x F a s c i a @ r o o f e a v e s 1 x 1 2 ” T r e x F a s c i a @ b a l c o n i e s 11 1 / 4 ” C e d a r m i l l H a r d i e S o f fi t 12 A n d e r s e n 1 0 0 S e r i e s W i n d o w s / 2 0 0 S e r i e s D o o r s 13 2 x 2 ” T r e x W i n d o w T r i m 14 8 x 8 ” H e a v y T i m b e r C o l u m n 15 6 x 8 ” H e a v y T i m b e r S t r u t 16 E x p o s e d 2 x 1 2 ” J o i s t s @ 1 6 ” O . C . o n 6 x 1 2 ” B e a m s 17 H e v i L i t e U p D o w n L i g h t w / B r o n z e P o w d e r C o a t M A T E R I A L C O L O R A H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s T u s c a n G o l d B H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s K h a k i B r o w n C H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s M o u n t a i n S a g e D H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s C o u n t r y l a n e R e d E D u r a t e c h C o o l S i e r r a T a n F D u r a t e c h C o o l W e a t h e r e d C o p p e r G D u r a t e c h C o o l C o l o n i a l R e d H B e n j a m i n M o o r e E a r l y M o r n i n g M i s t I B e n j a m i n M o o r e S t a m p e d e J T r e x T r a n s c e n d T r e e H o u s e K T i m b e r l i n e U l t r a H D H i c k o r y L T i m b e r l i n e U l t r a H D B a r k w o o d M A n d e r s e n W i n d o w s D a r k B r o n z e EJJ JM MKG L C CA C B IAAABBA H H IEG 4610 1012 1265 6 2 21 2 1 311111111 3 3345 15 17 17 16 14 141477 1515 GA K C I HHJ JJ J J J I E5162 3 338 98 8 13 13 3 4 GAS METERS 2x4” STUCCO BUMP OUT W/ FLASHING CAP @ TOP CONCRETE FOUNDATION NOT TO EXCEED 6” TYP. CO N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N NO T T O E X C E E D 6 ” T Y P . KN O X B O X , H O R N & S T R O B E AN D F I R E D E P A R T M E N T CO N N E C T I O N S 2x 4 ” S T U C C O B U M P O U T W/ F L A S H I N G C A P @ T O P 2x 4 ” S T U C C O B U M P O U T W/ F L A S H I N G C A P @ T O P PR O J E C T E D E X I S T I N G G R A D E PR O J E C T E D E X I S T I N G G R A D E FI N I S H G R A D E FI N I S H G R A D E T I M B E R R I D G E R E D E V E L O P M E N T B U I L D I N G A E L E V A T I O N S 11/19/2013 B E R G L U N D A R C H I T E C T S , L L C 21 0 E D W A R D S V I L L A G E B L V D A 1 0 3 , E D W A R D S , C O 8 1 6 3 2 T : 9 7 0 . 9 2 6 . 4 3 0 1 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 21 0 E D W A R D S V I L L A G E B L V D A 1 0 3 , E D W A R D S , C O 8 1 6 3 2 T : 9 7 0 . 9 2 6 . 4 3 0 1 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 M A T E R I A L T Y P E 1 5 ” H o r i z o n t a l H a r d i P l a n k F i b e r C e m e n t L a p S i d i n g 2 7 ” H o r i z o n t a l H a r d i P l a n k F i b e r C e m e n t L a p S i d i n g 3 S t u c c o w / L i g h t S a n d T e x t u r e 4 7 / 8 ” 2 4 g a C o r r u g a t e d M e t a l S i d i n g 5 7 / 8 ” 2 4 g a C o r r u g a t e d M e t a l R o o fi n g 6 G A F T i m b e r l i n e U l t r a 4 0 y r A s p h a l t S h i n g l e s 7 D e s i g n B u i l d E n g i n e e r e d S n o w C l i p s i n s t a l l e d t h r o u g h o u t a l l r o o f s 8 2 x 4 ” T r e x S q u a r e E d g e T r i m B o a r d @ w i n d o w j a m b a n d s i l l , 2 x 6 ” @ H e a d e r 9 2 x 6 ” T r e x S q u a r e E d g e B o a r d w / 1 . 5 ” g a p b e t w e e n b o a r d s o v e r 4 x 4 T r e x p o s t . 10 1 x 8 ” T r e x F a s c i a @ r o o f e a v e s 1 x 1 2 ” T r e x F a s c i a @ b a l c o n i e s 11 1 / 4 ” C e d a r m i l l H a r d i e S o f fi t 12 A n d e r s e n 1 0 0 S e r i e s W i n d o w s / 2 0 0 S e r i e s D o o r s 13 2 x 2 ” T r e x W i n d o w T r i m 14 8 x 8 ” H e a v y T i m b e r C o l u m n 15 6 x 8 ” H e a v y T i m b e r S t r u t 16 E x p o s e d 2 x 1 2 ” J o i s t s @ 1 6 ” O . C . o n 6 x 1 2 ” B e a m s 17 H e v i L i t e U p D o w n L i g h t w / B r o n z e P o w d e r C o a t M A T E R I A L C O L O R A H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s T u s c a n G o l d B H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s K h a k i B r o w n C H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s M o u n t a i n S a g e D H a r d i e C o l o r p l u s C o u n t r y l a n e R e d E D u r a t e c h C o o l S i e r r a T a n F D u r a t e c h C o o l W e a t h e r e d C o p p e r G D u r a t e c h C o o l C o l o n i a l R e d H B e n j a m i n M o o r e E a r l y M o r n i n g M i s t I B e n j a m i n M o o r e S t a m p e d e J T r e x T r a n s c e n d T r e e H o u s e K T i m b e r l i n e U l t r a H D H i c k o r y L T i m b e r l i n e U l t r a H D B a r k w o o d M A n d e r s e n W i n d o w s D a r k B r o n z e FJJ J M M KF L D DADB I A A A B B A H H I F G 4610 10 12 12 65 6 2 2121 3 1 11 11 1 1 1 3 33 4 5 15 15 17 17 16 14 141477 15 FA K D I HHJ JJ J J J I F5162 3 338 98 8 13 1334 GAS METERS 2x4” STUCCO BUMP OUT W/ FLASHING CAP @ TOP CONCRETE FOUNDATION NOT TO EXCEED 6” TYP. CO N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N NO T T O E X C E E D 6 ” T Y P . KN O X B O X , H O R N & S T R O B E AN D F I R E D E P A R T M E N T CO N N E C T I O N S 2x 4 ” S T U C C O B U M P O U T W/ F L A S H I N G C A P @ T O P 2x 4 ” S T U C C O B U M P O U T W/ F L A S H I N G C A P @ T O P PR O J E C T E D E X I S T I N G G R A D E PR O J E C T E D E X I S T I N G G R A D E FI N I S H G R A D E FI N I S H G R A D E T I M B E R R I D G E R E D E V E L O P M E N T B U I L D I N G B E L E V A T I O N S 11/19/2013 B E R G L U N D A R C H I T E C T S , L L C 21 0 E D W A R D S V I L L A G E B L V D A 1 0 3 , E D W A R D S , C O 8 1 6 3 2 T : 9 7 0 . 9 2 6 . 4 3 0 1 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 T I M B E R R I D G E R E D E V E L O P M E N T B U I L D I N G C E L E V A T I O N S PR O J E C T E D E X I S T I N G G R A D E PROJECTED EXISTING GRADE FI N I S H G R A D E FINISH GRADE GAS METERSELECTRIC METERS 2x4” STUCCO BUMP OUT W/ FLASHING CAP @ TOP CO N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N NO T T O E X C E E D 6 ” T Y P . 11/19/2013 B E R G L U N D A R C H I T E C T S , L L C 21 0 E D W A R D S V I L L A G E B L V D A 1 0 3 , E D W A R D S , C O 8 1 6 3 2 T : 9 7 0 . 9 2 6 . 4 3 0 1 SCALE 1/8” = 1’-0” 11-14-13 T I M B E R R I D G E R E D E V E L O P M E N T B U I L D I N G D E L E V A T I O N S PR O J E C T E D E X I S T I N G G R A D E PR O J E C T E D E X I S T I N G G R A D E FI N I S H G R A D E FI N I S H G R A D E GAS METERS ELECTRIC METERS 2x 4 ” S T U C C O B U M P O U T W/ F L A S H I N G C A P @ T O P CO N C R E T E F O U N D A T I O N NO T T O E X C E E D 6 ” T Y P . 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013, a resolution adopting the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. PRESENTER(S): George Ruther, Community Development Director and Tom Braun, Principal, Braun Associates, Inc. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Approve with Modifications, or Deny Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013 BACKGROUND: On April 16, 2013, the Vail Town Council instructed town staff to prepare a new master plan for Gerald R. Ford Park. In doing so, the Town Council provided the following direction: The new plan shall be a compilation of the 1974 Vail Plan, 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update. A series of goals, objectives, policies and actions steps were to be developed to clarify the community's expectations for the Park and guide future decisions about improvements with the Park. The concept of sub area planning within the Park was supported. While the Park was to be planned in its entirety, sub area plans and illustrative graphics were to be used to further clarify opportunities within the respective areas of the Park. The new plan was to incorporate both current improvements already underway within the Park but also capture and articulate future improvement opportunities. The Plan was to have an approximate ten year life span with periodic updates and amendment considerations when needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council approves the proposed 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, as modifidied by the Planning & Environmental Commission, based upon a review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings. ATTACHMENTS: Town Council Memorandum Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013, Ford Park Master Plan PEC Memorandum Ford Park Master Plan-Red Line Ford Park Master Plan-Clean 11/19/2013 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 2013 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130012) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a recommendation from the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission (the “PEC”) to the Vail Town Council (the “TC”) on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master (the “Plan”), an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted. Key elements of the new master plan include the following: • Compilation of the previous planning documents • Amended goals, objectives, policy statements and action steps • Sub area plans with recommendations • Expanded park boundary to the Covered Bridge The goal of the master planning effort is to create a plan that maintains the essence of what Gerald R. Ford Park (the “Park”) is today and what was envisioned for the Park in 1974 – a combination of natural open space along the Gore Creek corridor coupled with recreational, social, and cultural uses and facilities that serve the needs of residents and guests of Vail. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan will provide the town and community with a “guiding document’ for the Park for the next ten years. The primary purpose of the Plan is to define community expectations for the use of and future improvements to the Park and as a resource to assist the Town in the decision- 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 2 making regarding capital improvements and/or any proposed changes to the Park. In the end, the Plan is to be one of the many elements that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. II. BACKGROUND On April 16, 2013, the Vail Town Council instructed town staff to prepare a new master plan for Gerald R. Ford Park. In doing so, the Town Council provided the following direction: The new plan shall be a compilation of the 1974 Vail Plan, 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update. A series of goals, objectives, policies and actions steps were to be developed to clarify the community’s expectations for the Park and guide future decisions about improvements with the Park. The concept of sub area planning within the Park was supported. While the Park was to be planned in its entirety, sub area plans and illustrative graphics were to be used to further clarify opportunities within the respective areas of the Park. The new plan was to incorporate both current improvements already underway within the Park but also capture and articulate future improvement opportunities. The Plan was to have an approximate ten year life span with periodic updates and amendment considerations when needed. III. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. The extent to which the Master Plan furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, Staff believes the proposed Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan furthers the general purposes of the zoning regulations. Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Plan maintains the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Staff further believes the proposed Master Plan furthers the specific purposes of the zoning regulations. Staff finds the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Plan continues to: • To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 3 • To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. • To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. • To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. • To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. • To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. • To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. • To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. • To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. • To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. • To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff also believes the proposed Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan furthers the purposes of the General Use District. Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Master Plan continues to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Master Plan continues to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the General Use District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, are harmonized with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. 2. The extent to which the master plan would better implement and better achieve 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 Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Master Plan are consistent with the following Land Use Plan goals: Goal 1. General Growth/Development 11/19/2013 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. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. Goal 2. Skier /Tourist Concerns 2.1The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational options to improve year- round tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. Goal 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. 3. The extent to which the master plan demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan is a compilation of several previous master planning efforts for Ford Park. The most recent planning document created for Ford Park was the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update. Prior to that, it was the 1997 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 5 Ford Park Management Plan. In the past 15 years, many of the plan recommendations have been constructed and implemented. The existing planning documents are no longer effective as each still remains in effect yet the documents sometimes provide conflicting direction. Through the compilation of the planning documents, any conflicts in direction are addressed and one, new singular planning document is created. 4. The extent to which the master plan provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The applicant is proposing changes to the goals, objectives, and policy statements of the Ford Park Management Plan as adopted in 2012 and 1997. The applicant is proposing a new master plan to facilitate a variety of park improvements and provide direction for future decision making regarding proposed improvements within the Park. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, Staff believes the updated goals, objectives, and policy statements of the Ford Park Management Plan as adopted in 2012 and 1997 are appropriate and will result in a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with the Town’s development objectives. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan based upon a review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request to the Vail Town Council; the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: “The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted, 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 the proposed master plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: “Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of October 28, 2013 memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 6 1. That the maser plan is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 2. That the master plan furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and 3. That the master plan 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.” V. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan 11/19/2013 1 Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013 RESOLUTION NO. 14 Series of 2013 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2013 GERALD R. FORD PARK MASTER PLAN, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, on April 16, 2013, the Vail Town Council instructed Town Staff to prepare a new master plan for Gerald R. Ford Park; WHEREAS, the new master plan was to be a compilation of previous planning efforts for the Park and the articulation of recommendations for new improvements with the Park; WHEREAS, the new master plan is intended to be an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, the new master plan is intended to have a ten year life span with periodic updates and amendments when needed; WHEREAS, the primary purposes of the new master plan are to protect the Park from over development, to define expectations for the use of the Park, and to assist in decision-making regarding capital improvements and other changes proposed in the Park; WHEREAS, the new master plan was prepared in collaboration with the Vail Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation, Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, Vail Economic Advisory Council, Art in Public Places Board, Planning & Environmental Commission and many other interested citizens from the Vail community; WHEREAS, on July 22, August 12, and August 26, and September 9, 2013, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held public hearings on an application to adopt a new master plan for Ford Park; WHEREAS, on October 28, 2013, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, with modifications, of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan amendments to the Vail Town Council; WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the new master plan recommendations are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and, WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the new master plan 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 11/19/2013 2 Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013 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. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan is hereby adopted as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Vail Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of November, 2013 __________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 2013 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130012) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a recommendation from the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission (the “PEC”) to the Vail Town Council (the “TC”) on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master (the “Plan”), an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted. Key elements of the new master plan include the following: • Compilation of the previous planning documents • Amended goals, objectives, policy statements and action steps • Sub area plans with recommendations • Expanded park boundary to the Covered Bridge The goal of the master planning effort is to create a plan that maintains the essence of what Gerald R. Ford Park (the “Park”) is today and what was envisioned for the Park in 1974 – a combination of natural open space along the Gore Creek corridor coupled with recreational, social, and cultural uses and facilities that serve the needs of residents and guests of Vail. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan will provide the town and community with a “guiding document’ for the Park for the next ten years. The primary purpose of the Plan is to define community expectations for the use of and future improvements to the Park and as a resource to assist the Town in the decision- 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 2 making regarding capital improvements and/or any proposed changes to the Park. In the end, the Plan is to be one of the many elements that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. II. BACKGROUND On April 16, 2013, the Vail Town Council instructed town staff to prepare a new master plan for Gerald R. Ford Park. In doing so, the Town Council provided the following direction: The new plan shall be a compilation of the 1974 Vail Plan, 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update. A series of goals, objectives, policies and actions steps were to be developed to clarify the community’s expectations for the Park and guide future decisions about improvements with the Park. The concept of sub area planning within the Park was supported. While the Park was to be planned in its entirety, sub area plans and illustrative graphics were to be used to further clarify opportunities within the respective areas of the Park. The new plan was to incorporate both current improvements already underway within the Park but also capture and articulate future improvement opportunities. The Plan was to have an approximate ten year life span with periodic updates and amendment considerations when needed. III. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. The extent to which the Master Plan furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, Staff believes the proposed Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan furthers the general purposes of the zoning regulations. Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Plan maintains the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Staff further believes the proposed Master Plan furthers the specific purposes of the zoning regulations. Staff finds the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Plan continues to: • To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 3 • To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. • To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. • To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. • To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. • To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. • To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. • To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. • To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. • To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. • To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff also believes the proposed Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan furthers the purposes of the General Use District. Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Master Plan continues to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Master Plan continues to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the General Use District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, are harmonized with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. 2. The extent to which the master plan would better implement and better achieve 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 Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, Staff believes the existing park, the proposed improvements to Ford Park, and the associated updates to the Master Plan are consistent with the following Land Use Plan goals: Goal 1. General Growth/Development 11/19/2013 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. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. Goal 2. Skier /Tourist Concerns 2.1The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational options to improve year- round tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. Goal 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. 3. The extent to which the master plan demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan is a compilation of several previous master planning efforts for Ford Park. The most recent planning document created for Ford Park was the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update. Prior to that, it was the 1997 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 5 Ford Park Management Plan. In the past 15 years, many of the plan recommendations have been constructed and implemented. The existing planning documents are no longer effective as each still remains in effect yet the documents sometimes provide conflicting direction. Through the compilation of the planning documents, any conflicts in direction are addressed and one, new singular planning document is created. 4. The extent to which the master plan provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The applicant is proposing changes to the goals, objectives, and policy statements of the Ford Park Management Plan as adopted in 2012 and 1997. The applicant is proposing a new master plan to facilitate a variety of park improvements and provide direction for future decision making regarding proposed improvements within the Park. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, Staff believes the updated goals, objectives, and policy statements of the Ford Park Management Plan as adopted in 2012 and 1997 are appropriate and will result in a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with the Town’s development objectives. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan based upon a review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request to the Vail Town Council; the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: “The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted, 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 the proposed master plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: “Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of October 28, 2013 memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented at multiple public hearings, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 11/19/2013 Town of Vail Page 6 1. That the maser plan is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 2. That the master plan furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and 3. That the master plan 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.” V. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan An Element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan November, 2013 Resolution No. 14, Series 2013 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Prepared for: The Town of Vail Prepared by: Town of Vail Department of Community Development and Braun Associates, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Vail Town Council Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Andy Daly, Mayor Bill Pierce, Chair Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-tem Henry Pratt, Co-Chair Jenn Bruno Susan Bird Dale Bugby Luke Cartin Dave Chapin Pam Hopkins Greg Moffet Michael Kurz Margaret Rogers John Rediker Former Vail Town Council Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley Susie Tjossem Vail Recreation District Vail Valley Foundation Art in Public Places Betty Ford Alpine Gardens 11/19/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Site Assessment/Existing Conditions 5 3. History of the Park and Previous Planning Efforts 9 4. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps 18 5. Ford Park Sub-Areas 37 6. Illustrative Plan 55 7. Park Management 62 8. Appendix 68 Due to the volume of material, the information listed below is provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. • Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, authorizing the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. • The Vail Plan, 1974 • Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, naming the property commonly known as the Antholz Ranch to Gerald R. Ford Park. • The Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report, 1985 • Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, designating the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. • Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988, amending the 1985 Master Plan to add four tennis courts and to change the location of the aquatics center. • Ford Park Management Plan, 1997 • Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012 • BFAG Building – Site Evaluation Matrix, 2013 • Betty Ford Alpine Gardens – Site Evaluation, August 15, 2013 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 1 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan November 2013 “Whereas, President Gerald R. Ford has brought to the Town of Vail his interest and encouragement; has shown through his private life and public life a commitment to recreation, the environment and places set aside therefor; and believes that a statement of the community’s appreciation and respect for Gerald R. Ford is appropriate and called for; that the property commonly referred to as the Antholz Ranch is hereby named the Gerald R. Ford Park.” Resolution approved by Vail Town Council, January 18, 1977 Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION The Town of Vail acquired the 38 acre Anholtz Ranch in 1973 for the stated purpose of “improving the quality of life in the communitycreating a major recreation facility for the total town.” (The Vail Plan, 1974). Since that time the property has increased in size to more than 47 acres and has evolved into one of Vail’s most widely used and highly cherished assets. The evolution of the Antholz Ranch to what has become Ford Park was originally contemplated by one of Vail’s earliest planning efforts: “The intended use program is a comprehensive one and eventually the park will include an impressive number of facilities in addition to extensive open turf space and the delight of the natural earth forms and mature tree growth adjacent to Gore Creek.” The Vail Plan, 1974 The goal of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan (the Plan) is to maintain the essence of what Ford Park (the Park) is today and what was envisioned for the Park in 1974 – a combination of natural open space along the Gore Creek corridor coupled with recreational, social and cultural uses and facilities to serve the needs of residents and guests of Vail. The primary purposes of this Plan are to protect the Park from over development, to define expectations for the use of the Park, and to assist the Town in decision-making regarding capital improvements and other changes proposed to the Park. Only those changes deemed to be in compliance with applicable elements of this Plan will obtain approvals from the Town. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 2 The Town has completed four planning efforts for the Park. These plans have directly influenced the development of Ford Park and each has contributed to the role the Park plays in the community. These previous planning efforts were: 1974 Vail Plan – While the primary purpose of this plan was to address Vail’s growth and development, it did include a chapter on recreation and defined at a very broad level the role Ford Park could play in providing recreational, cultural and community-oriented uses. 1985 Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report – At the time this plan was prepared; ballfields, tennis courts, and parking had already been developed and construction of an amphitheater had commenced. The purpose of this plan was to “guide the future development of the park and establish guidelines for the implementation of improvements” (1985 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan). 1997 Ford Park Management Plan – This plan was initiated in response to several development proposals for the Park. The plan was a product of extensive focus group and public input sessions and in essence served as an amendment to the 1985 plan. 2012 Update to the Ford Park Management Plan – This plan was done to acknowledge improvements proposed for the Park that were initiated when Vail voters approved re-allocating a portion of the Convention Center Funds to Ford Park. Summaries of these previous plans are found in Chapter 3. While the impetus for these planning efforts varied, each involved extensive community input, debate, and at times, controversy. These planning processes revealed the community’s intense passion for the Park as town staff, elected officials and the public worked to find the appropriate levels of development and activity for the Park. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan presents a compilation of these previous planning efforts along with new direction and ideas that have evolved from this latest planning effort. The primary objectives of this Plan are to: • Incorporate key elements of previously completed plans for Ford Park into one document, specifically those guiding principles that have successfully shaped the development of the Park from its inception, 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 3 • Establish clear expectations for the future use, development and management of the Park, • Protect the Park from over-use and over-development; • Define effective tools for decision-making regarding the future of the Park, and • Provide a single, comprehensive document to serve as the master plan for the Park. With the adoption of this Plan, previous plans for Ford Park will be archived and no longer used as guides for future decision-making or planning for the Park. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan will serve as the Town’s sole planning document for the Park. The development of Ford Park has evolved over a number of decades. While the majority of the Park is developed, and notwithstanding the most recent phase of improvements to the Park, there is no reason to think that the Park will not continue to evolve in the future. This Plan was prepared with the expectation that it will provide the community with a document to guide the use and development of the Park for the next ten years. That said, it is likely that during this time new ideas or issues not addressed by this Plan will arise, be they proposals for enhancements to existing facilities, the development of new facilities, or new uses for the Park. This is to be expected as the needs of the community will change over time and as they do changes to the Park may be appropriate. As dialogue and debate occurs regarding any changes to the Park, it is critical that decisions made by the Town maintain the essence of what Ford Park is, why it was established, and how it provides environmental, recreational, educational, cultural or social benefits to the community. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 14, Series 2013 by the Vail Town Council following recommendation from the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Future amendments to this Plan may be initiated by the Vail Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or members of the community. Any such amendment proposal shall be reviewed by the Vail Town Council following recommendation from the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Elements of this Plan This Plan includes the following chapters: 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 4 1. Introduction The section provides an introduction to the plan, the purpose of this planning effort and outlines the major elements of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan. 2. Site Assessment and Existing Conditions This section explains how site and surrounding conditions influenced the initial planning and design of the Park. 3. History of the Park and Previous Planning Efforts The 1997 Plan has provided the basis for this history and background of the Park and the summaries of the four previous planning efforts that have taken place. Site plans of the Park produced during these planning efforts are to provide a history and context for how the Park has evolved over the years. 4. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps While the 1997 Plan provided a framework for this section, the goals, objectives, policies and actions steps have been refined to better express the current vision for the Park. 5. Ford Park Sub-Areas Seven sub-areas are used to describe specific areas of the Park, their unique features, the role they play in the Park, how they will be managed and provide recommendations for improvements that could occur in the future. 6. Illustrative Plan The 2013 Illustrative Plan is a refinement of the 2012 Illustrative Plan; it depicts existing improvements and at a general level describes improvements that may occur in the future. 7. Park Management This chapter provides a brief summary of the various management and operational aspects of the Park that are managed by the Town of Vail. 8. Appendix Documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park planning efforts are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 5 Chapter 2 - SITE ASSESSMENT/EXISTING CONDITIONS Located immediately east of Vail Village, the proximity of Ford Park to Vail Village and the convenient access it affords residents and guests is one of the Park’s most significant attributes. This is no coincidence as the 1974 Vail Plan documented how the location of Ford Park was a key factor in it being purchased for a community park and in defining the initial vision for the Park to be a major center of cultural and recreational activity for the community. “all properties of significant size within the Town limits were researched and the recommendation made that the Anholtz property, adjacent to development at the east end of the Village, was the only site satisfying the recreational uses anticipated. Selection criteria included such factors as ease of walking distance from the Village, adequate space within a single parcel for large, meadow-like turf areas, proximity to the Frontage Road for simple and direct access by autos or buses, natural beauty such as the Gore Creek provides, and directness of connection to major bicycle and pedestrian trails.” The Vail Plan, 1974 When purchased, the original Anholtz property was +/-38 acres. Today, Ford Park is approximately 47.1 acres. The four areas of the Park and their acreages are depicted below: Ford Park, 2013 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 6 In January of 1977, Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, was passed re-naming the Anholtz Ranch to the Gerald R. Ford Park. A copy of this resolution is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Existing Conditions In the past forty years many improvements have been made to Ford Park. Foremost among these are athletic fields, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, the Betty Ford Alpine GardenBetty Ford Alpine Gardens, a children’s playground, the Vail Nature Center, the Vail Tennis Center and parking and transit facilities. Infrastructure necessary to serve the Park is largely in place and vehicle and pedestrian access to and within the Park has been established. With the exception of the Gore Creek Corridor, the majority of the Park has been improved with buildings, facilities or other related site improvements. Access and circulation is a key factor in how the Park functions. On-site parking is provided, but in keeping with the original concept for the Park the amount of parking is limited to +/-200 spaces along the Frontage Road and +/-65 spaces at the Soccer Field. Parking for major Park events is provided in the Town’s parking structures. Access from these structures to the Park is provided by pedestrian corridors and the Town’s transit system. Pedestrian access is provided via the Gore Creek Trail, a sidewalk along the South Frontage Road and by two bridges in the Golden Peak neighborhood. The Park’s main transit stop is located on the South Frontage Road with additional stops on Vail Valley Drive. These stops are served by the in-town shuttle and by dedicated express bus service during special events. Site Characteristics and Park Design Physical characteristics of the land and the relationship of the Park to surrounding uses and facilities influenced the earliest design concepts for the Park. Significant influences in the early design of the Park include the South Frontage Road (that establishes the north boundary of the Park), Gore Creek and adjoining wetland and riparian habitat (that run the entire length of the Park), site topography, vegetation and views. Topography of the main portion of the park between the Frontage Road and Gore Creek includes a prominent and well-defined grade change that creates an “upper bench” and “lower bench”. Over time this grade change, created in large part by grading from the construction of Interstate 70, became a point of demarcation for the predominantly active recreation uses on the Upper Bench and the cultural and passive recreation uses on the Lower Bench. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 7 Much of Ford Park was initially developed without the benefit of a detailed design or development plan. The 1974 Vail Plan did, however, set the stage for the future of the Park by defining a number of basic design parameters for how the Park could be developed. There are many examples of how these basic design parameters and existing site characteristics directly influenced the design and development of the Park. Parking and Transit These facilities were located on flat terrain immediately adjacent to the South Frontage Road and on the perimeter of the Park. This location minimizes the impacts of vehicles on other areas of the Park. Athletic Fields Fields along the Frontage Road were located on what at that time was the Park’s broadest expanse of relatively flat terrain. Not only did the fields “fit” on this portion of the Park, the flat terrain minimized the need for site grading and associated site disturbance. The fields also provide a buffer between highway noise and other quieter areas of the Park. The Amphitheater The Amphitheater essentially straddles the grade transition between the Upper and Lower Bench. This location allowed the Amphitheater to utilize sloping terrain to create terraced seating areas within the Amphitheater. This location also affords stunning views to the Gore Range. Nature Center The Nature Center is located within the relatively undeveloped Gore Creek Corridor. The natural character of the creek corridor provides a fitting location for the environmental education programs offered by the Nature Center. The 1985 Ford Park Master Plan spoke eloquently about the philosophy of good park design and the role site conditions and characteristics should play in the design process. “Compatibility of the park development within the environment is the most significant aspect of the master plan. The existing landscape is an integral part of each plan and not merely a backdrop against which the plans are staged. This is essentially necessary with parklands, for there we expect the landscape to be stable, pleasant and above all, functional. Accordingly, the planning and design process was founded on a sound understanding of the features and dynamics of the park site environment. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 8 Just as a tapestry is woven from many threads of different colors, textures and strengths, so the landscape is composed of a variety of components such as slopes, soils, plant communities and aquatic features. Each of these must be identified and described, but more than that, the role of each must be understood as a dynamic entity so that limitations and opportunities can be properly understood. This involves the translation of forms, such as slopes and soil type, into processes, such as runoff and soil leeching, and the definition of critical inter- relationships among them.” 1985 Ford Park Master Plan Integrating improvements with the landscape in order to create a pleasant and functional park should be the goal of any park design. While developed without the benefit of a comprehensive, detailed design plan, the major elements of the Park have been located and designed in a manner that is very responsive to site conditions and other influences. Ford Park today reflects many elements of the original vision for the Park as outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan and as further defined by the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 9 Chapter 3 - HISTORY OF FORD PARK and PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS During the past forty years the Town of Vail has completed four major planning efforts for Ford Park. This chapter summarizes the purpose, process and outcome for each of these planning efforts and provides information on the history and development of Ford Park. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973 (a copy of which is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix), authorized the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. At that time the 38-acre park site represented the last remaining parcel of undeveloped land central to use by all residents and visitors of the Vail community. The ordinance listed a variety of possible uses for the property including the following: • for park and greenbelt purposes, • to preserve the natural and physical character of the area to be condemned, • for bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails, • for children’s playground, • for performing arts and civic center, • for a ski lift and related facilities, • for picnic areas, • for recreational facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, gymnasium, ice skating rink, • for theater and assembly halls, convention center, public schools, • for possible exchange or trade of condemned land, or a portion thereof, with other property which may exactly meet the needs of the town, and • to construct and maintain water works, transportation systems, and other public utilities relating to public health, safety, and welfare. The four major planning efforts for Ford Park include: The Vail Plan, 1974 The Vail Plan was completed in August of 1973 and adopted in 1974 (a copy of this plan is found in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix). In the early ‘70’s Vail pressures from growth and development were radically changing the character of Vail and the primary purpose of the Vail Plan was to help the town respond to growth pressures with the goal of “creating a recreationally-based community of individuality, beauty and pleasure that can be unique in the United States.” (The Vail Plan, 1974). The plan included a chapter on the tTown’s recreation system. The Antholz 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 10 Ranch property was mentioned as “the only site capable of satisfying the anticipated recreational needs of the community” (The Vail Plan, 1974). The Vail Plan’s vision for the Antholz Ranch was to create a “major community park- cultural center.” A wide range of potential uses for the park were identified: • a place for showing and creating art, crafts, etc., • an indoor theater and an 800 seat outdoor amphitheater, • meeting rooms and community workshops, • wide outdoor terraces and natural landscapes • indoor ice arena, • tennis and handball courts • children’s play facilities and space for family activities, • headquarters for the Annual Vail Symposium and local television, • a possible location for an ecologium (nature center), and • a grammar school. As a balance to this extensive program of uses and facilities for the Park, the Vail Plan contemplated the preservation of the Gore Creek corridor as a passive, “quiet place” to enjoy the natural beauty of the site. The plan called for 200 surface parking spaces to meet the daily parking needs of the park. Parking for major events was planned to be provided in the Vail Transportation Center with town transit and various trails and bikeways providing alternative means to access the Park. The Vail Plan also depicted a potential road connection at the east end of the park that would link the Frontage Road with Vail Valley Drive. While the Vail Plan did not include a detailed design plan for the Park, the conceptual site plan below provided a vision for how the Park could be developed. A number of existing park improvements reflect some of the basic concepts from the 1974 Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 11 Conceptual Plan for Ford Park, Vail Plan, 1974 Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan, 1985 In August of 1985 the Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report was adopted by the Vail Town Council (a copy of this plan and Resolution No. 19, Series of 1985 is found in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix). When the 1985 planning process was initiated, improvements in the Park were limited to athletic fields, tennis courts and parking. A foundation for an amphitheater was in place but this project was not yet completed. At that time the very eastern end of the Park along the Frontage Road was utilized as a snow-dump. The purpose of the 1985 plan was to prepare a more detailed plan for the future development of the park and to establish guidelines for the implementation of park improvements. The master planning process included a Recreation Needs Analysis Survey and extensive community input via workshops and community meetings. The outcome of these efforts was an indication of the type and extent of improvements the community wanted to see in the Park. Alternative site plans were considered and a final, preferred plan was selected. This final plan included a swimming pool complex, “neighborhood park improvements” (on the Lower Bench), a pond/skating rink (on the Lower Bench), and the realignment of the eastern softball field. Development of the neighborhood park improvements on the lower bench were completed in 1988 and 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 12 included restrooms, playground area, open turf area, picnic facilities, and the west access road. The first major structure to be constructed in the Park, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, was completed in July of 1987 and shortly thereafter a Parking and Transit Study for the Amphitheater was completed. This study made five recommendations: 1. the Village Structure should be considered the major parking facility for Ford Park (with improvements to the signs, sidewalks, and bus service being necessary); 2. extend shuttle bus service to the soccer field; 3. disallow Frontage Road parking; 4. construct a vehicle turn-around and passenger unloading area at Ford Park; and 5. do not schedule concurrent events in the Park. These recommendations validated many of the recommendations for parking and transit outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan. Ford Park Master Plan, 1985 The 1985 Plan identified a location for an alpine garden and in 1989 the first phase of the Betty Ford Alpine GardenBetty Ford Alpine Gardens was completed. Since that time a number of expansions to the Ggardens have been completed, including the Perennial Garden, the Meditation Garden, and the Alpine Rock Garden. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 13 Following approval of the 1985 Master Plan the following steps were taken regarding the planning of Ford Park: Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, was passed on November 3, 1987. This resolution designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. Vehicular traffic was to be restricted and certain policies and procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities were established by the resolution. (a copy of resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix). In December of 1988, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (Now the Vail Recreation District) and the Town of Vail, requested an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. The two phase amendment was adopted by Council as Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988. A copy of the resolution is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Phase one of the amendment was to allow the construction of four additional tennis courts. Phase two of the amendment changed the proposed location of an aquatic facility to the eastern softball field. Funding of the aquatic facility was rejected by voters in a special election on February 6, 1989. Vail Town Council was presented with a petition to delete all reference to an aquatics center from the Ford Park Master Plan in April of 1990. No record of Council action on the petition was found. While the tennis center building is not mentioned in the Master plan amendment, the VRD did receive a Conditional Use Permit for the project on May 8, 1990. The Vail Village Master Plan, adopted in 1990, addresses Ford Park as a specific study area. This plan acknowledged the use of the Park to accommodate overflow skier and local parking needs. It recommended that the Park be studied further as a site for additional skier parking to serve expansion of the eastern side of Vail Mountain. Action Step #5 under Goal #5 states: Study the feasibility of an underground (recreation fields would remain) parking structure in Ford Park. The Parking and Circulation Plan (an element of the Vail Village Master Plan), identified the western portion of the upper bench for potential parking beneath the Park, and called for separated bike/pedestrian ways along the South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive. The Vail Transportation Master Plan, completed in 1993, states that the existing Ford Park Parking area (at the east end of the Park) should be considered for a possible 2-level parking facility with the second level below existing grade. Ford 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 14 Park and the athletic field parking area are also listed as two possible sites for over-sized vehicles if the lot east of the Lionshead Structure becomes developed. Ford Park Management Plan, 1997 The planning process that resulted in the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan process was initiated in June of 1995 in response to several development proposals which had been formally and informally discussed for the Park. These development proposals included an Educational Center for the Betty Ford Alpine GardenBetty Ford Alpine Gardens, a cultural/performing arts center, expansion of the tennis facility, athletic field fencing, and a community parking structure. This planning process was also seen as a means for addressing park management issues such as parking deficiencies, Frontage Road access, pedestrian access and circulation, access for the elderly and mobility impaired, utilization of the lower bench, conflicts between uses within the Park, conflicts with adjacent property owners, and the delineation of financial responsibilities. At the time the project was authorized the Vail Town Council expressed concern that a new master plan for Ford Park could result in an excessive amount of new development. In response, staff noted the intention of the project was to create a management plan as a means to adequately and consistently evaluate development proposals, with the goal of limiting development and protecting the character of the Park. Park leaseholders, two neighborhood representatives and town staff served as the Stakeholder Group for the planning process and a third party facilitator was retained to coordinate this effort. The Stakeholder Group developed alternative design solutions addressing parking, vehicular access, Frontage Road improvements, additional sports facilities and management policies. These plans were presented to the public in an open house at the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater in June of 1996. The open house presentation was a turning point in the process of developing the Management Plan. Several residents were alarmed by the alternatives included in the presentation and initiated a grass-roots movement to place a referendum on any future expansion/development within the Park. This strong public reaction, combined with a lack of closure within the Stakeholders Group, prompted the Vail Town Council to revise the process to include more community involvement. Three Focus Group meetings and public input sessions were held throughout the fall of 1996. The results of the focus groups and public input sessions and a preliminary master plan framework were presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council in late 1996. The PEC and Town CouncilFollowing these meetings staff 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 15 was directed staff to proceed with drafting the management plan as an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan based on the input received and presented. The management plan was adopted in April of 1997. Major elements of the plan were six goal statements along with objectives, policies and actions steps intended to define the future direction for the Park. The 1997 Plan also included an Illustrative Plan that identified a number of future improvements. Foremost among these was identifying a site next to the Soccer Field parking lot for an Educational Center for the Betty Ford Alpine GardenBetty Ford Alpine Gardens. Following approval of the 1997 Management Plan the following related actions were taken regarding the planning of Ford Park: Goal #4 of the Vail Village Plan Master Plan (as amended in 1998) addressed the preservation of “existing open space areas and expansion of green space opportunities.” An action step associated with this goal is to “explore the feasibility of expanding Ford Park to the west to Vail Valley Drive and/or Slifer Plaza along the Gore Creek stream tract to provide improved pedestrian and handicapped access to the Park.” The 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan identified a wide range of roadway improvements designed to accommodate traffic levels anticipated to meet 2025 demands. One of these improvements contemplates a roundabout at the west end of Ford Park to “serve as a means of “u-turning” (eastbound to westbound) and to potentially serve a future parking structure.” 2012 Management Plan Update In 2012 the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan was updated to reflect numerous improvements proposed for the Park. Plans to improve the Park were initiated when Vail voters approved re-allocating a portion of the +/-$9,000,000 Convention Center Funds to Ford Park. The other stakeholders in the Park also participated in the funding of these improvements. The 2012 Update maintained the general direction for the Park as established by the 1997 Management Plan. With only a few exceptions, the 2012 Update suggested no significant changes to the uses, facilities and activities that currently take place in the Park. One exception was the 2012 Update included the development of an Education Center for the Betty Ford Alpine GardenBetty Ford Alpine Gardens along Gore Creek adjacent to the main entry to the Gardens. All of the existing major uses in the Park – athletic fields, passive recreation, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, the Alpine Gardens 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 16 and Tennis Center were to remain in place. The Update did not change any of the six major goal statements (or related objectives, policy statements and action steps) in the 1997 Management Plan. 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update The most significant changes in the 2012 Update are found in the Illustrative Plan chapter of the Plan. The Illustrative Plan provided conceptual site plan diagrams and narrative explanations of improvements suggested for the Park. Many of these improvements were first identified in the 1997 Plan, others evolved out of discussions with the Vail Town Council, stakeholders and the community during the winter of 2012. Many of these improvements were initiated in 2012 and 2013. Foremost among them were the major re-modeling of the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, re-construction of East Betty Ford Way, improvements to the parking and transit area, expansion and re- configuration of the athletic fields and new concession and storage buildings associated with the fields. A copy of the 2012 Management Plan Update is found in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 17 Time Line of Ford Park Activities: April 1973 Condemnation of Anholtz Ranch, Ordinance 6, 1973 August 1973 Completion of Vail Plan January 1977 Anholtz Ranch named Gerald R. Ford Park, Resolution 1, 1977 August 1985 Completion of Ford/Donovan Park Master Plan, July 1987 Amphitheater construction completed August 1987 Alpine Demonstration Garden completed November 1987 Preservation of Nature Center, Resolution 27, 1987 December 1987 Vail Valley Foundation lease signed November 1988 Lower Bench improvements completed December 1988 Ford Park Master Plan amendment by VRD, Resolution 44, 1988 December 1988 Service agreement with VRD, Resolution 46, 1988 May 1989 Tennis Center receives Conditional Use Permit July 1989 Alpine Perennial Garden completed January 1990 Completion of Vail Village Master Plan February 1990 Aquatic Center rejected by voters in special election April 1990 Council petitioned to delete Aquatic Center from Master Plan May 1990 Tennis Center construction completed June 1991 Alpine Meditation Garden completed April 1993 Completion of Vail Transportation Master Plan December 1993 Vail Recreation District agreement renewed June 1994 Vail Alpine Garden Foundation license agreement signed. June 1995 Town begins Ford Park Management Plan October 1996 Council allows Betty Ford Vail Alpine Gardens Foundation to proceed through process with Educational Center plans at Soccer Field parking lot April 1997 Ford Park Management Plan adopted 1999 Lease with Vail Valley Foundation renewed 2008 Lease with Vail Recreation District renewed 2009 Vail Transportation Plan Update completed November 2011 Voters approve use of Conference Center Funding for Ford Park Improvements May 2012 Completion of 2012 Update to Ford Park Management Plan 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 18 Chapter 4 - GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTION STEPS This plan includes six five statements that convey the community’s goals for Ford Park. These goal statements provide broad direction on the preservation of the Park, how the Park should be used, vehicles, pedestrian circulation, coordination between park users and financial considerations relative to operations and capital improvements. Each goal statement includes a series of objectives, policies and action steps. Collectively these statements reflect input from the Vail Town Council, the community and leaseholders during the 2013 master plan update process. These statements will be used to provide guidance in decision-making on the management and use of the Park. The goals, objectives and policies of this Plan will be considered during the review process for any new development, changes or improvements proposed for the Park. Only those proposals deemed to be in compliance with these statements (and other applicable elements of this Plan) will gain approvals. Project proposals deemed to not comply with these statements and other applicable elements of this Plan will be denied. This chapter includes thirty-six action steps. In some cases action steps involve a single, defined task intended to implement an objective or policy statement. An example of this would be initiating refinements to the park design guidelines specific to Ford Park. Other action steps involve on-going tasks. An example would be the coordination and management of events in the Park. The Community Development Department, with participation from the Public Works Department, will prioritize action steps and present recommendations annually to the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding that year’s work program for implementing action steps. The Planning and Environmental Commission will provide a recommendation on the work program that will be forwarded to the Vail Town Council who will make final decisions on the work program along with any necessary budget expenditures. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 19 Goal #1: Protect the natural environment along the Gore Creek corridor and ensure that any new use or building within the Park does not adversely affect the character and quality of the Park or the overall experience of park users. Objective 1.1: Limit uses and future development to that which is consistent with these goals, objectives and policies and is consistent with the Ford Park Sub-Areas and Illustrative Plan. Policy Statement 1: Maintain the variety of uses and facilities currently located within the Park. Policy Statement 2: Proposals for new (or changes to existing) facilities or uses that would displace existing public uses will not be permitted unless there is either a compelling public interest or adequate alternative facilities can be provided. Objective 1.1 Action Steps: Action Step 1.1.1: Draft a new ordinance to exclude those uses listed in Ordinance No.6, Series of 1973, now considered to be inappropriate, and to redefine the allowable uses within Ford Park. The following uses that are allowed and prohibited for Ford Park shall take precedence over Section 12-9C-2 of the Vail Town Code concerning the General Use Zone District: Allowed Uses Park and greenbelt Bicycle and hiking trails Children’s playground Active recreation Passive recreation Outdoor amphitheater Botanical gardens Environmental, educationalEducational, and historical centers Historical center Picnic areas Recreation and athletic facilities Public utility easements Parking (surface parking/structured parking) Administrative offices for the operation of uses occurring within the Park 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 20 Public Art Display Concerts and Special Events Venues Prohibited uses Ski lift and related facilities Civic center, convention/conference center, public schools, gymnasium, and assembly hall Equestrian trails Type III and IV employee housing Action Step 1.1.2: Town of Vail will Rreview legal descriptions of existing lease areas in consultation with for the Vail Recreation District, the Vail Valley Foundation and the Betty Ford Alpine GardenBetty Ford Alpine Gardens and modify, as deemed necessary, so legal descriptions correspond with existing and proposed improvements and uses. Objective 1.2: Maintain all facilities and uses in the Park at a high level of quality and establish appropriate review procedures, review criteria and design standards for evaluating any new development proposals or other proposed changes to the Park are clearly established. Policy Statement 1: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or uses shall conform to the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan, including but not limited to: • Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements, • Sub-Area Plans, and • Illustrative Plan. Policy Statement 2: Any new development or change to existing Park facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with Section 12-11-6 Park Design Guidelines of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as well as other applicable Town regulations. Policy Statement 3: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or uses shall provide a needed environmental, recreational, educational, cultural or social benefit to the community. Policy Statement 4: Maintain and operate existing facilities, uses and functions within the Park at a high standard of quality reflective of the Vail Brand. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 21 Objective 1.2 Action Steps: Action Step 1.2.1: With participation of all Park stakeholders, Town staff to prepare standards which outlines expectations regarding the appearance, maintenance, and operation of facilities within the Park. Action Step 1.2.2: Evaluate the park design guidelines in Section 11-12-6 of the Vail Town Code and modify as necessary to address design considerations specific to Ford Park. Objective 1.3: Preserve and protect the environmentally sensitive areas along the Gore Creek Corridor. Policy Statement 1: Uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor shall be limited to only those prescribed in the Gore Creek Preservation Sub- area. Policy Statement 2: No new buildings should be permitted within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area. Policy Statement 3: Any new improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor shall respect consider the 100-year floodplain and minimize impacts to wetland or riparian habitats. Objective 1.3 Action Steps: Action Step 1.3.1: Evaluate the merits of strengthening preservation controls within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area via a conservation easement or the Natural Area Preservation Zone District “Open Space” designation. Action Step 1.3.2: Inventory existing conditions of the creek bank and vegetation within the Gore Creek corridor, initiate programs to stabilize or restore these areas as may be necessary. Objective 1.4: Utilize Ford Park as a showcase for environmental sensitivity and sustainability. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 22 Policy Statement 1: Encourage all lease holders and events at the Park to implement comprehensive recycling programs. Policy Statement 2: Sustainable design and environmentally “friendly” materials and construction methods should be utilized on all new development within the Park. Policy Statement 3: Maintain, protect and enhance the environmental character of natural open space areas. Policy Statement 4: New improvements within the Park and the ongoing management of the Park should be done using sound environmentally sensitive practices. Objective 1.5: Limit the number and scale of buildings and structures within the Park to no more than necessary to meet the needs of park operations and to provide appropriate services and facilities to park users. Policy Statement 1: As an alternative to new buildings, encourage shared or joint-use buildings and/or facilities among Park lease-holders. Policy Statement 2: The design of new buildings or structures shall be integrated with the land with a subtle, understated, low-profile in appearance so as to not dominate the Park’s landscape; “iconic” architecture or building designs that may be visually distracting are not appropriate. Policy Statement 3: Park stakeholders may have administrative office space within the Park, provided that such space is limited in size to no more than what is necessary only for the management and operation of facilities and uses located within the Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 23 Goal #2: Provide open space, facilities, and programs within Ford Park to meet the passive and active recreational, educational, social and cultural needs of residents and guests of Vail. Objective 2.1: Provide open space areas within the Park for the passive enjoyment of nature and to reinforce the Park’s connection to the natural environment. Policy Statement 1: Maintain Preserve the “delight of the natural earth forms and mature tree growth adjacent to Gore Creek” (The Vail Plan, 1974) found within Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area for the “quiet enjoyment of nature”, and limit uses and activities within this area. Policy Statement 2: The primary use of the open turf area within the Lower Commons Sub-Area should be to provide a place for un-programed and informal passive recreation. The use of this area for special events should be limited in frequency and scope in order to minimize impacts on the primary use of this area. Objective 2.1 Action Steps: Action Step 2.1.1: Establish management and operational policies for special events within the open turf area of the Lower Commons Sub-area. Action Step 2.1.2: Identify key viewsheds from strategic locations within the Park and as may be necessary, establish designated view corridors to ensure the protection of these viewsheds. Objective 2.2: Utilize Ford Park to meet the community’s needs for active recreation and formal team sport activities. Policy Statement 1: The Active Recreation and Soccer Field Sub-Areas shall be managed first and foremost to provide facilities for active recreation and team sports. Policy Statement 2: Landscape berms and buffers around active recreation areas should be maintained and enhanced to mitigate potential impacts of noise and activity on other sub-areas of the Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 24 Objective 2.3: Maintain, and enhance where appropriate, the role of the Park in providing facilities for the enjoyment and exploration of the arts, music, dance, education and other cultural pursuits. Policy Statement 1: Maintain the Ford Amphitheater as the primary a principle summer-time performing arts facility in the Town of Vail. Policy Statement 2: Support the Art in Public Places Board in their its efforts to continue public art programs (i.e. interactive events, projects, art installations, educational activities, etc.) within the Creekside area of the Lower Commons Sub-area (and other areas of the Park as may be deemed appropriate). Policy Statement 3: Support the educational programs provided at the Nature Center and the programs provided by the Betty Ford Alpine GardenBetty Ford Alpine Gardens. Objective 2.3 Action Steps: Action Step 2.3.1: Work with the Vail Valley Foundation on their efforts to create a new “public plaza” at the entry to the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater. Action Step 2.3.2: Work with the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Foundation on their proposal to create an educational and visitor center within the Park. Action Step 2.3.3: Promote and support the use of the Nature Center and surrounding area as a center for environmental education programs. Action Step 2.3.4: In conjunction with the Vail Valley Foundation, evaluate the feasibility of winterizing the Amphitheater to allow for use of the venue during winter months. Objective 2.4: Enhance the use of the Historic School House and preserve the historic integrity character of the building. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 25 Policy Statement 1: Maintain public access to the School House and continue the utilization of the building in accordance with the terms of the lease with the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. Objective 2.4 Action Steps: Action Step 2.4.1: Evaluate alternative uses for the School House that will maintain public access and potentially involve the display of historic photos and artifacts or other activities in keeping with the historic nature of the building. Action Step 2.4.2: Complete an architectural assessment of the School House and establish a plan to protect and enhance the historic character of the building. Objective 2.5: Enhance and restore the Nature Center building and the landscape surrounding the building. Policy Statement 1: Limit vehicular access to only those vehicles necessary for the operation of the building and educational programs. Policy Statement 2: Uses proximate to the Nature Center should be limited and shall be consistent with the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-Area. Policy Statement 3: Restore the architectural and historical integrity character of the Nature Center building. Objective 2.5 Action Steps: Action Step 2.5.1: Work with the Vail Recreation District to implement measures for controlling vehicular access to the Nature Center building. Action Step 2.5.2: Complete an architectural inventory of the Nature Center building to define steps that could be taken to restore the historic character of the building. Action Step 2.5.3: Reduce Eliminate the parking areas around the Nature Center building by and reclaiming these areas to a natural landscape condition. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 26 Action Step 2.5.4: Prepare a master plan and an operations/management plan for the Nature Center facility and surrounding area. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 27 Goal #3: Reduce vehicular intrusions into the interior of the Park and minimize to the greatest extent feasible the impact of vehicular activity on users of the Park, particularly on the passive use areas of the Lower Bench and along pedestrian walkways. Objective 3.1: Reduce the presence and frequency of vehicular trips into the Lower Bench (the Lower Commons, Gardens, Amphitheater and the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-Areas) of the Park. Policy Statement 1: Proposals for any new facility or use or the expansion of any existing facility or use in the Lower Bench shall not generate an unnecessary or appreciable increase in vehicular activity in the Lower Bench area of the Park. Policy Statement 2: Uses in the Lower Bench shall operate in a manner that limits vehicular traffic to the greatest extent possible. Vehicular access to the Lower Bench of the Park should be limited to: maintenance; delivery of goods or materials too large or too heavy to be carried by non-motorized means; use of golf carts or similar means to provide access for people with limited mobility; special transportation; and emergency services. Policy Statement 3: Require all delivery vehicles to utilize East Betty Ford Way to enter and exit the Lower Bench. Due to difficulties in maneuvering, large trucks (semi’s) shall access the Lower Bench via East Betty Ford Way and may exit via West Betty Ford Way. Policy Statement 4: Passenger vehicle access to the Alpine Gardens, the Amphitheater, AIPP programs or other uses in the Lower Bench shall not be permitted other than vehicles used to provide access for people with limited mobility or to deliver goods or materials too heavy to be carried by non-motorized means. Objective 3.1 Action Steps: Action Step 3.1.1: Establish a system (i.e. signage, control gates, electronic controls) for managing truck movements proximate to the Amphitheater loading dock and for coordinating truck use of East Betty Ford Way. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 28 Action Step 3.1.2: Coordinate delivery schedules to reduce the frequency of delivery and service vehicles into the Lower Bench during peak use time periods. Action Step 3.1.3: Require stakeholders to utilize on-site storage facilities to reduce and control the frequency of delivery and service vehicles into the Park. Action Step 3.1.4: Improve traffic gate operations and restrictions on both the east and west ends of Betty Ford Way to eliminate unnecessary and unauthorized vehicular intrusions into the Park. Consider closing the western access point of Betty Ford Way to all vehicles except trucks too large to utilize East Betty Ford Way (for exiting the Park). Objective 3.2: Utilize the Parking/Transit Sub-area as the primary means for satisfying the Park’s parking and transit needs. Policy Statement 1: All stakeholders are required to adhere to the Parking and Transit Management Plan. Policy Statement 2: There shall be a “no-net loss” of the +/-200 parking spaces within the Parking/Transit Sub-Area and the +/-65 spaces at the Soccer Field Sub-area. Any net loss of parking spaces shall only be considered when off-set by a demonstrated improvement or enhancement of public transit use or alternate means of transportation to the Park. Policy Statement 3: Provide parking for daily park-use within the Parking/Transit Sub-Area and utilize the Vail Village Parking Structure to satisfy peak parking demands of the Park. Policy Statement 4: Maintain a central trash/dumpster/recycling facility within the Parking/Transit Sub-area and mandate all Park leaseholders use the central facility. Objective 3.2 Action Steps: Action Step 3.2.1: Town Staff, with coordination from Park stakeholders, shall prepare a Parking and Transit Management Plan, to include, but not be limited to the use and access of parking lots, fee structures, transit operations, etc. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 29 Action Step 3.2.2: As demand warrants, continue operation of the In-Town bus route beyond Golden Peak to provide service along Vail Valley Drive. Action Step 3.2.3: Implement an improved wayfinding sign program directing pedestrians from the Village Parking Structure and Slifer Square in Vail Village. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 30 Goal #4: Provide a safe, enjoyable and efficient pedestrian circulation system within Ford Park and between Ford Park and Vail Village. Objective 4.1: Provide clear and effective directional and informational signs to and within Ford Park. Objective 4.1 Action Steps: Action Step 4.1.1: Develop a comprehensive sign plan to direct Ford Park visitors from Vail Village and from each level of the Village Parking Structure to destinations within Ford Park. Objective 4.2: Encourage and promote park users to access the Park via pedestrian routes from Vail Village and the Vail Transportation Center. Policy Statement 1: The five existing pedestrian access points to the Park from Vail Village and Golden Peak should be maintained and enhanced to maximize their effectiveness in providing access to the Park. Policy Statement 1: Encourage leaseholders in Ford Park to utilize their marketing efforts to promote walking, biking and the use of Town buses as an alternative to driving to the Park. Objective 4.2 Action Steps: Action Step 4.2.1: Implement enhancements to the Gore Creek Trail that will improve safety, grading, surfacing, and lighting. Action Step 4.2.2: Evaluate opportunities for additional seating areas, public art and other features to enhance the walking experience along the Vail Village Connector (within the Gore Creek Sub-area) and where appropriate provide rest/sitting areas along all pedestrian routes to the Park. Action Step 4.2.3: Establish gateways or portals (signage, monuments, landscape elements, etc.) at the main entries to the Park (Frontage Road, Gore Creek Trail, Manor Vail, Slifer Plaza, Vail Valley Drive and the Parking/Transit Sub-area). 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 31 Objective 4.3: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park. Policy Statement 1: New developments or other improvements in the Park shall not diminish the quality of the pedestrian circulation system and when appropriate shall include provisions to improve pedestrian circulation. Policy Statement 2: Existing ADA routes should be enhanced and where feasible new ADA access within the Park should be established. Objective 4.3 Action Steps: Action Step 4.3.1: Upgrade the portion of Betty Ford Way within the Lower Commons Sub-area to create a high quality pedestrian corridor with improved surface materials, lighting, seating and landscaping. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 32 Goal #5: Maintain compatible relationships between all venues and all uses within Ford Park. Objective 5.1: Manage the carrying capacity of the Park by scheduling events to prevent overlapping or simultaneous events that exceed the availability of community parking or other park infrastructure. Policy Statement 1: The Town of Vail through its designee shall coordinate with leaseholders an annual schedule for events and uses at all Ford Park venues. Policy Statement 2: No one event or type of use will be allowed to dominate the usage of the Park. Policy Statement 3: The Park is a Town of Vail community facility and in the case of conflicting uses, functions that best serve the interests of the community will have the highest priority. In all cases, final decisions regarding the use of the Park shall rest with the Town of Vail. Policy Statement 4: The day-to-day management and coordination of activities in the Park will be assigned to the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail, through its designee, will coordinate as necessary with representation from the Vail Valley Foundation, the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and the Vail Recreation District. Objective 5.1 Action Steps: Action Step 5.1.1: Expand the master schedule kept by the Town Clerk to include all venues within the Park. Action Step 5.1.2: Hold preseason event/activity coordination meetings with all affected stakeholders. Action Step 5.1.3: Hold semiannual (or as deemed necessary) coordination and input meetings with the Town of Vail, leaseholder representatives, and neighborhood and adjacent property owner representatives. Objective 5.2: Provide sufficient separation, berms and landscape buffers between facilities and uses. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 33 Policy Statement 1: The adequacy of berms and landscape buffers between different facilities and uses shall be considered when evaluating proposed changes to the Park. The type and extent of buffers to be provided shall be determined based on the nature of the use, the site design of the proposed facilities or uses, and the design parameters outlined in the Ford Park Sub-Areas and the Illustrative Plan. Policy Statement 2: Maintain and where necessary improve existing berms and landscaping between facilities and uses. Objective 5.2 Action Steps: Action Step 5.2.1: Enhance existing landscape buffers between tennis courts adjacent to the Active Recreation Sub-area and the Parking/Transit Sub-area and evaluate the need to enhance landscape buffers between other uses throughout the Park. Objective 5.3: To fFoster a spirit of cooperation between all leaseholders within the Park regarding their use of the Park and how to collectively use and manage the Park for the benefit of all. Policy Statement 1: Encourage the shared use of buildings and facilities. Policy Statement 2: Decisions regarding proposals for new buildings or improvements are to be made in the best interest of the Park and the Vail community, not just in the interest of the leaseholder. Objective 6.1 5.4: Establish a capital improvement plan for the Park and Eequitably share the costs of park management and operations with Park lease-holders. Policy Statement 1: All Ford Park leaseholders shall participate in cost sharing with the Town of Vail for common operating costs at a level proportionate to the leaseholders benefit from or relationship to said operation or management cost. (or as may be outlined in current lease or license agreement). Management and operations cost may include but are not limited to, electrical for pedestrian path and parking lot lighting, trash removal, and parking lot and pedestrian path maintenance costs. Objective 6.1 5.4 Action Steps: 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 34 Action Step 6.15.4.1: Town staff to complete an inventory of existing park operations and associated costs, and in conjunction with park leaseholders, quantify the level of benefit realized by each leaseholder from such operations. Action Step 6.15.4.2: Research current lease, license and use agreements to determine existing financial responsibilities of each lease holder. Action Step 6.15.4.3: With input from the Vail Town Council, work with leaseholders to modify existing leases to correct any inequities in utility billing procedures and distribution systems, current utility use, and cost sharing relationships. Action Step 6.2.15.4.4: Create and maintain a five-year capital improvements program for Ford Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 35 Goal #6: Delineate financial responsibilities among Ford Park leaseholders and the Town of Vail for both on-going maintenance/operation and capital improvements. Objective 6.1: Equitably share the costs of park management and operations with Park lease-holders. Policy Statement 1: All Ford Park leaseholders shall participate in cost sharing with the Town of Vail for common operating costs at a level proportionate to the leaseholders benefit from or relationship to said operation or management cost. (or as may be outlined in current lease or license agreement). Management and operations cost may include but are not limited to, electrical for pedestrian path and parking lot lighting, trash removal, and parking lot and pedestrian path maintenance costs. Objective 6.1 Action Steps: Action Step 6.1.1: Town staff to complete an inventory of existing park operations and associated costs, and in conjunction with park leaseholders, quantify the level of benefit realized by each leaseholder from such operations. Action Step 6.1.2: Research current lease, license and use agreements to determine existing financial responsibilities of each lease holder. Action Step 6.1.3: With input from the Vail Town Council, work with leaseholders to modify existing leases to correct any inequities in utility billing procedures and distribution systems, current utility use, and cost sharing relationships. Objective 6.2: Establish equitable cost sharing agreements for Park capital improvement costs. Policy Statement 1: Ford Park leaseholders desiring to make capital improvements within their respective lease areas shall be required to provide funding for those improvements and for any modifications outside of the lease area necessitated by such improvements. Policy Statement 2: Services, functions, and programs provided by Ford Park 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 36 leaseholders bring visitors to the community who generate sales tax revenues which in turn contribute to the General Fund. Residents of the community which participate in those programs contribute to the Real Estate Transfer Tax through real estate transactions. Both of these funding sources can be utilized by the Town of Vail to pay for capital projects and improvements within Ford Park, reducing the need for contributions from the leaseholders. Objective 6.2 Action Steps: Action Step 6.2.2: Establish the benefit/cost relationship for capital projects to determine appropriate cost sharing agreements. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 37 Chapter 5 - FORD PARK SUB-AREAS The topography of the old Anholtz Ranch is typical of a western Colorado riverfront ranch – a broad expanse of flat land adjacent to the river corridor and an upper terrace elevated above the river. In the early years of Ford Park these two distinct areas came to be referred to as the Upper Bench and Lower Bench. “The basic structure of Ford Park is comprised of two broad terraces, or benches as locally referred to, which step down the north side of the Gore Creek and is typical of mountain, valley and stream physiography.” 1985 Ford Park Master Plan Ford Park topography/1985 Early plans for Ford Park (the Vail Plan) anticipated recreation-oriented uses (and a number of buildings) on the Upper Bench with passive open space areas and an amphitheater on the Lower Bench. Initial development of the Park included athletic fields, tennis courts and parking facilities on the Upper Bench. Decisions on locating these uses on the Upper Bench were made based on the terrain (availability of flat land) and accessibility to the Frontage Road. Passive open space and the development of an amphitheater were initiated on the Lower Bench. These plans and the early development of the Park reinforced this Upper Bench/Lower Bench distinction. Over time the Upper Bench came to be regarded as recreation-oriented while the Lower Bench was regarded as being more oriented to cultural uses and passive open space. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 38 The characterization of athletic use on the Upper Bench and passive and cultural uses on the Lower Bench remains valid today, and the terms Upper Bench and Lower Bench provide a good, albeit generalized description of the Park. However, to discuss the future of Ford Park in terms of just the Upper and Lower Bench does not acknowledge the many subtleties and distinctions throughout the Park that need to be considered in this master planning process. It is for this reason that sub-areas are used to more clearly articulate the goals and objectives for specific areas of the Park. Sub-areas are intended to provide a forum for defining the unique areas of the Park, where improvements or changes may be acceptable and where improvements and changes may not be acceptable. The seven sub-areas described below were defined based primarily on the existing uses and site characteristics within the Park. In some cases, sub-areas define one single use. Examples of these include the Amphitheater and Alpine Gardens Sub-areas. In other cases sub-areas include a number of related uses. Examples of these are the Gore Creek Preservation and Lower the Commons Sub-areas. In many cases the pedestrian corridors that link the sub-areas and facilitate the movement of people throughout the Park are used as boundaries between sub-areas. The sub-area boundaries were defined based on a variety of considerations. They should not be considered hard, inflexible parcel lines. It is reasonable to anticipate that when considering future improvements for the Park some latitude with the location of a sub-area boundary may be appropriate. Any consideration to modify a sub-area boundary shall be made in the context of the goals for the Park and for that particular sub-area. The use of sub-areas to better understand how the Park functions and to express how the Park may change in the future is not an attempt to divide the Park into parts. Rather, the sub-areas provide an effective means for discussing the unique areas of the Park in the context of the goals and objectives for the entire Park. With Ford Park the adage “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” clearly applies. The diagram below depicts the seven sub-areas defined for the Park. The narrative that follows addresses the following considerations for each sub-area: • Existing uses and facilities, • The role the sub-area plays in the overall context of the Park, • The relationship of the sub-area to adjoining sub-areas, • Improvements or changes that may be appropriate at some point in the future, 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 39 • Any parameters or other limitations relevant to the future uses and activities within the sub-area, and • Any other considerations. Sub-area discussions address the Park at a fairly broad, master planning level. More specific discussion of potential future improvements that may be appropriate for the Park is found in the Illustrative Plan Chapter of this Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 40 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 41 Parking/Transit Sub-area The Parking/Transit Sub-area provides on-site parking for the Park and includes a transit stop, a passenger car drop-off area and a central trash/storage facility. Strategically located along the South Frontage Road and on the periphery of other park facilities and uses, this sub-area plays a vital role in how the Park functions by separating parking and vehicles from other areas of the Park. The transit facility is a key component of the Park by facilitating direct bus service to the Town’s parking structures (which provide parking for peak demand days). This parking/transit concept had its origins in the original planning of the Park. “This major community park-cultural center will contain parking for more than 200 cars and will also be served directly by the Town bus system. Major parking will be accommodated in the transportation center.” Vail Plan, 1974 Since the mid-70’s the parking plan for Ford Park has been to provide daily use parking at the Park with parking for special events provided at the Town’s parking structures. This parking plan was validated by a parking and transportation study for the amphitheater completed in 1979. This parking plan remains valid today. Functional transit facilities along with pleasant, safe pedestrian corridors between the Park and the Village Parking Structure are key elements to ensure the on-going effectiveness of this parking plan. Prior to making improvements to the athletic fields in 2013 (to be completed in 2014) the Park had approximately 200 on-site parking spaces. The athletic field expansion displaced approximately 50 parking spaces at the west end of the parking lot. These 50 spaces were re-established by re-designing other portions of the parking lot, maintaining the approximately 200 on-site parking spaces. A “no net loss of parking” policy is in effect for the +/-200 on-site parking in this sub- area. Any proposed reduction to existing on-site parking spaces will only be considered in conjunction with concurrent improvements to alternative means of transportation to the Park. An example of this would be reducing the number of parking spaces in order to improve transit facilities. The parking lot was designed such that it can continue to be used for concerts and other special events. The parking lot also serves as a turn-around area used to manage local traffic when eastbound I-70 is closed. It is anticipated that both of these uses will continue. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 42 Future Improvements With parking lot and transit improvements scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2013 and spring of 2014, it is anticipated that the Parking/Transit Sub-area will adequately address the needs of the Park for the foreseeable future. Improvements that may be considered in the future include: • Design and installation of park entry features at the two pedestrian portals from the parking lot into the Park. • Installation of traffic control devices (gates or other means) at the east and west ends of Betty Ford Way. The potential improvements listed above are also described in the Illustrative Plan section of this Plan. The idea of constructing structured parking below the existing surface parking lot has been discussed in the past. This could accomplish two objectives – increase the supply of on-site parking (parking that could also address other town needs) and allow for some alternative use on top of the structured parking. On a related note is the idea of developing parking below the tennis center and re-constructing the tennis center on the surface of the structure. While structured parking in either of these locations could create opportunities for new uses on these areas of the Park, costs would be significant. Based on studies completed in 2009-2010 the Town Council at that time determined structured parking to not be feasible. If or when this idea is discussed in the future, an initial step would be to evaluate implications on the goals for the Park and if necessary initiate amendments to this Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 43 Active Recreation Sub-area This sub-area is the focal point of active recreation, team sports, tournaments and other special events. The location of these uses is consistent with some of the earliest design direction established for the Park. It is expected that these uses will continue in order to meet the community’s needs for active recreation facilities. Significant plantings have created a landscape buffer between these active recreation uses and other surrounding uses. These buffers should be maintained and continually enhanced where necessary. Specific attention should be given to enhancing landscaping between the Frontage Road and the athletic fields. This improvement would provide a buffer between the Park and the road and also provide shade for spectators. Noise and other compatibility issues with use of the athletic fields and adjacent uses will need to continually be managed (refer to Goal 4 in Chapter 4 of this Plan). Future Improvements Improvements to the Active Recreation Sub-area initiated in 2012 (expected to be completed in 2014) were extensive and included expansion and re-organization of the athletic fields and construction of a new restroom/storage building and a new concession/restroom building. It is anticipated that these improvements will address the active recreation needs of the community for the foreseeable future. Potential improvements contemplated for this sub-area are: • Design and installation of park entry features at the west end of the Park along the Frontage Road and the two pedestrian portals from the parking lot. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 44 • Ongoing enhancement of the landscape buffer around the perimeter of the Sub- area. • The 2009 Town of Vail Transportation Plan contemplates a roundabout at the west end of Ford Park to “serve as a means of “u-turning” (eastbound to westbound) and to potentially provide access to a future below grade parking structure. No detailed design work on this improvement has been done, but conceptually this roundabout could be located just west of the athletic fields. The existing Tennis Center is located between the Parking/Transit Sub-area and other portions of the Park. East Betty Ford Way provides convenient and pleasant pedestrian access to the Lower Bench of the Park along the southern end of the Tennis Center. However, the tennis center presents constraints to establishing a convenient and graceful pedestrian entry between the parking/transit area and the rest of the Park. If or when the relocation of one or more tennis courts is considered, study should be given to how improved pedestrian flow and new uses could be established in this area. By way of example, the removal of the two courts adjacent to the Frontage Road and the Athletic Field concession building would not only allow for a much improved “arrival sequence” for pedestrians, but could also provide land for new facilities. The Tennis Center building has been in existence for over 25 years and the design of the building is inconsistent with the architectural character of buildings recently constructed in the Park. If or when this building is to be re-developed, consideration should be given to a design more consistent with the design objectives for the Park. In addition to the design of the building, consideration should also be given to the use of the building and the potential for shared use to accommodate other Park users. The possibility of locating an education center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens within Ford Park is discussed in the Alpine Gardens Sub-area. The preferred location for this building is along West Betty Ford Way. If the West Betty Ford Way site is subsequently determined to not be a viable location, the Tennis Center site is a suitable alternative. The potential site for this building is proximate to or integrated with the Tennis Center building. Coordination and cooperation from the VRD will be necessary if this site is to be pursued. As with the parking lot area, the idea of constructing structured parking below the athletic fields has been discussed in the past. It is expected that if and when this idea is pursued that an initial step would be to evaluate implications to the overall goals for the Park and if necessary initiate amendments to the Ford Park Master Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 45 Lower Commons Sub-area The Lower Commons Sub-area plays an important role in the Park by providing structure, or organization to the overall design of the Park. The area provides a transition zone between other uses in the Park and Betty Ford Way, which runs through the sub-area, and provides a delightful arrival experience for pedestrians entering the Park from the West. The Lower Commons Sub-area also provides some of the Park’s most important and popular facilities that collectively address a number of goals and objectives for the Park. Specifically, the Lower Commons Area provides places for recreational use, public art, the passive use and the quiet enjoyment of the Park. The sub-area also provides buffers between Park uses, a transition to the Gore Creek corridor and creates an important sense of openness within the Lower Bench. This sub-area should continue to be managed to provide the uses and park features listed above. There are no major changes contemplated to the three distinct, yet related uses that occur in this sub-area. These three uses are: Children’s Playground The playground is an immensely popular area of the Park. This use should continue. While refinements and/or upgrading of play structures and facilities within the playground may be made in the future, the basic size or “footprint” of the playground should remain unchanged. The restrooms at the playground provide facilities for the entire Lower Bench and there is a need to upgrade these facilities in the near future in order to meet the demands of park users. No other buildings are contemplated in the playground area. Open Turf Area Aside from natural open space areas along Gore Creek, the open turf area is the only area of the Park that is not programmed with organized uses and activities. It is important that this area remains open and available for informal use by patrons of the Park in the future. The area provides space for picnics, rest, informal games and other passive recreation use. The open turf area also provides an important buffer, or transition from the more actively developed areas of the Park and the Gore Creek Corridor. Given this areas adjacency to Betty Ford Way, it is critical to limit vehicles in this area of the Park in order to prevent conflicts between park users and vehicles. With the exception of very minor encroachments from landscape improvements, lighting, seating and other similar features associated with improvements planned for Betty Ford Way, tThe open turf area should not be reduced in size and no buildings or structures should be permitted in this area. If Betty Ford Way is improved, all streetscape improvements (lighting, landscaping, seating, etc.) should be located on the 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 46 south side of the walkway so as to not reduce the size of the open turf area. In the past the southern end of the open turf area has been used for events (weddings, parties, etc.) that have involved the placement of temporary tents and other features within the open turf area. While these events may continue, the number and extent of such events should be limited and events that would monopolize the open turf area and prevent its use by other users of the Park should not be permitted. Any events in the open turf area should be managed in accordance with Park procedures, specifically to minimize the time temporary facilities are in place, minimize the number and extent of vehicles necessary to service the event, etc. Creekside Area The Creekside area is a narrow strip of land south of Betty Ford Way and north of Gore Creek. A few small structures (i.e. the “art shack, an open air picnic shelter) are located in this area. Arts in Public Places (AIPP) may pursue remodeling or enhancing the art shack at some point in the future. AIPP has placed permanent art installations in this area and also runs summer art programs in this part of the Park. Art programs may include activities such as interactive events, educational and participatory activities, and temporary art installations. The passive use and the limited number of permanent improvements within this area make it an excellent transition to the more natural, undisturbed Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 47 The use and character of this area should remain unchanged. No new buildings should be permitted. New art installations may be appropriate, but if pursued, they should be done in a way that minimizes impacts to other surrounding uses and facilities and is sensitive to the natural landscape. Future Improvements Improvements contemplated for this Sub-area include: • Upgrading restroom facilities at the children’s playground. • Further enhance the buffer between the athletic fields and the children’s playground. • Additional art installations within the Gore Creek Corridor. • Upgrade to Betty Ford Way to include a slight widening of the walkway, decorative pavers, seating areas, lighting and other streetscape improvements. The restroom and Betty Ford Way improvements are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter. Amphitheater Sub-area An outdoor amphitheater was contemplated in original plans for Ford Park dating back to 1974. Completed in 1987, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater has evolved into Vail’s most prominent venue for music, dance and other cultural events. The facility is managed by the Vail Valley Foundation and is host to approximately 60 events each summer. The amphitheater is considered one of the community’s most important cultural assets. In 2013 the Foundation completed an initial phase of improvements to the amphitheater. Improvements included re-contouring the lawn seating, new restrooms, expansion of concession areas, and other improvements. While not a project of the Foundation, the Town of Vail recently made major improvements (decorative pavers, widening, and reduction to grade of walkway) to East Betty Ford Way. The Foundation has plans for a second phase of improvements to the Amphitheater that would create a new “public plaza” at the entry to the Amphitheater. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 48 The relationship between the Amphitheater and the neighboring athletic fields will need to be continually monitored to ensure compatibility between these (and all) park users is maintained. It is important to protect and enhance areas of existing vegetation in and around the Amphitheater and where appropriate improve the physical buffers between these uses. The implementation of noise mitigation at the north end of the amphitheater to minimizing noise impacts from the athletic fields and Interstate 70 has also been discussed. The Foundation has completed acoustic studies of the amphitheater and concluded that mitigating noise impacts from the fields and Interstate 70 would have the unintended consequence of impacting sound quality within the amphitheater. As such, noise mitigation is not being pursued. The Amphitheater is a significant generator of people and also generates a significant amount of vehicular traffic into the Lower Bench. Vehicular traffic into the Lower Bench conflicts with a number of goals and objectives for the Park. It is important for the Town and the Vail Valley Foundation to continue to work together to minimize vehicular traffic to the Amphitheater. No new uses or expansion of existing uses at the Amphitheater that would generate appreciably more vehicular traffic into this area of the Park should be permitted. Managing and limiting vehicle traffic that may result from the proposed public plaza will be an important consideration in establishing operational standards for this new facility. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 49 Future Improvements Potential improvements contemplated for the Amphitheater Sub-area include: • Development of a “public plaza” at the entry to the Amphitheater. • Restoration of the stream bank adjacent to the Amphitheater south of Betty Ford Way and east of the pedestrian bridge, • Upgrading of the fence/screening of the utility installation along Gore Creek west of the pedestrian bridge. There are a number of important parameters to be considered in the design and development of the public plaza. These parameters are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter of this Plan. Alpine Gardens Sub-area What began with completion of a demonstration garden in 1987 has evolved into a +/- 1.5 acre network of perennials, rock gardens and waterfalls hosting an array of high alpine plants. The Betty Ford Alpine Gardens (BFAG) provides an important educational and experiential element of the Park. The gardens and the mission of the organization are in keeping with one of the original goals for Ford Park to provide environmental and educational facilities for the community. The Alpine Gardens have become one of Vail’s most popular summer attractions. The Alpine Gardens has pursued the development of an “alpine education center” in the Park for a number of years. The 1997 Ford Park Management Plan identified the location for this facility to be within the Soccer Field Sub-area. During the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update the BFAG proposed a location adjacent to Gore Creek for the education building and the 2012 Plan recommended this site for a new building. The Vail Town Council subsequently reconsidered this recommendation from the 2012 Update, and while expressing support for the BFAG to develop an educational building within the Park, initiated a new evaluation of site alternatives for the building. The Vail Town Council’s primary criterion for selecting a site for the educational center building was that it not be located on the Lower Bench. Seven sites were evaluated, three of which were determined to be viable sites for the building. The BFAG Building Site Evaluation Matrix outlines the factors considered in this evaluation. A copy is found in the Supplemental Appendix. For a variety of reasons the preferred location for this building was determined to be adjacent to West Betty Ford Way just west of the Children’s Playground. Located 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 50 directly on the grade transition between the upper and lower bench, the Vail Town Council determined that this location conforms to their site selection criteria that the building not be located on the lower bench. The other two sites that were considered viable alternatives are at the Soccer Field and within the Tennis Center. These sites could still be considered if following further study it is determined that the Betty Ford Way site is not viable. The primary purpose of the building is to provide educational programs for the community and accordingly the uses within the building are expected to include rooms for interpretive displays, meeting/class rooms, a greenhouse and a limited amount of administrative space necessary to support on-site operations of the Ggardens. Future Improvements Potential future improvements within the Alpine Gardens Sub-area include: • Development of an alpine gardens educational center. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 51 • Extension of gardens along the northeast entry in order to create a buffer from the adjoining athletic fields and improve pedestrian arrival to the Gardens. There are a number of important parameters to be considered in the design, development and operation of the educational center. These parameters are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter of this Plan. Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area The Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area includes the entire length of the Gore Creek Corridor that passes through the Park. The sub-area is more than 21 acres in size and is generally defined by the park boundary on the south and the 100-year flood plain, the 50-foot Gore Creek setback and/or topographic features on the north. Gore Creek, associated wetland and riparian habitat and stands of specimen trees are the primary features of the creek corridor. Existing improvements within this sub-area are limited to bridges, trails, utility improvements and the Nature Center. The Gore Creek corridor is the Park’s most significant natural feature and provides the Park with delightful open space for the quiet enjoyment of nature. The corridor also provides a critical pedestrian link to Vail Village. The designation of this corridor as a preservation zone is in direct response to a number of goals and objectives from previous park planning efforts. The preservation of and enhancement to this area is also suggested by Goal #1 of this Plan. It is essential that adjacent uses respect the natural environment of this sub-area and that effective buffers be maintained between other more intensive uses within the Park. It is intended that existing uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-Area be maintained and in keeping with the goals of preserving this area no new buildings are to be constructed within the sub-area. Any other new uses or improvements should be limited to those that will complement the natural character of the creek corridor and will minimize impacts to this sensitive environment. Resolution No. 27 of 1987 designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area “to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history.” The resolution stipulated that “vehicular traffic is to be restricted and certain policies and procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities” should be enacted. It is acknowledged that the Nature Center will bring a certain level of activity to this sub-area. Nature Center activity should be concentrated on the “upland” portions of the Nature Center in order to minimize impacts to the creek corridor. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 52 Improvements within the sub-area should be limited to low-impact improvements such as soft surface walking paths, creek enhancements to improve fish habitat, fishing access, re-vegetation and creek/stream bank restoration projects. In all cases such improvements should be designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts (i.e. avoid wetland habitat and wetland, maintain existing natural vegetation, use of “best management practices”, etc.). The underlying goal of any new trail development and/or bridge crossing should be to improve access in order to enhance awareness of this important natural environment. Utility improvements should not be located within this sub-area unless no other practical alternative is available. The Gore Creek corridor between the main portion of Ford Park and Slifer Square provides important pedestrian access to and from the Park and Vail Village (and the Vail Village Parking Structure). This corridor is heavily travelled and provides access to the Park for many park users. Enhancing the walking experience along the corridor will ensure its effectiveness as an alternative means of accessing the Park. Fishing access to Gore Creek, while currently not an issue (i.e. excessive use from foot traffic resulting in damage to riparian areas and vegetation), could become an issue in the future. A creek access point was considered at the east end of the Nature Center (using the bus turnaround on Vail Valley Drive as an unloading area) was discussed during the 1997 Planning effort but was rejected as being contradictory to the intended use of the Nature Center. An Action Step suggested for this area (refer to Chapter 4 of this Plan) is to evaluate the benefits of establishing a conservation easement for this area or to apply the “Open Space” designation via the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. The protection 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 53 afforded by either of these steps would define more permanent limitations on the use of this area and in doing so establish a degree of permanence in preserving this creek corridor. The existing condition of the Nature Center Building and the surrounding area has been a point of discussion. Potential improvements to the Nature Center are further discussion in Chapter 6 – Ford Park Illustrative Plan. Future Improvements Future improvements contemplated for this Sub-area include: • Enhancement and restoration of vegetation along the creek corridor, creek bank stabilization and fishing habitat enhancements. • Enhancements to the walkway between Vail Village and the Park to include improvements such as seating, art installations, etc. • Design and installation of park entry features at the three pedestrian portals to the Park along the Gore Creek Corridor. • Initiate steps to improve the physical condition of the Nature Center. These improvements are discussed in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter. Soccer Field Sub-area The Soccer Field Sub-area, while often overlooked as an element of Ford Park, provides a valuable community asset. The full-sized athletic field serves the soccer and lacrosse communities, the sand volleyball courts are heavily used and the 65-space parking lot is used year-around. A cul-de-sac at the east end of the sub-area allows in- town buses to turn around when providing express service to Ford Park. These uses should continue as they directly address the broad goals for the Park of “providing the recreational needs of the community” (1985 Plan) and is consistent with the objective of locating active recreation areas “away from the meadow and creek” (1985 Plan). Separated from the rest of Ford Park by Vail Valley Drive and physically removed from the more developed portions of the Park, the Soccer Field Sub-area does not have compatibility or relationship issues with surrounding uses or facilities. No major changes are contemplated to the existing recreational facilities in this sub-area. While no major improvements are anticipated in the near future, the Soccer Field sub- area is unique from the rest of the Park. For example, the uses and activities in this sub-area do not impact other areas of the Park, the sub-area has direct vehicular access that does not impact other park users, and the sub-area has no direct impact on 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 54 the Gore Creek Corridor. For these reasons this sub-area could be a suitable location for new park uses or buildings to meet the future needs of the Park. If or when new uses may be proposed for this sub-area, consideration should be given to applicable elements of this Plan, how the proposed use could affect surrounding uses, private covenants and other considerations. Future Improvements Potential future improvements within the Soccer Field Sub-Area include: • Expansion of the existing sand volleyball courts. • Expansion of landscape buffers. The possibility of locating an education center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens within Ford Park is discussed in the Alpine Gardens Sub-area. The preferred location for this building is along West Betty Ford Way. If the West Betty Ford Way site is subsequently determined to not be a viable location, the Soccer Field site has been determined to be a viable alternative. The potential location for this building is at the northwest corner of the sub-area. Private covenant issues (with the neighboring Northwoods Condominiums and with the Vail Village Seventh Filing) will need to be addressed prior to constructing an education center on the soccer field site. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 55 Chapter 6 - FORD PARK ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN The Ford Park Illustrative Plan provides a general description of future improvements contemplated for Ford Park. The Plan indicates the general location of the improvements, a summary of the proposed improvements and parameters or criteria to be considered in the design, development and operation of the improvement. The design parameters and criteria are of particular importance as they establish specific expectations for the proposed improvement. Conformance with these parameters and criteria is a requisite to the Town approving any improvements in the Park. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan discusses a wide range of potential improvements for the Park. The design and development of some improvements are in progress. Other these improvements are only general ideas and will need further study and design, an example being the installation of art along the Gore Creek Corridor connection to Vail Village to enhance the walking experience. Other improvements are not viable in the near-term but could be viable at some point in the future, examples being structured parking under the athletic fields or a Frontage Road roundabout at the west end of the Park. It is not the intention of this Plan that only those improvements depicted on the Illustrative Plan may be proposed for the Park. Improvements not depicted on the Illustrative Plan may be proposed and will be reviewed relative to their conformance with the goals, objectives and policies for the Park and the applicable Ford Park Sub- areas. It should also be noted that the improvements being depicted on the Illustrative Plan does not ensure if or when they will be implemented. Any improvement proposed for the Park is subject to approval by the Vail Town Council and further review by the Town’s review boards prior to being implemented. This review may involve the Planning and Environmental Commission (Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan review) and the Design Review Board prior to being implemented. On the following page is the Ford Park Illustrative Plan and descriptions of future improvements that may be made to the Park. This Plan includes numbers which identify future improvements to the Park. Narrative descriptions of these improvements follow. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 56 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 57 Improvement #1 – Gore Creek Corridor Restoration There are a number of areas within the Gore Creek corridor where erosion, over-use or other factors have disturbed or otherwise adversely impacted existing vegetation. A restoration program should be implemented to improve vegetation along the creek corridor. Restoration will improve the visual quality of this area and improve water quality by preventing erosion. A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent restoration is needed. Following completion of this assessment, a detailed landscape plan for the restoration of the corridor should be prepared and implemented. A parallel effort should be to evaluate the condition of the creek bank in order to identify the potential need for stream bank stabilization to protect the bank from erosion. Another opportunity to consider for Gore Creek is how pools or other features could be created in the creek to improve the quality of fishing or potentially improve the creek for other uses. A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent these improvements may be feasible. Following completion of this assessment a detailed improvement plan for the creek corridor could be prepared. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective 1.3, Action Step 1.3.2. Improvements #2 – Gore Creek Village Connector The Gore Creek corridor between the west end of Ford Park and Slifer Square provides important pedestrian access to and from the Park and Vail Village (and the Vail Village Parking Structure). Enhancing the walking experience along this connection will improve its effectiveness as an alternative means of accessing the Park. The installation of seating areas, creek overlooks and public art are examples of improvements that could be made to animate this walkway. All Any future improvements shall be outside of wetland areas, the 100-year flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas. An inventory of the creek corridor to identify such areas should be completed prior to initiating any improvements. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.2. Improvement #3 – Entry Monuments at Park’s pedestrian entries Pedestrians arrive to Ford Park from one of seven existing entries as identified on the Illustrative Plan. Currently there is inadequate signage or other features identifying 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 58 these locations as entry points to the Park. The goal of this improvement is to formally identify these portals and announce them as gateways, or arrival points to Ford Park. Landscape features, signage, bollards, monuments, archways or other design features, or some combination thereof, could be used to identify these locations. Landscape enhancements to areas proximate to these entries may also be appropriate. A design process is necessary to determine design solutions for these improvements. While specific solutions for these park entry improvements could vary between locations, all should share a common design vocabulary. It will also be important to locate these improvements in a way that compliments the adjacent pedestrian corridor and does not compromise pedestrian circulation. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.3. Improvement #4 – Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Education Center The education center is envisioned to include multi-use space for year-around educational programs and other activities, a greenhouse and limited administrative space. Below are design, development and operational parameters and/or criteria to be considered in the detailed design of this facility. • Building and site improvements provide adequate clearances from existing utility lines and drainage improvements and when necessary such lines or improvements are relocated to provide adequate clearances. • A building of not more than approximately 3,5000 square feet of useableof gross floor area. • Building designed with a that is low-scale in appearance, that does not visually dominate the surrounding area and does not visually loom over West Betty Ford Way. • Provide appropriate horizontal separation from West Betty Ford Way and from the children’s playground in order to not diminish the quality of this walkway these spaces. • Ability to construct the project in a manner that does not adversely impact other facilities or uses in the Park. • A viable access management plan designed to minimize to the greatest extent feasible the number and frequency of vehicles accessing the education center. It is acknowledged that a service vehicle or delivery vehicle may occasionally need to drive to the center. However, daily or frequent vehicle access by staff or patrons of the center will not be permitted 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 59 • Acceptable emergency vehicle access to the building and identification of any site improvements necessary to accommodate such access. • Identify the anticipated parking demand from the building and how it will be addressed. No parking shall be provided at the building. • Adequate storage space to meet the operational needs of the building and to minimize the need for vehicle trips to the building. • Coordination with the Vail Recreation District on the need to expand fencing at the athletic fields to protect the building from errant balls. • Evaluate the feasibility of providing public restrooms within the center (see Improvement #7 in Illustrative Plan – Children’s Playground Restrooms) Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.2. The site plan and cross-section are conceptual studies for how a building could be designed on this site. While provided by the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, these sketches do not represent a development or design proposal. They are merely depictions of how the building could be designed and there is no implied approval of the concepts depicted below. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 60 Improvement #5 – Nature Center Over the years a number of additions and modifications have been made to the nature center building. Many of these changes have altered the historic character of this building. An assessment of the building should be completed in order to understand steps that could be taken to restore the architectural integrity of this building and the surrounding area. A current deficiency of the Nature Center is the lack of restroom facilities. If the building is to be renovated consideration should be given to how restrooms could be incorporated into the building. Other improvements to the Nature Center include, re- claiming the informal parking areas proximate to the building and taking steps to limit vehicular access to the site. These site improvements would most efficiently be designed in conjunction with the evaluation of the building. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.5, Action Step 2.5.1-2.4.3. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 61 Improvement #6 – Ford Amphitheater Entry Upgrade/Public Plaza The Vail Valley Foundation has proposed plans for transforming the existing Amphitheater entry into a re-designed and re-purposed Public Plaza. The plaza is intended to provide a more gracious and more functional entry to the amphitheater. The design intent and objective of this improvement is to create a multi-use outdoor space that serves as the primary arrival for the Amphitheater as well as a pre-convene and post-function space during scheduled events. The Public Plaza would also provide a venue for smaller gatherings hosted by other park leaseholders and also be open for public use when not being used for scheduled events. Other elements of the Public Plaza include a tensile roof covering, a tribute to the Ford Family, a small stage within the courtyard, a new donor wall, enhancements to the concession building and ticket windows, and new entry gates to the Amphitheater. Parameters and criteria to be considered: • Plaza design should be done to facilitate/not encumber truck turning movements necessary to provide loading/delivery to the Amphitheater. • Plaza design should be sensitive to and integrated with immediately adjacent improvements at the Alpine Gardens. • Trees removed to accommodate the Public Plaza should be re-located within the Park and to the extent feasible be relocated proximate to the amphitheater. • The space should be available for use by the public when not being used for private functions. • The space should be available for gatherings that support other Park stakeholders (TOV, VRD, BFAG and AIPP). • Any structures/roof elements associated with the public plaza should harmonize with the Amphitheater, not dominate the surrounding area, and conform to the Town’s park design guidelines. • Any fencing that may be required to define the courtyard space or for liquor license or other purposes should be subtle and visually unobtrusive. Landscape materials should be used to soften the appearance of the fence. • A viable management plan for minimizing vehicular access to the social courtyard (employees, service vehicles, deliveries, etc.), and for servicing the facility in a manner that minimizes impacts on pedestrian use of Betty Ford Way. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.1. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 62 Improvement #7 – Children’s Playground Restrooms The playground restrooms provide facilities for the entire Lower Bench. These facilities are under-sized and in need of upgrade and expansion to meet current demand. When designed, the new bathroom building should be one level and be sized no larger than necessary to meet the needs of park users. The location currently considered for the new restrooms is west of the existing facility where play apparatus are currently located. New play apparatus will be provided with the removal of the existing restroom building. The building should not encroach on the adjacent open turf area. The adjoining Alpine Gardens Sub-area identifies a site along West Betty Ford Way and next to the playground for the development of an alpine gardens education center. The potential to incorporate restrooms for playground users within the alpine garden education center should be evaluated. The goal of this approach is to minimize the number of buildings in the Park. Coordination between the Town and the Alpine Gardens will be necessary in order to evaluate the feasibility of this idea. Improvement #8 – Betty Ford Way The central portion of Betty Ford Way between the Covered Bridge and the Amphitheater is envisioned to be a “feature pedestrian corridor”. This pedestrian way will be treated with a higher level of design, surface materials, lighting, seating, etc. Enhancements to Betty Ford Way will improve a park visitor’s experience to and through the lower bench of the park. It is anticipated that the existing path will be widened from approximately 10 feet to between 11 and 13 feet to accommodate the multiple user types that visit the park at peak use times and to reduce conflicts when Amphitheater/golf cart shuttles share the path with pedestrians. The path surface will be replaced with finer textured, higher quality pavements such as colored concrete, stone or concrete pavers. Seating areas with benches at select locations along the path, landscape enhancements, lighting and wayfinding may also be incorporated into this design. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #5, Objective 4.3, Action Step 4.3.1. Improvement #98 – Betty Ford Way Traffic Control While it is acknowledged that the Alpine Gardens, the Amphitheater and other uses in the Lower Bench require vehicular access, an underlying goal for the Park is to minimize vehicular traffic in this area. Betty Ford Way provides car and truck access to this area. As a means for better regulating traffic into the Lower Bench, the installation of gates, bollards or other improvements will be necessary at either end of Betty Ford Way. In addition to improvements designed to limit car and truck access to the lower 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 63 bench, a system for managing large truck use on East Betty Ford Way should also be explored. This section of Betty Ford Way is essentially a one-lane road. The purpose of this effort is to prevent two trucks from utilizing East Betty Ford Way at the same time. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #3, Objective 3.2, Action Step 3.2.3. Improvement #10 – Frontage Road Round-about The 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update recommends a “future access to Ford Park” with a roundabout along the Frontage Road at the west end of the Park. This roundabout would address two things – it could provide access to a future underground parking garage and it could provide a means of “u-turning” (eastbound to westbound) vehicles exiting from the Village Parking Structure. The Plan states that this roundabout would be done “in association with parking additions” at the Park. The Town recently studied the feasibility of developing a parking structure below the athletic fields and for a variety of reasons this idea was determined to not be feasible. Development of the roundabout will likely not be initiated until such time parking beneath the fields is pursued. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 64 Chapter 7- PARK MANAGEMENT Four organizations play a role in the management and operation of Gerald R. Ford Park. The Town of Vail is the owner of the Park and manages the community park on the Lower Bench, the stream tract, parking lot areas and pedestrian corridors. In addition, the Town provides park management and coordination with the Park’s three leaseholders. The leaseholders manage and operate their respective facilities: The Vail Recreation District lease includes the Tennis Center, athletic fields and land that includes the Nature Center. The Tennis Center Building is on land owned by the Town but was developed and funded by the VRD. VRD offers environmental education and research opportunities at the Nature Center. The Vail Valley Foundation manages and maintains the Ford Amphitheater and immediate surrounding grounds. The amphitheater seats up to 2,500 people and is scheduled an average of 60 days during the summer months. The Betty Ford Alpine Gardens manages the Gardens. The Gardens have developed in four phases that began in 1987. In its role as the overall park manager, the Town addresses a variety of management and operational considerations. Often times this requires the involvement of different town departments and town commissions and boards. Ultimately the Vail Town Council is asked to review and approve management practices. The Town involves one or more of the Park leaseholders when addressing these management topics and in some cases the lease agreements with the Recreation District, the Vail Valley Foundation and the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Foundation address these topics. Below is a list of park management topics the Town is responsible for: • Parking – Management of parking spaces, allocation of spaces to leaseholders, rates at times pay-parking is implemented, etc. • Special events on parking lot, athletic fields and open turf area – coordination with promoters of events, scheduling, pre and post-event operations, etc. • Park Calendar – While not responsible for scheduling events within leaseholder facilities, the Town coordinates (with leaseholders) a comprehensive events schedule for the Park. • Transportation – management of transit operations between the Park and the Vail Transportation Center, including periodic implementation of a Golden Peak bus route. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 65 • AIPP projects – The review of art programs and installations in the Park. • Proposals for new uses, new building or changes to the Park – The review of any proposed change to the Park will involve the Vail Town Council and may also involve the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, AIPP and the Commission on Special Events. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 66 Chapter 8 - APPENDIX An extensive number of documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park planning efforts have been assembled. Due to the volume of this material, these documents are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Material found in the Supplemental Appendix includes: 1. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, authorizing the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. 2. The Vail Plan, 1974. 3. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, naming the property commonly known as the Antholz Ranch to Gerald R. Ford Park. 4. The Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report, 1985. 5. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, this resolution designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. 6. Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988, amending the 1985 Master Plan to add four tennis courts and to change the location of the aquatics center. 7. Ford Park Management Plan, 1997. 8. Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012. 9. BFAG Building Site Evaluation Matrix. 10. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens – Site Evaluation, Martin/Martin, August 15, 2013. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan An Element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan November, 2013 Resolution No. 14, Series 2013 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Prepared for: The Town of Vail Prepared by: Town of Vail Department of Community Development and Braun Associates, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Vail Town Council Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Andy Daly, Mayor Bill Pierce, Chair Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-tem Henry Pratt, Co-Chair Jenn Bruno Susan Bird Dale Bugby Luke Cartin Dave Chapin Pam Hopkins Greg Moffet Michael Kurz Margaret Rogers John Rediker Former Vail Town Council Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley Susie Tjossem Vail Recreation District Vail Valley Foundation Art in Public Places Betty Ford Alpine Gardens 11/19/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Site Assessment/Existing Conditions 5 3. History of the Park and Previous Planning Efforts 9 4. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps 18 5. Ford Park Sub-Areas 34 6. Illustrative Plan 52 7. Park Management 61 8. Appendix 63 Due to the volume of material, the information listed below is provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. • Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, authorizing the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. • The Vail Plan, 1974 • Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, naming the property commonly known as the Antholz Ranch to Gerald R. Ford Park. • The Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report, 1985 • Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, designating the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. • Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988, amending the 1985 Master Plan to add four tennis courts and to change the location of the aquatics center. • Ford Park Management Plan, 1997 • Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012 • BFAG Building – Site Evaluation Matrix, 2013 • Betty Ford Alpine Gardens – Site Evaluation, August 15, 2013 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 1 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan November 2013 “Whereas, President Gerald R. Ford has brought to the Town of Vail his interest and encouragement; has shown through his private life and public life a commitment to recreation, the environment and places set aside therefor; and believes that a statement of the community’s appreciation and respect for Gerald R. Ford is appropriate and called for; that the property commonly referred to as the Antholz Ranch is hereby named the Gerald R. Ford Park.” Resolution approved by Vail Town Council, January 18, 1977 Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION The Town of Vail acquired the 38 acre Anholtz Ranch in 1973 for the stated purpose of “creating a major recreation facility for the total town” (The Vail Plan, 1974). Since that time the property has increased in size to more than 47 acres and has evolved into one of Vail’s most widely used and highly cherished assets. The evolution of the Antholz Ranch to what has become Ford Park was originally contemplated by one of Vail’s earliest planning efforts: “The intended use program is a comprehensive one and eventually the park will include an impressive number of facilities in addition to extensive open turf space and the delight of the natural earth forms and mature tree growth adjacent to Gore Creek.” The Vail Plan, 1974 The goal of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan (the Plan) is to maintain the essence of what Ford Park (the Park) is today and what was envisioned for the Park in 1974 – a combination of natural open space along the Gore Creek corridor coupled with recreational, social and cultural uses and facilities to serve the needs of residents and guests of Vail. The primary purposes of this Plan are to protect the Park from over development, to define expectations for the use of the Park, and to assist the Town in decision-making regarding capital improvements and other changes proposed to the Park. Only those changes deemed to be in compliance with applicable elements of this Plan will obtain approvals from the Town. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 2 The Town has completed four planning efforts for the Park. These plans have directly influenced the development of Ford Park and each has contributed to the role the Park plays in the community. These previous planning efforts were: 1974 Vail Plan – While the primary purpose of this plan was to address Vail’s growth and development, it did include a chapter on recreation and defined at a very broad level the role Ford Park could play in providing recreational, cultural and community-oriented uses. 1985 Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report – At the time this plan was prepared; ballfields, tennis courts, and parking had already been developed and construction of an amphitheater had commenced. The purpose of this plan was to “guide the future development of the park and establish guidelines for the implementation of improvements” (1985 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan). 1997 Ford Park Management Plan – This plan was initiated in response to several development proposals for the Park. The plan was a product of extensive focus group and public input sessions and in essence served as an amendment to the 1985 plan. 2012 Update to the Ford Park Management Plan – This plan was done to acknowledge improvements proposed for the Park that were initiated when Vail voters approved re-allocating a portion of the Convention Center Funds to Ford Park. Summaries of these previous plans are found in Chapter 3. While the impetus for these planning efforts varied, each involved extensive community input, debate, and at times, controversy. These planning processes revealed the community’s intense passion for the Park as town staff, elected officials and the public worked to find the appropriate levels of development and activity for the Park. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan presents a compilation of these previous planning efforts along with new direction and ideas that have evolved from this latest planning effort. The primary objectives of this Plan are to: • Incorporate key elements of previously completed plans for Ford Park into one document, specifically those guiding principles that have successfully shaped the development of the Park from its inception, 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 3 • Establish clear expectations for the future use, development and management of the Park, • Protect the Park from over-use and over-development; • Define effective tools for decision-making regarding the future of the Park, and • Provide a single, comprehensive document to serve as the master plan for the Park. With the adoption of this Plan, previous plans for Ford Park will be archived and no longer used as guides for future decision-making or planning for the Park. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan will serve as the Town’s sole planning document for the Park. The development of Ford Park has evolved over a number of decades. While the majority of the Park is developed, and notwithstanding the most recent phase of improvements to the Park, there is no reason to think that the Park will not continue to evolve in the future. This Plan was prepared with the expectation that it will provide the community with a document to guide the use and development of the Park for the next ten years. That said, it is likely that during this time new ideas or issues not addressed by this Plan will arise, be they proposals for enhancements to existing facilities, the development of new facilities, or new uses for the Park. This is to be expected as the needs of the community will change over time and as they do changes to the Park may be appropriate. As dialogue and debate occur regarding any changes to the Park, it is critical that decisions made by the Town maintain the essence of what Ford Park is, why it was established, and how it provides environmental, recreational, educational, cultural or social benefits to the community. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 14, Series 2013 by the Vail Town Council following recommendation from the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Future amendments to this Plan may be initiated by the Vail Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or members of the community. Any such amendment proposal shall be reviewed by the Vail Town Council following recommendation from the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Elements of this Plan This Plan includes the following chapters: 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 4 1. Introduction The section provides an introduction to the plan, the purpose of this planning effort and outlines the major elements of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan. 2. Site Assessment and Existing Conditions This section explains how site and surrounding conditions influenced the initial planning and design of the Park. 3. History of the Park and Previous Planning Efforts The 1997 Plan has provided the basis for this history and background of the Park and the summaries of the four previous planning efforts that have taken place. Site plans of the Park produced during these planning efforts are to provide a history and context for how the Park has evolved over the years. 4. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps While the 1997 Plan provided a framework for this section, the goals, objectives, policies and actions steps have been refined to better express the current vision for the Park. 5. Ford Park Sub-Areas Seven sub-areas are used to describe specific areas of the Park, their unique features, the role they play in the Park, how they will be managed and provide recommendations for improvements that could occur in the future. 6. Illustrative Plan The 2013 Illustrative Plan is a refinement of the 2012 Illustrative Plan; it depicts existing improvements and at a general level describes improvements that may occur in the future. 7. Park Management This chapter provides a brief summary of the various management and operational aspects of the Park that are managed by the Town of Vail. 8. Appendix Documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park planning efforts are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 5 Chapter 2 - SITE ASSESSMENT/EXISTING CONDITIONS Located immediately east of Vail Village, the proximity of Ford Park to Vail Village and the convenient access it affords residents and guests is one of the Park’s most significant attributes. This is no coincidence as the 1974 Vail Plan documented how the location of Ford Park was a key factor in it being purchased for a community park and in defining the initial vision for the Park to be a major center of cultural and recreational activity for the community. “all properties of significant size within the Town limits were researched and the recommendation made that the Anholtz property, adjacent to development at the east end of the Village, was the only site satisfying the recreational uses anticipated. Selection criteria included such factors as ease of walking distance from the Village, adequate space within a single parcel for large, meadow-like turf areas, proximity to the Frontage Road for simple and direct access by autos or buses, natural beauty such as the Gore Creek provides, and directness of connection to major bicycle and pedestrian trails.” The Vail Plan, 1974 When purchased, the original Anholtz property was +/-38 acres. Today, Ford Park is approximately 47.1 acres. The four areas of the Park and their acreages are depicted below: Ford Park, 2013 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 6 In January of 1977, Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, was passed re-naming the Anholtz Ranch to the Gerald R. Ford Park. A copy of this resolution is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Existing Conditions In the past forty years many improvements have been made to Ford Park. Foremost among these are athletic fields, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, a children’s playground, the Vail Nature Center, the Vail Tennis Center and parking and transit facilities. Infrastructure necessary to serve the Park is largely in place and vehicle and pedestrian access to and within the Park has been established. With the exception of the Gore Creek Corridor, the majority of the Park has been improved with buildings, facilities or other related site improvements. Access and circulation is a key factor in how the Park functions. On-site parking is provided, but in keeping with the original concept for the Park the amount of parking is limited to +/-200 spaces along the Frontage Road and +/-65 spaces at the Soccer Field. Parking for major Park events is provided in the Town’s parking structures. Access from these structures to the Park is provided by pedestrian corridors and the Town’s transit system. Pedestrian access is provided via the Gore Creek Trail, a sidewalk along the South Frontage Road and by two bridges in the Golden Peak neighborhood. The Park’s main transit stop is located on the South Frontage Road with additional stops on Vail Valley Drive. These stops are served by the in-town shuttle and by dedicated express bus service during special events. Site Characteristics and Park Design Physical characteristics of the land and the relationship of the Park to surrounding uses and facilities influenced the earliest design concepts for the Park. Significant influences in the early design of the Park include the South Frontage Road (that establishes the north boundary of the Park), Gore Creek and adjoining wetland and riparian habitat (that run the entire length of the Park), site topography, vegetation and views. Topography of the main portion of the park between the Frontage Road and Gore Creek includes a prominent and well-defined grade change that creates an “upper bench” and “lower bench”. Over time this grade change, created in large part by grading from the construction of Interstate 70, became a point of demarcation for the predominantly active recreation uses on the Upper Bench and the cultural and passive recreation uses on the Lower Bench. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 7 Much of Ford Park was initially developed without the benefit of a detailed design or development plan. The 1974 Vail Plan did, however, set the stage for the future of the Park by defining a number of basic design parameters for how the Park could be developed. There are many examples of how these basic design parameters and existing site characteristics directly influenced the design and development of the Park. Parking and Transit These facilities were located on flat terrain immediately adjacent to the South Frontage Road and on the perimeter of the Park. This location minimizes the impacts of vehicles on other areas of the Park. Athletic Fields Fields along the Frontage Road were located on what at that time was the Park’s broadest expanse of relatively flat terrain. Not only did the fields “fit” on this portion of the Park, the flat terrain minimized the need for site grading and associated site disturbance. The fields also provide a buffer between highway noise and other quieter areas of the Park. The Amphitheater The Amphitheater essentially straddles the grade transition between the Upper and Lower Bench. This location allowed the Amphitheater to utilize sloping terrain to create terraced seating areas within the Amphitheater. This location also affords stunning views to the Gore Range. Nature Center The Nature Center is located within the relatively undeveloped Gore Creek Corridor. The natural character of the creek corridor provides a fitting location for the environmental education programs offered by the Nature Center. The 1985 Ford Park Master Plan spoke eloquently about the philosophy of good park design and the role site conditions and characteristics should play in the design process. “Compatibility of the park development within the environment is the most significant aspect of the master plan. The existing landscape is an integral part of each plan and not merely a backdrop against which the plans are staged. This is essentially necessary with parklands, for there we expect the landscape to be stable, pleasant and above all, functional. Accordingly, the planning and design 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 8 process was founded on a sound understanding of the features and dynamics of the park site environment. Just as a tapestry is woven from many threads of different colors, textures and strengths, so the landscape is composed of a variety of components such as slopes, soils, plant communities and aquatic features. Each of these must be identified and described, but more than that, the role of each must be understood as a dynamic entity so that limitations and opportunities can be properly understood. This involves the translation of forms, such as slopes and soil type, into processes, such as runoff and soil leeching, and the definition of critical inter- relationships among them.” 1985 Ford Park Master Plan Integrating improvements with the landscape in order to create a pleasant and functional park should be the goal of any park design. While developed without the benefit of a comprehensive, detailed design plan, the major elements of the Park have been located and designed in a manner that is very responsive to site conditions and other influences. Ford Park today reflects many elements of the original vision for the Park as outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan and as further defined by the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 9 Chapter 3 - HISTORY OF FORD PARK and PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS During the past forty years the Town of Vail has completed four major planning efforts for Ford Park. This chapter summarizes the purpose, process and outcome for each of these planning efforts and provides information on the history and development of Ford Park. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973 (a copy of which is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix), authorized the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. At that time the 38-acre park site represented the last remaining parcel of undeveloped land central to use by all residents and visitors of the Vail community. The ordinance listed a variety of possible uses for the property including the following: • for park and greenbelt purposes, • to preserve the natural and physical character of the area to be condemned, • for bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails, • for children’s playground, • for performing arts and civic center, • for a ski lift and related facilities, • for picnic areas, • for recreational facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, gymnasium, ice skating rink, • for theater and assembly halls, convention center, public schools, • for possible exchange or trade of condemned land, or a portion thereof, with other property which may exactly meet the needs of the town, and • to construct and maintain water works, transportation systems, and other public utilities relating to public health, safety, and welfare. The four major planning efforts for Ford Park include: The Vail Plan, 1974 The Vail Plan was completed in August of 1973 and adopted in 1974 (a copy of this plan is found in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix). In the early ‘70’s Vail pressures from growth and development were radically changing the character of Vail and the primary purpose of the Vail Plan was to help the town respond to growth pressures with the goal of “creating a recreationally-based community of individuality, beauty and pleasure that can be unique in the United States” (The Vail Plan, 1974). The plan included a chapter on the Town’s recreation system. The Antholz Ranch 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 10 property was mentioned as “the only site capable of satisfying the anticipated recreational needs of the community” (The Vail Plan, 1974). The Vail Plan’s vision for the Antholz Ranch was to create a “major community park- cultural center.” A wide range of potential uses for the park were identified: • a place for showing and creating art, crafts, etc., • an indoor theater and an 800 seat outdoor amphitheater, • meeting rooms and community workshops, • wide outdoor terraces and natural landscapes • indoor ice arena, • tennis and handball courts • children’s play facilities and space for family activities, • headquarters for the Annual Vail Symposium and local television, • a possible location for an ecologium (nature center), and • a grammar school. As a balance to this extensive program of uses and facilities for the Park, the Vail Plan contemplated the preservation of the Gore Creek corridor as a passive, quiet place to enjoy the natural beauty of the site. The plan called for 200 surface parking spaces to meet the daily parking needs of the park. Parking for major events was planned to be provided in the Vail Transportation Center with town transit and various trails and bikeways providing alternative means to access the Park. The Vail Plan also depicted a potential road connection at the east end of the park that would link the Frontage Road with Vail Valley Drive. While the Vail Plan did not include a detailed design plan for the Park, the conceptual site plan below provided a vision for how the Park could be developed. A number of existing park improvements reflect some of the basic concepts from the 1974 Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 11 Conceptual Plan for Ford Park, Vail Plan, 1974 Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan, 1985 In August of 1985 the Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report was adopted by the Vail Town Council (a copy of this plan and Resolution No. 19, Series of 1985 is found in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix). When the 1985 planning process was initiated, improvements in the Park were limited to athletic fields, tennis courts and parking. A foundation for an amphitheater was in place but this project was not yet completed. At that time the very eastern end of the Park along the Frontage Road was utilized as a snow-dump. The purpose of the 1985 plan was to prepare a more detailed plan for the future development of the park and to establish guidelines for the implementation of park improvements. The master planning process included a Recreation Needs Analysis Survey and extensive community input via workshops and community meetings. The outcome of these efforts was an indication of the type and extent of improvements the community wanted to see in the Park. Alternative site plans were considered and a final, preferred plan was selected. This final plan included a swimming pool complex, “neighborhood park improvements” (on the Lower Bench), a pond/skating rink (on the Lower Bench), and the realignment of the eastern softball field. Development of the neighborhood park improvements on the lower bench were completed in 1988 and 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 12 included restrooms, playground area, open turf area, picnic facilities, and the west access road. The first major structure to be constructed in the Park, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, was completed in July of 1987 and shortly thereafter a Parking and Transit Study for the Amphitheater was completed. This study made five recommendations: 1. the Village Structure should be considered the major parking facility for Ford Park (with improvements to the signs, sidewalks, and bus service being necessary); 2. extend shuttle bus service to the soccer field; 3. disallow Frontage Road parking; 4. construct a vehicle turn-around and passenger unloading area at Ford Park; and 5. do not schedule concurrent events in the Park. These recommendations validated many of the recommendations for parking and transit outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan. Ford Park Master Plan, 1985 The 1985 Plan identified a location for an alpine garden and in 1989 the first phase of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens was completed. Since that time a number of expansions to the Gardens have been completed, including the Perennial Garden, the Meditation Garden, and the Alpine Rock Garden. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 13 Following approval of the 1985 Master Plan the following steps were taken regarding the planning of Ford Park: Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, was passed on November 3, 1987. This resolution designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. Vehicular traffic was to be restricted and certain policies and procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities were established by the resolution. (a copy of resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix). In December of 1988, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (Now the Vail Recreation District) and the Town of Vail, requested an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. The two phase amendment was adopted by Council as Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988. A copy of the resolution is included in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Phase one of the amendment was to allow the construction of four additional tennis courts. Phase two of the amendment changed the proposed location of an aquatic facility to the eastern softball field. Funding of the aquatic facility was rejected by voters in a special election on February 6, 1989. Vail Town Council was presented with a petition to delete all reference to an aquatics center from the Ford Park Master Plan in April of 1990. No record of Council action on the petition was found. While the tennis center building is not mentioned in the Master plan amendment, the VRD did receive a Conditional Use Permit for the project on May 8, 1990. The Vail Village Master Plan, adopted in 1990, addresses Ford Park as a specific study area. This plan acknowledged the use of the Park to accommodate overflow skier and local parking needs. It recommended that the Park be studied further as a site for additional skier parking to serve expansion of the eastern side of Vail Mountain. Action Step #5 under Goal #5 states: Study the feasibility of an underground (recreation fields would remain) parking structure in Ford Park. The Parking and Circulation Plan (an element of the Vail Village Master Plan), identified the western portion of the upper bench for potential parking beneath the Park, and called for separated bike/pedestrian ways along the South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive. The Vail Transportation Master Plan, completed in 1993, states that the existing Ford Park Parking area (at the east end of the Park) should be considered for a possible 2-level parking facility with the second level below existing grade. Ford 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 14 Park and the athletic field parking area are also listed as two possible sites for over-sized vehicles if the lot east of the Lionshead Structure becomes developed. Ford Park Management Plan, 1997 The planning process that resulted in the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan process was initiated in June of 1995 in response to several development proposals which had been formally and informally discussed for the Park. These development proposals included an Educational Center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, a cultural/performing arts center, expansion of the tennis facility, athletic field fencing, and a community parking structure. This planning process was also seen as a means for addressing park management issues such as parking deficiencies, Frontage Road access, pedestrian access and circulation, access for the elderly and mobility impaired, utilization of the lower bench, conflicts between uses within the Park, conflicts with adjacent property owners, and the delineation of financial responsibilities. At the time the project was authorized the Vail Town Council expressed concern that a new master plan for Ford Park could result in an excessive amount of new development. In response, staff noted the intention of the project was to create a management plan as a means to adequately and consistently evaluate development proposals, with the goal of limiting development and protecting the character of the Park. Park leaseholders, two neighborhood representatives and town staff served as the Stakeholder Group for the planning process and a third party facilitator was retained to coordinate this effort. The Stakeholder Group developed alternative design solutions addressing parking, vehicular access, Frontage Road improvements, additional sports facilities and management policies. These plans were presented to the public in an open house at the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater in June of 1996. The open house presentation was a turning point in the process of developing the Management Plan. Several residents were alarmed by the alternatives included in the presentation and initiated a grass-roots movement to place a referendum on any future expansion/development within the Park. This strong public reaction, combined with a lack of closure within the Stakeholders Group, prompted the Vail Town Council to revise the process to include more community involvement. Three Focus Group meetings and public input sessions were held throughout the fall of 1996. The results of the focus groups and public input sessions and a preliminary master plan framework were presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council in late 1996. Following these meetings staff was directed to proceed with 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 15 drafting the management plan as an amendment to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan based on the input received and presented. The management plan was adopted in April of 1997. Major elements of the plan were six goal statements along with objectives, policies and actions steps intended to define the future direction for the Park. The 1997 Plan also included an Illustrative Plan that identified a number of future improvements. Foremost among these was identifying a site next to the Soccer Field parking lot for an Educational Center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. Following approval of the 1997 Management Plan the following related actions were taken regarding the planning of Ford Park: Goal #4 of the Vail Village Plan Master Plan (as amended in 1998) addressed the preservation of “existing open space areas and expansion of green space opportunities.” An action step associated with this goal is to “explore the feasibility of expanding Ford Park to the west to Vail Valley Drive and/or Slifer Plaza along the Gore Creek stream tract to provide improved pedestrian and handicapped access to the Park.” The 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan identified a wide range of roadway improvements designed to accommodate traffic levels anticipated to meet 2025 demands. One of these improvements contemplates a roundabout at the west end of Ford Park to “serve as a means of “u-turning” (eastbound to westbound) and to potentially serve a future parking structure.” 2012 Management Plan Update In 2012 the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan was updated to reflect numerous improvements proposed for the Park. Plans to improve the Park were initiated when Vail voters approved re-allocating a portion of the +/-$9,000,000 Convention Center Funds to Ford Park. The other stakeholders in the Park also participated in the funding of these improvements. The 2012 Update maintained the general direction for the Park as established by the 1997 Management Plan. With only a few exceptions, the 2012 Update suggested no significant changes to the uses, facilities and activities that currently take place in the Park. One exception was the 2012 Update included the development of an Education Center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens along Gore Creek adjacent to the main entry to the Gardens. All of the existing major uses in the Park – athletic fields, passive recreation, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, the Alpine Gardens and Tennis Center were to remain in place. The Update did not change any of the six major goal 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 16 statements (or related objectives, policy statements and action steps) in the 1997 Management Plan. 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update The most significant changes in the 2012 Update are found in the Illustrative Plan chapter of the Plan. The Illustrative Plan provided conceptual site plan diagrams and narrative explanations of improvements suggested for the Park. Many of these improvements were first identified in the 1997 Plan, others evolved out of discussions with the Vail Town Council, stakeholders and the community during the winter of 2012. Many of these improvements were initiated in 2012 and 2013. Foremost among them were the major re-modeling of the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, re-construction of East Betty Ford Way, improvements to the parking and transit area, expansion and re- configuration of the athletic fields and new concession and storage buildings associated with the fields. A copy of the 2012 Management Plan Update is found in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 17 Time Line of Ford Park Activities: April 1973 Condemnation of Anholtz Ranch, Ordinance 6, 1973 August 1973 Completion of Vail Plan January 1977 Anholtz Ranch named Gerald R. Ford Park, Resolution 1, 1977 August 1985 Completion of Ford/Donovan Park Master Plan, July 1987 Amphitheater construction completed August 1987 Alpine Demonstration Garden completed November 1987 Preservation of Nature Center, Resolution 27, 1987 December 1987 Vail Valley Foundation lease signed November 1988 Lower Bench improvements completed December 1988 Ford Park Master Plan amendment by VRD, Resolution 44, 1988 December 1988 Service agreement with VRD, Resolution 46, 1988 May 1989 Tennis Center receives Conditional Use Permit July 1989 Alpine Perennial Garden completed January 1990 Completion of Vail Village Master Plan February 1990 Aquatic Center rejected by voters in special election April 1990 Council petitioned to delete Aquatic Center from Master Plan May 1990 Tennis Center construction completed June 1991 Alpine Meditation Garden completed April 1993 Completion of Vail Transportation Master Plan December 1993 Vail Recreation District agreement renewed June 1994 Vail Alpine Garden Foundation license agreement signed. June 1995 Town begins Ford Park Management Plan October 1996 Council allows Betty Ford Alpine Gardens to proceed through process with Educational Center plans at Soccer Field parking lot April 1997 Ford Park Management Plan adopted 1999 Lease with Vail Valley Foundation renewed 2008 Lease with Vail Recreation District renewed 2009 Vail Transportation Plan Update completed November 2011 Voters approve use of Conference Center Funding for Ford Park Improvements May 2012 Completion of 2012 Update to Ford Park Management Plan 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 18 Chapter 4 - GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTION STEPS This plan includes five statements that convey the community’s goals for Ford Park. These goal statements provide broad direction on the preservation of the Park, how the Park should be used, vehicles, pedestrian circulation, coordination between park users and financial considerations relative to operations and capital improvements. Each goal statement includes a series of objectives, policies and action steps. Collectively these statements reflect input from the Vail Town Council, the community and leaseholders during the 2013 master plan update process. These statements will be used to provide guidance in decision-making on the management and use of the Park. The goals, objectives and policies of this Plan will be considered during the review process for any new development, changes or improvements proposed for the Park. Only those proposals deemed to be in compliance with these statements (and other applicable elements of this Plan) will gain approvals. Project proposals deemed to not comply with these statements and other applicable elements of this Plan will be denied. This chapter includes thirty-six action steps. In some cases action steps involve a single, defined task intended to implement an objective or policy statement. An example of this would be initiating refinements to the park design guidelines specific to Ford Park. Other action steps involve on-going tasks. An example would be the coordination and management of events in the Park. The Community Development Department, with participation from the Public Works Department, will prioritize action steps and present recommendations annually to the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding that year’s work program for implementing action steps. The Planning and Environmental Commission will provide a recommendation on the work program that will be forwarded to the Vail Town Council who will make final decisions on the work program along with any necessary budget expenditures. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 19 Goal #1: Protect the natural environment along the Gore Creek corridor and ensure that any new use or building within the Park does not adversely affect the character and quality of the Park or the overall experience of park users. Objective 1.1: Limit uses and future development to that which is consistent with these goals, objectives and policies and is consistent with the Ford Park Sub-Areas and Illustrative Plan. Policy Statement 1: Maintain the variety of uses and facilities currently located within the Park. Policy Statement 2: Proposals for new (or changes to existing) facilities or uses that would displace existing public uses will not be permitted unless there is either a compelling public interest or adequate alternative facilities can be provided. Objective 1.1 Action Steps: Action Step 1.1.1: Draft a new ordinance to exclude those uses listed in Ordinance No.6, Series of 1973, now considered to be inappropriate, and to redefine the allowable uses within Ford Park. The following uses that are allowed and prohibited for Ford Park shall take precedence over Section 12-9C-2 of the Vail Town Code concerning the General Use Zone District: Allowed Uses Park and greenbelt Bicycle and hiking trails Children’s playground Active recreation Passive recreation Outdoor amphitheater Botanical gardens Educational centers Historical center Picnic areas Recreation and athletic facilities Public utility easements Parking (surface parking/structured parking) 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 20 Administrative offices for the operation of uses occurring within the Park Public Art Display Concerts and Special Events Venues Prohibited uses Ski lift and related facilities Civic center, convention/conference center, public schools, gymnasium, and assembly hall Equestrian trails Type III and IV employee housing Action Step 1.1.2: Town of Vail will review legal descriptions of existing lease areas in consultation with the Vail Recreation District, the Vail Valley Foundation and the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and modify, as deemed necessary, so legal descriptions correspond with existing and proposed improvements and uses. Objective 1.2: Maintain all facilities and uses in the Park at a high level of quality and establish appropriate review procedures, review criteria and design standards for evaluating any new development proposals or other proposed changes to the Park are clearly established. Policy Statement 1: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or uses shall conform to the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan, including but not limited to: • Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements, • Sub-Area Plans, and • Illustrative Plan. Policy Statement 2: Any new development or change to existing Park facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with Section 12-11-6 Park Design Guidelines of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as well as other applicable Town regulations. Policy Statement 3: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or uses shall provide a needed environmental, recreational, educational, cultural or social benefit to the community. Policy Statement 4: Maintain and operate existing facilities, uses and functions within the Park at a high standard of quality reflective of the Vail Brand. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 21 Objective 1.2 Action Steps: Action Step 1.2.1: With participation of all Park stakeholders, Town staff to prepare standards which outline expectations regarding the appearance, maintenance, and operation of facilities within the Park. Action Step 1.2.2: Evaluate the park design guidelines in Section 11-12-6 of the Vail Town Code and modify as necessary to address design considerations specific to Ford Park. Objective 1.3: Preserve and protect the environmentally sensitive areas along the Gore Creek Corridor. Policy Statement 1: Uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor shall be limited to only those prescribed in the Gore Creek Preservation Sub- area. Policy Statement 2: No new buildings should be permitted within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area. Policy Statement 3: Any new improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor shall consider the 100-year floodplain and minimize impacts to wetland or riparian habitats. Objective 1.3 Action Steps: Action Step 1.3.1: Evaluate the merits of strengthening preservation controls within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area via a conservation easement or the Natural Area Preservation Zone District “Open Space” designation. Action Step 1.3.2: Inventory existing conditions of the creek bank and vegetation within the Gore Creek corridor, initiate programs to stabilize or restore these areas as may be necessary. Objective 1.4: Utilize Ford Park as a showcase for environmental sensitivity and sustainability. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 22 Policy Statement 1: Encourage all lease holders and events at the Park to implement comprehensive recycling programs. Policy Statement 2: Sustainable design and environmentally “friendly” materials and construction methods should be utilized on all new development within the Park. Policy Statement 3: Maintain, protect and enhance the environmental character of natural open space areas. Policy Statement 4: New improvements within the Park and the ongoing management of the Park should be done using sound environmentally sensitive practices. Objective 1.5: Limit the number and scale of buildings and structures within the Park to no more than necessary to meet the needs of park operations and to provide appropriate services and facilities to park users. Policy Statement 1: As an alternative to new buildings, encourage shared or joint-use buildings and/or facilities among Park lease-holders. Policy Statement 2: The design of new buildings or structures shall be integrated with the land with a subtle, understated, low-profile in appearance so as to not dominate the Park’s landscape. Policy Statement 3: Park stakeholders may have administrative office space within the Park, provided that such space is limited in size to no more than what is necessary only for the management and operation of facilities and uses located within the Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 23 Goal #2: Provide open space, facilities, and programs within Ford Park to meet the passive and active recreational, educational, social and cultural needs of residents and guests of Vail. Objective 2.1: Provide open space areas within the Park for the passive enjoyment of nature and to reinforce the Park’s connection to the natural environment. Policy Statement 1: Preserve the “delight of the natural earth forms and mature tree growth adjacent to Gore Creek” (The Vail Plan, 1974) found within Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area and limit uses and activities within this area. Policy Statement 2: The primary use of the open turf area within the Commons Sub-Area should be to provide a place for un-programed and informal passive recreation. The use of this area for special events should be limited in frequency and scope in order to minimize impacts on the primary use of this area. Objective 2.1 Action Steps: Action Step 2.1.1: Establish management and operational policies for special events within the open turf area of the Commons Sub-area. Action Step 2.1.2: Identify key viewsheds from strategic locations within the Park and as may be necessary, establish designated view corridors to ensure the protection of these viewsheds. Objective 2.2: Utilize Ford Park to meet the community’s needs for active recreation and formal team sport activities. Policy Statement 1: The Active Recreation and Soccer Field Sub-Areas shall be managed first and foremost to provide facilities for active recreation and team sports. Policy Statement 2: Landscape berms and buffers around active recreation areas should be maintained and enhanced to mitigate potential impacts of noise and activity on other sub-areas of the Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 24 Objective 2.3: Maintain, and enhance where appropriate, the role of the Park in providing facilities for the enjoyment and exploration of the arts, music, dance, education and other cultural pursuits. Policy Statement 1: Maintain the Ford Amphitheater as a principle summer-time performing arts facility in the Town of Vail. Policy Statement 2: Support the Art in Public Places Board in its efforts to continue public art programs (i.e. interactive events, projects, art installations, educational activities, etc.) within the Creekside area of the Commons Sub-area (and other areas of the Park as may be deemed appropriate). Policy Statement 3: Support the educational programs provided at the Nature Center and the programs provided by the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. Objective 2.3 Action Steps: Action Step 2.3.1: Work with the Vail Valley Foundation on their efforts to create a new “public plaza” at the entry to the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater. Action Step 2.3.2: Work with the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens on their proposal to create an educational and visitor center within the Park. Action Step 2.3.3: Promote and support the use of the Nature Center and surrounding area as a center for environmental education programs. Objective 2.4: Enhance the use of the Historic School House and preserve the historic character of the building. Policy Statement 1: Maintain public access to the School House and continue the utilization of the building in accordance with the terms of the lease with the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. Objective 2.4 Action Steps: Action Step 2.4.1: Evaluate alternative uses for the School House that will maintain public access and potentially involve the display of historic photos and artifacts or other activities in keeping with the historic nature of the building. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 25 Action Step 2.4.2: Complete an architectural assessment of the School House and establish a plan to protect and enhance the historic character of the building. Objective 2.5: Enhance and restore the Nature Center building and the landscape surrounding the building. Policy Statement 1: Limit vehicular access to only those vehicles necessary for the operation of the building and educational programs. Policy Statement 2: Uses proximate to the Nature Center should be limited and shall be consistent with the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-Area. Policy Statement 3: Restore the architectural and historical character of the Nature Center building. Objective 2.5 Action Steps: Action Step 2.5.1: Work with the Vail Recreation District to implement measures for controlling vehicular access to the Nature Center building. Action Step 2.5.2: Complete an architectural inventory of the Nature Center building to define steps that could be taken to restore the historic character of the building. Action Step 2.5.3: Eliminate the parking areas around the Nature Center building and reclaim these areas to a natural landscape condition. Action Step 2.5.4: Prepare a master plan and an operations/management plan for the Nature Center facility and surrounding area. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 26 Goal #3: Reduce vehicular intrusions into the interior of the Park and minimize to the greatest extent feasible the impact of vehicular activity on users of the Park, particularly on the passive use areas of the Lower Bench and along pedestrian walkways. Objective 3.1: Reduce the presence and frequency of vehicular trips into the Lower Bench (the Lower Commons, Gardens, Amphitheater and the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-Areas) of the Park. Policy Statement 1: Proposals for any new facility or use or the expansion of any existing facility or use in the Lower Bench shall not generate an unnecessary or appreciable increase in vehicular activity in the Lower Bench area of the Park. Policy Statement 2: Uses in the Lower Bench shall operate in a manner that limits vehicular traffic to the greatest extent possible. Vehicular access to the Lower Bench of the Park should be limited to: maintenance; delivery of goods or materials too large or too heavy to be carried by non-motorized means; use of golf carts or similar means to provide access for people with limited mobility; and emergency services. Policy Statement 3: Require all delivery vehicles to utilize East Betty Ford Way to enter and exit the Lower Bench. Due to difficulties in maneuvering, large trucks (semi’s) shall access the Lower Bench via East Betty Ford Way and may exit via West Betty Ford Way. Policy Statement 4: Passenger vehicle access to the Alpine Gardens, the Amphitheater, AIPP programs or other uses in the Lower Bench shall not be permitted other than vehicles used to provide access for people with limited mobility or to deliver goods or materials too heavy to be carried by non-motorized means. Objective 3.1 Action Steps: Action Step 3.1.1: Establish a system (i.e. signage, control gates, electronic controls) for managing truck movements proximate to the Amphitheater loading dock and for coordinating truck use of East Betty Ford Way. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 27 Action Step 3.1.2: Coordinate delivery schedules to reduce the frequency of delivery and service vehicles into the Lower Bench during peak use time periods. Action Step 3.1.3: Require stakeholders to utilize on-site storage facilities to reduce and control the frequency of delivery and service vehicles into the Park. Action Step 3.1.4: Improve traffic gate operations and restrictions on both the east and west ends of Betty Ford Way to eliminate unnecessary and unauthorized vehicular intrusions into the Park. Consider closing the western access point of Betty Ford Way to all vehicles except trucks too large to utilize East Betty Ford Way (for exiting the Park). Objective 3.2: Utilize the Parking/Transit Sub-area as the primary means for satisfying the Park’s parking and transit needs. Policy Statement 1: All stakeholders are required to adhere to the Parking and Transit Management Plan. Policy Statement 2: There shall be a “no-net loss” of the +/-200 parking spaces within the Parking/Transit Sub-Area and the +/-65 spaces at the Soccer Field Sub-area. Any net loss of parking spaces shall only be considered when off-set by a demonstrated improvement or enhancement of public transit use or alternate means of transportation to the Park. Policy Statement 3: Provide parking for daily park-use within the Parking/Transit Sub-Area and utilize the Vail Village Parking Structure to satisfy peak parking demands of the Park. Policy Statement 4: Maintain a central trash/dumpster/recycling facility within the Parking/Transit Sub-area and mandate all Park leaseholders use the central facility. Objective 3.2 Action Steps: Action Step 3.2.1: Town Staff, with coordination from Park stakeholders, shall prepare a Parking and Transit Management Plan, to include, but not be limited to the use and access of parking lots, fee structures, transit operations, etc. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 28 Action Step 3.2.2: As demand warrants, continue operation of the In-Town bus route beyond Golden Peak to provide service along Vail Valley Drive. Action Step 3.2.3: Implement an improved wayfinding sign program directing pedestrians from the Village Parking Structure and Slifer Square in Vail Village. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 29 Goal #4: Provide a safe, enjoyable and efficient pedestrian circulation system within Ford Park and between Ford Park and Vail Village. Objective 4.1: Provide clear and effective directional and informational signs to and within Ford Park. Objective 4.1 Action Steps: Action Step 4.1.1: Develop a comprehensive sign plan to direct Ford Park visitors from Vail Village and from each level of the Village Parking Structure to destinations within Ford Park. Objective 4.2: Encourage and promote park users to access the Park via pedestrian routes from Vail Village and the Vail Transportation Center. Policy Statement 1: The five existing pedestrian access points to the Park from Vail Village and Golden Peak should be maintained and enhanced to maximize their effectiveness in providing access to the Park. Policy Statement 1: Encourage leaseholders in Ford Park to utilize their marketing efforts to promote walking, biking and the use of Town buses as an alternative to driving to the Park. Objective 4.2 Action Steps: Action Step 4.2.1: Implement enhancements to the Gore Creek Trail that will improve safety, grading, surfacing, and lighting. Action Step 4.2.2: Evaluate opportunities for additional seating areas, public art and other features to enhance the walking experience along the Vail Village Connector (within the Gore Creek Sub-area) and where appropriate provide rest/sitting areas along all pedestrian routes to the Park. Action Step 4.2.3: Establish gateways or portals (signage, monuments, landscape elements, etc.) at the main entries to the Park (Frontage Road, Gore Creek Trail, Manor Vail, Slifer Plaza, Vail Valley Drive and the Parking/Transit Sub-area). 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 30 Objective 4.3: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park. Policy Statement 1: New developments or other improvements in the Park shall not diminish the quality of the pedestrian circulation system and when appropriate shall include provisions to improve pedestrian circulation. Policy Statement 2: Existing ADA routes should be enhanced and where feasible new ADA access within the Park should be established. Objective 4.3 Action Steps: Action Step 4.3.1: Upgrade the portion of Betty Ford Way within the Commons Sub-area to create a high quality pedestrian corridor with improved surface materials, lighting, seating and landscaping. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 31 Goal #5: Maintain compatible relationships between all venues and all uses within Ford Park. Objective 5.1: Manage the carrying capacity of the Park by scheduling events to prevent overlapping or simultaneous events that exceed the availability of community parking or other park infrastructure. Policy Statement 1: The Town of Vail through its designee shall coordinate with leaseholders an annual schedule for events and uses at all Ford Park venues. Policy Statement 2: No one event or type of use will be allowed to dominate the usage of the Park. Policy Statement 3: The Park is a Town of Vail community facility and in the case of conflicting uses, functions that best serve the interests of the community will have the highest priority. In all cases, final decisions regarding the use of the Park shall rest with the Town of Vail. Policy Statement 4: The day-to-day management and coordination of activities in the Park will be assigned to the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail, through its designee, will coordinate as necessary with representation from the Vail Valley Foundation, the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and the Vail Recreation District. Objective 5.1 Action Steps: Action Step 5.1.1: Expand the master schedule kept by the Town Clerk to include all venues within the Park. Action Step 5.1.2: Hold preseason event/activity coordination meetings with all affected stakeholders. Action Step 5.1.3: Hold semiannual (or as deemed necessary) coordination and input meetings with the Town of Vail, leaseholder representatives, and neighborhood and adjacent property owner representatives. Objective 5.2: Provide sufficient separation, berms and landscape buffers between facilities and uses. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 32 Policy Statement 1: The adequacy of berms and landscape buffers between different facilities and uses shall be considered when evaluating proposed changes to the Park. The type and extent of buffers to be provided shall be determined based on the nature of the use, the site design of the proposed facilities or uses, and the design parameters outlined in the Ford Park Sub-Areas and the Illustrative Plan. Policy Statement 2: Maintain and where necessary improve existing berms and landscaping between facilities and uses. Objective 5.2 Action Steps: Action Step 5.2.1: Enhance existing landscape buffers between tennis courts adjacent to the Active Recreation Sub-area and the Parking/Transit Sub-area and evaluate the need to enhance landscape buffers between other uses throughout the Park. Objective 5.3: Foster a spirit of cooperation between all leaseholders within the Park regarding their use of the Park and how to collectively use and manage the Park for the benefit of all. Policy Statement 1: Encourage the shared use of buildings and facilities. Policy Statement 2: Decisions regarding proposals for new buildings or improvements are to be made in the best interest of the Park and the Vail community, not just in the interest of the leaseholder. Objective 5.4: Establish a capital improvement plan for the Park and equitably share the costs of park management and operations with Park lease-holders. Policy Statement 1: All Ford Park leaseholders shall participate in cost sharing with the Town of Vail for common operating costs at a level proportionate to the leaseholders benefit from or relationship to said operation or management cost. (or as may be outlined in current lease or license agreement). Management and operations cost may include but are not limited to, electrical for pedestrian path and parking lot lighting, trash removal, and parking lot and pedestrian path maintenance costs. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 33 Objective 5.4 Action Steps: Action Step 5.4.1: Town staff to complete an inventory of existing park operations and associated costs, and in conjunction with park leaseholders, quantify the level of benefit realized by each leaseholder from such operations. Action Step 5.4.2: Research current lease, license and use agreements to determine existing financial responsibilities of each lease holder. Action Step 5.4.3: With input from the Vail Town Council, work with leaseholders to modify existing leases to correct any inequities in utility billing procedures and distribution systems, current utility use, and cost sharing relationships. Action Step 5.4.4: Create and maintain a five-year capital improvements program for Ford Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 34 Chapter 5 - FORD PARK SUB-AREAS “The basic structure of Ford Park is comprised of two broad terraces, or benches as locally referred to, which step down the north side of the Gore Creek and is typical of mountain, valley and stream physiography.” 1985 Ford Park Master Plan Ford Park topography/1985 Early plans for Ford Park (the Vail Plan) anticipated recreation-oriented uses (and a number of buildings) on the Upper Bench with passive open space areas and an amphitheater on the Lower Bench. Initial development of the Park included athletic fields, tennis courts and parking facilities on the Upper Bench. Decisions on locating these uses on the Upper Bench were made based on the terrain (availability of flat land) and accessibility to the Frontage Road. Passive open space and the development of an amphitheater were initiated on the Lower Bench. These plans and the early development of the Park reinforced this Upper Bench/Lower Bench distinction. Over time the Upper Bench came to be regarded as recreation-oriented while the Lower Bench was regarded as being more oriented to cultural uses and passive open space. The characterization of athletic use on the Upper Bench and passive and cultural uses on the Lower Bench remains valid today, and the terms Upper Bench and Lower Bench provide a good, albeit generalized description of the Park. However, to discuss the 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 35 future of Ford Park in terms of just the Upper and Lower Bench does not acknowledge the many subtleties and distinctions throughout the Park that need to be considered in this master planning process. It is for this reason that sub-areas are used to more clearly articulate the goals and objectives for specific areas of the Park. Sub-areas are intended to provide a forum for defining the unique areas of the Park, where improvements or changes may be acceptable and where improvements and changes may not be acceptable. The seven sub-areas described below were defined based primarily on the existing uses and site characteristics within the Park. In some cases, sub-areas define one single use. Examples of these include the Amphitheater and Alpine Gardens Sub-areas. In other cases sub-areas include a number of related uses. Examples of these are the Gore Creek Preservation and the Commons Sub-areas. In many cases the pedestrian corridors that link the sub-areas and facilitate the movement of people throughout the Park are used as boundaries between sub-areas. The sub-area boundaries were defined based on a variety of considerations. They should not be considered hard, inflexible parcel lines. It is reasonable to anticipate that when considering future improvements for the Park some latitude with the location of a sub-area boundary may be appropriate. Any consideration to modify a sub-area boundary shall be made in the context of the goals for the Park and for that particular sub-area. The use of sub-areas to better understand how the Park functions and to express how the Park may change in the future is not an attempt to divide the Park into parts. Rather, the sub-areas provide an effective means for discussing the unique areas of the Park in the context of the goals and objectives for the entire Park. With Ford Park the adage “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” clearly applies. The diagram below depicts the seven sub-areas defined for the Park. The narrative that follows addresses the following considerations for each sub-area: • Existing uses and facilities, • The role the sub-area plays in the overall context of the Park, • The relationship of the sub-area to adjoining sub-areas, • Improvements or changes that may be appropriate at some point in the future, • Any parameters or other limitations relevant to the future uses and activities within the sub-area, and • Any other considerations. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 36 Sub-area discussions address the Park at a fairly broad, master planning level. More specific discussion of potential future improvements that may be appropriate for the Park is found in the Illustrative Plan Chapter of this Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 37 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 38 Parking/Transit Sub-area The Parking/Transit Sub-area provides on-site parking for the Park and includes a transit stop, a passenger car drop-off area and a central trash/storage facility. Strategically located along the South Frontage Road and on the periphery of other park facilities and uses, this sub-area plays a vital role in how the Park functions by separating parking and vehicles from other areas of the Park. The transit facility is a key component of the Park by facilitating direct bus service to the Town’s parking structures (which provide parking for peak demand days). This parking/transit concept had its origins in the original planning of the Park. “This major community park-cultural center will contain parking for more than 200 cars and will also be served directly by the Town bus system. Major parking will be accommodated in the transportation center.” Vail Plan, 1974 Since the mid-70’s the parking plan for Ford Park has been to provide daily use parking at the Park with parking for special events provided at the Town’s parking structures. This parking plan was validated by a parking and transportation study for the amphitheater completed in 1979. This parking plan remains valid today. Functional transit facilities along with pleasant, safe pedestrian corridors between the Park and the Village Parking Structure are key elements to ensure the on-going effectiveness of this parking plan. Prior to making improvements to the athletic fields in 2013 (to be completed in 2014) the Park had approximately 200 on-site parking spaces. The athletic field expansion displaced approximately 50 parking spaces at the west end of the parking lot. These 50 spaces were re-established by re-designing other portions of the parking lot, maintaining the approximately 200 on-site parking spaces. A “no net loss of parking” policy is in effect for the +/-200 on-site parking in this sub- area. Any proposed reduction to existing on-site parking spaces will only be considered in conjunction with concurrent improvements to alternative means of transportation to the Park. An example of this would be reducing the number of parking spaces in order to improve transit facilities. The parking lot was designed such that it can continue to be used for concerts and other special events. The parking lot also serves as a turn-around area used to manage local traffic when eastbound I-70 is closed. It is anticipated that both of these uses will continue. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 39 Future Improvements With parking lot and transit improvements scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2013 and spring of 2014, it is anticipated that the Parking/Transit Sub-area will adequately address the needs of the Park for the foreseeable future. Improvements that may be considered in the future include: • Design and installation of park entry features at the two pedestrian portals from the parking lot into the Park. • Installation of traffic control devices (gates or other means) at the east and west ends of Betty Ford Way. The potential improvements listed above are also described in the Illustrative Plan section of this Plan. The idea of constructing structured parking below the existing surface parking lot has been discussed in the past. This could accomplish two objectives – increase the supply of on-site parking (parking that could also address other town needs) and allow for some alternative use on top of the structured parking. On a related note is the idea of developing parking below the tennis center and re-constructing the tennis center on the surface of the structure. While structured parking in either of these locations could create opportunities for new uses on these areas of the Park, costs would be significant. Based on studies completed in 2009-2010 the Town Council at that time determined structured parking to not be feasible. If or when this idea is discussed in the future, an initial step would be to evaluate implications on the goals for the Park and if necessary initiate amendments to this Plan. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 40 Active Recreation Sub-area This sub-area is the focal point of active recreation, team sports, tournaments and other special events. The location of these uses is consistent with some of the earliest design direction established for the Park. It is expected that these uses will continue in order to meet the community’s needs for active recreation facilities. Significant plantings have created a landscape buffer between these active recreation uses and other surrounding uses. These buffers should be maintained and continually enhanced where necessary. Specific attention should be given to enhancing landscaping between the Frontage Road and the athletic fields. This improvement would provide a buffer between the Park and the road and also provide shade for spectators. Noise and other compatibility issues with use of the athletic fields and adjacent uses will need to continually be managed (refer to Goal 4 in Chapter 4 of this Plan). Future Improvements Improvements to the Active Recreation Sub-area initiated in 2012 (expected to be completed in 2014) were extensive and included expansion and re-organization of the athletic fields and construction of a new restroom/storage building and a new concession/restroom building. It is anticipated that these improvements will address the active recreation needs of the community for the foreseeable future. Potential improvements contemplated for this sub-area are: • Design and installation of park entry features at the west end of the Park along the Frontage Road and the two pedestrian portals from the parking lot. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 41 • Ongoing enhancement of the landscape buffer around the perimeter of the Sub- area. • The 2009 Town of Vail Transportation Plan contemplates a roundabout at the west end of Ford Park to “serve as a means of “u-turning” (eastbound to westbound) and to potentially provide access to a future below grade parking structure. No detailed design work on this improvement has been done, but conceptually this roundabout could be located just west of the athletic fields. The existing Tennis Center is located between the Parking/Transit Sub-area and other portions of the Park. East Betty Ford Way provides convenient and pleasant pedestrian access to the Lower Bench of the Park along the southern end of the Tennis Center. However, the tennis center presents constraints to establishing a convenient and graceful pedestrian entry between the parking/transit area and the rest of the Park. If or when the relocation of one or more tennis courts is considered, study should be given to how improved pedestrian flow and new uses could be established in this area. The Tennis Center building has been in existence for over 25 years and the design of the building is inconsistent with the architectural character of buildings recently constructed in the Park. If or when this building is to be re-developed, consideration should be given to a design more consistent with the design objectives for the Park. In addition to the design of the building, consideration should also be given to the use of the building and the potential for shared use to accommodate other Park users. The possibility of locating an education center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens within Ford Park is discussed in the Alpine Gardens Sub-area. The preferred location for this building is along West Betty Ford Way. If the West Betty Ford Way site is subsequently determined to not be a viable location, the Tennis Center site is a suitable alternative. The potential site for this building is proximate to or integrated with the Tennis Center building. Coordination and cooperation from the VRD will be necessary if this site is to be pursued. Commons Sub-area The Commons Sub-area plays an important role in the Park by providing structure, or organization to the overall design of the Park. The area provides a transition zone between other uses in the Park and Betty Ford Way, which runs through the sub-area, and provides a delightful arrival experience for pedestrians entering the Park from the West. The Commons Sub-area also provides some of the Park’s most important and popular facilities that collectively address a number of goals and objectives for the Park. Specifically, the Commons Area provides places for recreational use, public art, the 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 42 passive use and the quiet enjoyment of the Park. The sub-area also provides buffers between Park uses, a transition to the Gore Creek corridor and creates an important sense of openness within the Lower Bench. This sub-area should continue to be managed to provide the uses and park features listed above. There are no major changes contemplated to the three distinct, yet related uses that occur in this sub-area. These three uses are: Children’s Playground The playground is an immensely popular area of the Park. This use should continue. While refinements and/or upgrading of play structures and facilities within the playground may be made in the future, the basic size or “footprint” of the playground should remain unchanged. The restrooms at the playground provide facilities for the entire Lower Bench and there is a need to upgrade these facilities in the near future in order to meet the demands of park users. No other buildings are contemplated in the playground area. Open Turf Area Aside from natural open space areas along Gore Creek, the open turf area is the only area of the Park that is not programmed with organized uses and activities. It is important that this area remains open and available for informal use by patrons of the Park in the future. The area provides space for picnics, rest, informal games and other passive recreation use. The open turf area also provides an important buffer, or transition from the more actively developed areas of the Park and the Gore Creek Corridor. Given this areas adjacency to Betty Ford Way, it is critical to limit vehicles in this area of the Park in order to prevent conflicts between park users and vehicles. , The open turf area should not be reduced in size and no buildings or structures should be permitted in this area. If Betty Ford Way is improved, all streetscape improvements (lighting, landscaping, seating, etc.) should be located on the south side of the walkway so as to not reduce the size of the open turf area. In the past the southern end of the open turf area has been used for events (weddings, parties, etc.) that have involved the placement of temporary tents and other features within the open turf area. While these events may continue, the number and extent of such events should be limited and events that would monopolize the open turf area and prevent its use by other users of the Park should not be permitted. Any events in the open turf area should be managed in accordance with Park procedures, specifically to minimize the time temporary facilities are in place, minimize the number and extent of vehicles necessary to service the event, etc. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 43 Creekside Area The Creekside area is a narrow strip of land south of Betty Ford Way and north of Gore Creek. A few small structures (i.e. the “art shack, an open air picnic shelter) are located in this area. Arts in Public Places (AIPP) may pursue remodeling or enhancing the art shack at some point in the future. AIPP has placed permanent art installations in this area and also runs summer art programs in this part of the Park. Art programs may include activities such as interactive events, educational and participatory activities, and temporary art installations. The passive use and the limited number of permanent improvements within this area make it an excellent transition to the more natural, undisturbed Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area. The use and character of this area should remain unchanged. No new buildings should be permitted. New art installations may be appropriate, but if pursued, they should be done in a way that minimizes impacts to other surrounding uses and facilities and is sensitive to the natural landscape. Future Improvements Improvements contemplated for this Sub-area include: • Upgrading restroom facilities at the children’s playground. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 44 • Further enhance the buffer between the athletic fields and the children’s playground. • Additional art installations within the Gore Creek Corridor. • Upgrade to Betty Ford Way to include, decorative pavers, seating areas, lighting and other streetscape improvements. The restroom and Betty Ford Way improvements are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter. Amphitheater Sub-area An outdoor amphitheater was contemplated in original plans for Ford Park dating back to 1974. Completed in 1987, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater has evolved into Vail’s most prominent venue for music, dance and other cultural events. The facility is managed by the Vail Valley Foundation and is host to approximately 60 events each summer. The amphitheater is considered one of the community’s most important cultural assets. In 2013 the Foundation completed an initial phase of improvements to the amphitheater. Improvements included re-contouring the lawn seating, new restrooms, expansion of concession areas, and other improvements. While not a project of the Foundation, the Town of Vail recently made major improvements (decorative pavers, widening, and reduction to grade of walkway) to East Betty Ford Way. The Foundation has plans for a second phase of improvements to the Amphitheater that would create a new “public plaza” at the entry to the Amphitheater. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 45 The relationship between the Amphitheater and the neighboring athletic fields will need to be continually monitored to ensure compatibility between these (and all) park users is maintained. It is important to protect and enhance areas of existing vegetation in and around the Amphitheater and where appropriate improve the physical buffers between these uses. The implementation of noise mitigation at the north end of the amphitheater to minimizing noise impacts from the athletic fields and Interstate 70 has also been discussed. The Foundation has completed acoustic studies of the amphitheater and concluded that mitigating noise impacts from the fields and Interstate 70 would have the unintended consequence of impacting sound quality within the amphitheater. As such, noise mitigation is not being pursued. The Amphitheater is a significant generator of people and also generates a significant amount of vehicular traffic into the Lower Bench. Vehicular traffic into the Lower Bench conflicts with a number of goals and objectives for the Park. It is important for the Town and the Vail Valley Foundation to continue to work together to minimize vehicular traffic to the Amphitheater. No new uses or expansion of existing uses at the Amphitheater that would generate appreciably more vehicular traffic into this area of the Park should be permitted. Managing and limiting vehicle traffic that may result from the proposed public plaza will be an important consideration in establishing operational standards for this new facility. Future Improvements Potential improvements contemplated for the Amphitheater Sub-area include: • Development of a “public plaza” at the entry to the Amphitheater. • Restoration of the stream bank adjacent to the Amphitheater south of Betty Ford Way and east of the pedestrian bridge. • Upgrading of the fence/screening of the utility installation along Gore Creek west of the pedestrian bridge. There are a number of important parameters to be considered in the design and development of the public plaza. These parameters are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter of this Plan. Alpine Gardens Sub-area What began with completion of a demonstration garden in 1987 has evolved into a +/- 1.5 acre network of perennials, rock gardens and waterfalls hosting an array of high 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 46 alpine plants. The Betty Ford Alpine Gardens (BFAG) provides an important educational and experiential element of the Park. The gardens and the mission of the organization are in keeping with one of the original goals for Ford Park to provide environmental and educational facilities for the community. The Alpine Gardens have become one of Vail’s most popular summer attractions. The Alpine Gardens has pursued the development of an “alpine education center” in the Park for a number of years. The 1997 Ford Park Management Plan identified the location for this facility to be within the Soccer Field Sub-area. During the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update the BFAG proposed a location adjacent to Gore Creek for the education building and the 2012 Plan recommended this site for a new building. The Vail Town Council subsequently reconsidered this recommendation from the 2012 Update, and while expressing support for the BFAG to develop an educational building within the Park, initiated a new evaluation of site alternatives for the building. The Vail Town Council’s primary criterion for selecting a site for the educational center building was that it not be located on the Lower Bench. Seven sites were evaluated, three of which were determined to be viable sites for the building. The BFAG Building Site Evaluation Matrix outlines the factors considered in this evaluation. A copy is found in the Supplemental Appendix. For a variety of reasons the preferred location for this building was determined to be adjacent to West Betty Ford Way just west of the Children’s Playground. Located directly on the grade transition between the upper and lower bench, the Vail Town Council determined that this location conforms to their site selection criteria that the building not be located on the lower bench. The other two sites that were considered viable alternatives are at the Soccer Field and within the Tennis Center. These sites could still be considered if following further study it is determined that the Betty Ford Way site is not viable. The primary purpose of the building is to provide educational programs for the community and accordingly the uses within the building are expected to include rooms for interpretive displays, meeting/class rooms, a greenhouse and a limited amount of administrative space necessary to support on-site operations of the Gardens. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 47 Future Improvements Potential future improvements within the Alpine Gardens Sub-area include: • Development of an alpine gardens educational center. • Extension of gardens along the northeast entry in order to create a buffer from the adjoining athletic fields and improve pedestrian arrival to the Gardens. There are a number of important parameters to be considered in the design, development and operation of the educational center. These parameters are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter of this Plan. Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area The Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area includes the entire length of the Gore Creek Corridor that passes through the Park. The sub-area is more than 21 acres in size and is generally defined by the park boundary on the south and the 100-year flood plain, the 50-foot Gore Creek setback and/or topographic features on the north. Gore Creek, 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 48 associated wetland and riparian habitat and stands of specimen trees are the primary features of the creek corridor. Existing improvements within this sub-area are limited to bridges, trails, utility improvements and the Nature Center. The Gore Creek corridor is the Park’s most significant natural feature and provides the Park with delightful open space for the quiet enjoyment of nature. The corridor also provides a critical pedestrian link to Vail Village. The designation of this corridor as a preservation zone is in direct response to a number of goals and objectives from previous park planning efforts. The preservation of and enhancement to this area is also suggested by Goal #1 of this Plan. It is essential that adjacent uses respect the natural environment of this sub-area and that effective buffers be maintained between other more intensive uses within the Park. It is intended that existing uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-Area be maintained and in keeping with the goals of preserving this area no new buildings are to be constructed within the sub-area. Any other new uses or improvements should be limited to those that will complement the natural character of the creek corridor and will minimize impacts to this sensitive environment. Resolution No. 27 of 1987 designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area “to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history.” The resolution stipulated that “vehicular traffic is to be restricted and certain policies and procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities” should be enacted. It is acknowledged that the Nature Center will bring a certain level of activity to this sub-area. Nature Center activity should be concentrated on the “upland” portions of the Nature Center in order to minimize impacts to the creek corridor. Improvements within the sub-area should be limited to low-impact improvements such as soft surface walking paths, creek enhancements to improve fish habitat, fishing access, re-vegetation and creek/stream bank restoration projects. In all cases such improvements should be designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts (i.e. avoid wetland habitat and wetland, maintain existing natural vegetation, use of “best management practices”, etc.). The underlying goal of any new trail development and/or bridge crossing should be to improve access in order to enhance awareness of this important natural environment. Utility improvements should not be located within this sub-area unless no other practical alternative is available. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 49 The Gore Creek corridor between the main portion of Ford Park and Slifer Square provides important pedestrian access to and from the Park and Vail Village (and the Vail Village Parking Structure). This corridor is heavily travelled and provides access to the Park for many park users. Enhancing the walking experience along the corridor will ensure its effectiveness as an alternative means of accessing the Park. Fishing access to Gore Creek, while currently not an issue (i.e. excessive use from foot traffic resulting in damage to riparian areas and vegetation), could become an issue in the future. A creek access point was considered at the east end of the Nature Center (using the bus turnaround on Vail Valley Drive as an unloading area) was discussed during the 1997 Planning effort but was rejected as being contradictory to the intended use of the Nature Center. An Action Step suggested for this area (refer to Chapter 4 of this Plan) is to evaluate the benefits of establishing a conservation easement for this area or to apply the “Open Space” designation via the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. The protection afforded by either of these steps would define more permanent limitations on the use of this area and in doing so establish a degree of permanence in preserving this creek corridor. The existing condition of the Nature Center Building and the surrounding area has been a point of discussion. Potential improvements to the Nature Center are further discussion in Chapter 6 – Ford Park Illustrative Plan. Future Improvements Future improvements contemplated for this Sub-area include: • Enhancement and restoration of vegetation along the creek corridor, creek bank stabilization and fishing habitat enhancements. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 50 • Enhancements to the walkway between Vail Village and the Park to include improvements such as seating, art installations, etc. • Design and installation of park entry features at the three pedestrian portals to the Park along the Gore Creek Corridor. • Initiate steps to improve the physical condition of the Nature Center. These improvements are discussed in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter. Soccer Field Sub-area The Soccer Field Sub-area, while often overlooked as an element of Ford Park, provides a valuable community asset. The full-sized athletic field serves the soccer and lacrosse communities, the sand volleyball courts are heavily used and the 65-space parking lot is used year-around. A cul-de-sac at the east end of the sub-area allows in- town buses to turn around when providing express service to Ford Park. These uses should continue as they directly address the broad goals for the Park of “providing the recreational needs of the community” (1985 Plan) and is consistent with the objective of locating active recreation areas “away from the meadow and creek” (1985 Plan). Separated from the rest of Ford Park by Vail Valley Drive and physically removed from the more developed portions of the Park, the Soccer Field Sub-area does not have compatibility or relationship issues with surrounding uses or facilities. No major changes are contemplated to the existing recreational facilities in this sub-area. While no major improvements are anticipated in the near future, the Soccer Field sub- area is unique from the rest of the Park. For example, the uses and activities in this sub-area do not impact other areas of the Park, the sub-area has direct vehicular access that does not impact other park users, and the sub-area has no direct impact on the Gore Creek Corridor. For these reasons this sub-area could be a suitable location for new park uses or buildings to meet the future needs of the Park. If or when new uses may be proposed for this sub-area, consideration should be given to applicable elements of this Plan, how the proposed use could affect surrounding uses, private covenants and other considerations. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 51 Future Improvements Potential future improvements within the Soccer Field Sub-Area include: • Expansion of the existing sand volleyball courts. • Expansion of landscape buffers. The possibility of locating an education center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens within Ford Park is discussed in the Alpine Gardens Sub-area. The preferred location for this building is along West Betty Ford Way. If the West Betty Ford Way site is subsequently determined to not be a viable location, the Soccer Field site has been determined to be a viable alternative. The potential location for this building is at the northwest corner of the sub-area. Private covenant issues (with the neighboring Northwoods Condominiums and with the Vail Village Seventh Filing) will need to be addressed prior to constructing an education center on the soccer field site. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 52 Chapter 6 - FORD PARK ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN The Ford Park Illustrative Plan provides a general description of future improvements contemplated for Ford Park. The Plan indicates the general location of the improvements, a summary of the proposed improvements and parameters or criteria to be considered in the design, development and operation of the improvement. The design parameters and criteria are of particular importance as they establish specific expectations for the proposed improvement. Conformance with these parameters and criteria is a requisite to the Town approving any improvements in the Park. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan discusses a wide range of potential improvements for the Park. The design and development of some improvements are in progress. Other these improvements are only general ideas and will need further study and design, an example being the installation of art along the Gore Creek Corridor connection to Vail Village to enhance the walking experience. Other improvements are not viable in the near-term but could be viable at some point in the future, examples being structured parking under the athletic fields or a Frontage Road roundabout at the west end of the Park. It is not the intention of this Plan that only those improvements depicted on the Illustrative Plan may be proposed for the Park. Improvements not depicted on the Illustrative Plan may be proposed and will be reviewed relative to their conformance with the goals, objectives and policies for the Park and the applicable Ford Park Sub- areas. It should also be noted that improvements being depicted on the Illustrative Plan does not ensure if or when they will be implemented. Any improvement proposed for the Park is subject to approval by the Vail Town Council and further review by the Town’s review boards prior to being implemented. This review may involve the Planning and Environmental Commission (Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan review) and the Design Review Board prior to being implemented. On the following page is the Ford Park Illustrative Plan and descriptions of future improvements that may be made to the Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 53 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 54 Improvement #1 – Gore Creek Corridor Restoration There are a number of areas within the Gore Creek corridor where erosion, over-use or other factors have disturbed or otherwise adversely impacted existing vegetation. A restoration program should be implemented to improve vegetation along the creek corridor. Restoration will improve the visual quality of this area and improve water quality by preventing erosion. A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent restoration is needed. Following completion of this assessment, a detailed landscape plan for the restoration of the corridor should be prepared and implemented. A parallel effort should be to evaluate the condition of the creek bank in order to identify the potential need for stream bank stabilization to protect the bank from erosion. Another opportunity to consider for Gore Creek is how pools or other features could be created in the creek to improve the quality of fishing or potentially improve the creek for other uses. A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent these improvements may be feasible. Following completion of this assessment a detailed improvement plan for the creek corridor could be prepared. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective 1.3, Action Step 1.3.2. Improvements #2 – Gore Creek Village Connector The Gore Creek corridor between the west end of Ford Park and Slifer Square provides important pedestrian access to and from the Park and Vail Village (and the Vail Village Parking Structure). Enhancing the walking experience along this connection will improve its effectiveness as an alternative means of accessing the Park. The installation of seating areas, creek overlooks and public art are examples of improvements that could be made to animate this walkway. Any future improvements shall be outside of wetland areas, the 100-year flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas. An inventory of the creek corridor to identify such areas should be completed prior to initiating any improvements. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.2. Improvement #3 – Entry Monuments at Park’s pedestrian entries Pedestrians arrive to Ford Park from one of seven existing entries as identified on the Illustrative Plan. Currently there is inadequate signage or other features identifying 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 55 these locations as entry points to the Park. The goal of this improvement is to formally identify these portals and announce them as gateways, or arrival points to Ford Park. Landscape features, signage, bollards, monuments, archways or other design features, or some combination thereof, could be used to identify these locations. Landscape enhancements to areas proximate to these entries may also be appropriate. A design process is necessary to determine design solutions for these improvements. While specific solutions for these park entry improvements could vary between locations, all should share a common design vocabulary. It will also be important to locate these improvements in a way that compliments the adjacent pedestrian corridor and does not compromise pedestrian circulation. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.3. Improvement #4 – Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Education Center The education center is envisioned to include multi-use space for year-around educational programs and other activities, a greenhouse and limited administrative space. Below are design, development and operational parameters and/or criteria to be considered in the detailed design of this facility. • Building and site improvements provide adequate clearances from existing utility lines and drainage improvements and when necessary such lines or improvements are relocated to provide adequate clearances. • A building of approximately 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. • Building designed with a low-scale appearance that does not visually dominate the surrounding area and does not loom over West Betty Ford Way. • Provide appropriate horizontal separation from West Betty Ford Way and from the children’s playground in order to not diminish the quality of these spaces. • Ability to construct the project in a manner that does not adversely impact other facilities or uses in the Park. • A viable access management plan designed to minimize to the greatest extent feasible the number and frequency of vehicles accessing the education center. It is acknowledged that a service vehicle or delivery vehicle may occasionally need to drive to the center. However, daily or frequent vehicle access by staff or patrons of the center will not be permitted 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 56 • Acceptable emergency vehicle access to the building and identification of any site improvements necessary to accommodate such access. • Identify the anticipated parking demand from the building and how it will be addressed. No parking shall be provided at the building. • Adequate storage space to meet the operational needs of the building and to minimize the need for vehicle trips to the building. • Coordination with the Vail Recreation District on the need to expand fencing at the athletic fields to protect the building from errant balls. • Evaluate the feasibility of providing public restrooms within the center (see Improvement #7 in Illustrative Plan – Children’s Playground Restrooms) Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.2. The site plan and cross-section are conceptual studies for how a building could be designed on this site. While provided by the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, these sketches do not represent a development or design proposal. They are merely depictions of how the building could be designed and there is no implied approval of the concepts depicted below. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 57 Improvement #5 – Nature Center Over the years a number of additions and modifications have been made to the nature center building. Many of these changes have altered the historic character of this building. An assessment of the building should be completed in order to understand steps that could be taken to restore the architectural integrity of this building and the surrounding area. A current deficiency of the Nature Center is the lack of restroom facilities. If the building is to be renovated consideration should be given to how restrooms could be incorporated into the building. Other improvements to the Nature Center include, re- claiming the informal parking areas proximate to the building and taking steps to limit vehicular access to the site. These site improvements would most efficiently be designed in conjunction with the evaluation of the building. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.5, Action Step 2.5.1-2.4.3. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 58 Improvement #6 – Ford Amphitheater Entry Upgrade/Public Plaza The Vail Valley Foundation has proposed plans for transforming the existing Amphitheater entry into a re-designed and re-purposed Public Plaza. The plaza is intended to provide a more gracious and more functional entry to the amphitheater. The design intent and objective of this improvement is to create a multi-use outdoor space that serves as the primary arrival for the Amphitheater as well as a pre-convene and post-function space during scheduled events. The Public Plaza would also provide a venue for smaller gatherings hosted by other park leaseholders and also be open for public use when not being used for scheduled events. Other elements of the Public Plaza include a tensile roof covering, a tribute to the Ford Family, a small stage within the courtyard, a new donor wall, enhancements to the concession building and ticket windows, and new entry gates to the Amphitheater. Parameters and criteria to be considered: • Plaza design should be done to facilitate/not encumber truck turning movements necessary to provide loading/delivery to the Amphitheater. • Plaza design should be sensitive to and integrated with immediately adjacent improvements at the Alpine Gardens. • Trees removed to accommodate the Public Plaza should be re-located within the Park and to the extent feasible be relocated proximate to the amphitheater. • The space should be available for use by the public when not being used for private functions. • The space should be available for gatherings that support other Park stakeholders (TOV, VRD, BFAG and AIPP). • Any structures/roof elements associated with the public plaza should harmonize with the Amphitheater, not dominate the surrounding area, and conform to the Town’s park design guidelines. • Any fencing that may be required to define the courtyard space or for liquor license or other purposes should be subtle and visually unobtrusive. Landscape materials should be used to soften the appearance of the fence. • A viable management plan for minimizing vehicular access to the social courtyard (employees, service vehicles, deliveries, etc.), and for servicing the facility in a manner that minimizes impacts on pedestrian use of Betty Ford Way. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.1. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 59 Improvement #7 – Children’s Playground Restrooms The playground restrooms provide facilities for the entire Lower Bench. These facilities are under-sized and in need of upgrade and expansion to meet current demand. When designed, the new bathroom building should be one level and be sized no larger than necessary to meet the needs of park users. The location currently considered for the new restrooms is west of the existing facility where play apparatus are currently located. New play apparatus will be provided with the removal of the existing restroom building. The building should not encroach on the adjacent open turf area. The adjoining Alpine Gardens Sub-area identifies a site along West Betty Ford Way and next to the playground for the development of an alpine gardens education center. The potential to incorporate restrooms for playground users within the alpine garden education center should be evaluated. The goal of this approach is to minimize the number of buildings in the Park. Coordination between the Town and the Alpine Gardens will be necessary in order to evaluate the feasibility of this idea Improvement #8 – Betty Ford Way Traffic Control While it is acknowledged that the Alpine Gardens, the Amphitheater and other uses in the Lower Bench require vehicular access, an underlying goal for the Park is to minimize vehicular traffic in this area. Betty Ford Way provides car and truck access to this area. As a means for better regulating traffic into the Lower Bench, the installation of gates, bollards or other improvements will be necessary at either end of Betty Ford Way. In addition to improvements designed to limit car and truck access to the lower bench, a system for managing large truck use on East Betty Ford Way should also be explored. This section of Betty Ford Way is essentially a one-lane road. The purpose of this effort is to prevent two trucks from utilizing East Betty Ford Way at the same time. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #3, Objective 3.2, Action Step 3.2.3. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 60 Chapter 7- PARK MANAGEMENT Four organizations play a role in the management and operation of Gerald R. Ford Park. The Town of Vail is the owner of the Park and manages the community park on the Lower Bench, the stream tract, parking lot areas and pedestrian corridors. In addition, the Town provides park management and coordination with the Park’s three leaseholders. The leaseholders manage and operate their respective facilities: The Vail Recreation District lease includes the Tennis Center, athletic fields and land that includes the Nature Center. The Tennis Center Building is on land owned by the Town but was developed and funded by the VRD. VRD offers environmental education and research opportunities at the Nature Center. The Vail Valley Foundation manages and maintains the Ford Amphitheater and immediate surrounding grounds. The amphitheater seats up to 2,500 people and is scheduled an average of 60 days during the summer months. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens manages the Gardens. The Gardens have developed in four phases that began in 1987. In its role as the overall park manager, the Town addresses a variety of management and operational considerations. Often times this requires the involvement of different town departments and town commissions and boards. Ultimately the Vail Town Council is asked to review and approve management practices. The Town involves one or more of the Park leaseholders when addressing these management topics and in some cases the lease agreements with the Recreation District, the Vail Valley Foundation and the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens address these topics. Below is a list of park management topics the Town is responsible for: • Parking – Management of parking spaces, allocation of spaces to leaseholders, rates at times pay-parking is implemented, etc. • Special events on parking lot, athletic fields and open turf area – coordination with promoters of events, scheduling, pre and post-event operations, etc. • Park Calendar – While not responsible for scheduling events within leaseholder facilities, the Town coordinates (with leaseholders) a comprehensive events schedule for the Park. • Transportation – management of transit operations between the Park and the Vail Transportation Center, including periodic implementation of a Golden Peak bus route. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 61 • AIPP projects – The review of art programs and installations in the Park. • Proposals for new uses, new building or changes to the Park – The review of any proposed change to the Park will involve the Vail Town Council and may also involve the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, AIPP and the Commission on Special Events. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 62 Chapter 8 - APPENDIX An extensive number of documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park planning efforts have been assembled. Due to the volume of this material, these documents are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Material found in the Supplemental Appendix includes: 1. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, authorizing the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. 2. The Vail Plan, 1974. 3. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, naming the property commonly known as the Antholz Ranch to Gerald R. Ford Park. 4. The Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report, 1985. 5. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, this resolution designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. 6. Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988, amending the 1985 Master Plan to add four tennis courts and to change the location of the aquatics center. 7. Ford Park Management Plan, 1997. 8. Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012. 9. BFAG Building Site Evaluation Matrix. 10. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens – Site Evaluation, Martin/Martin, August 15, 2013. 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Amending Section 13-7-8 of the Vail Town Code Regarding Recovery of Costs in Enforcement Actions and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. BACKGROUND: The Town Council desires to amend the Vail Town Code to provide for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in successful court actions to enforce violations of Section 13-7-8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 16 Series of 2013 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 16 SERIES 2013 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13-7-8 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE REGARDING RECOVERY OF COSTS IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 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 have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend the Vail Town Code to provide for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in successful court actions to enforce violations of Section 13-7-8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 13-7-8.B.2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three (3) times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, and which may be collected by foreclosure on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restriction shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, and the town prevails in such litigation, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award the townsuch party its court costs together with reasonable attorney fees incurred. 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 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 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 5th day of November, 2013 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 19th day of November, 2013, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 15th day of November, 2013. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (8:35 p.m.) 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 61 • AIPP projects – The review of art programs and installations in the Park. • Proposals for new uses, new building or changes to the Park – The review of any proposed change to the Park will involve the Vail Town Council and may also involve the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, AIPP and the Commission on Special Events. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 62 Chapter 8 - APPENDIX An extensive number of documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park planning efforts have been assembled. Due to the volume of this material, these documents are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Material found in the Supplemental Appendix includes: 1. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, authorizing the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. 2. The Vail Plan, 1974. 3. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, naming the property commonly known as the Antholz Ranch to Gerald R. Ford Park. 4. The Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report, 1985. 5. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, this resolution designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. 6. Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988, amending the 1985 Master Plan to add four tennis courts and to change the location of the aquatics center. 7. Ford Park Management Plan, 1997. 8. Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012. 9. BFAG Building Site Evaluation Matrix. 10. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens – Site Evaluation, Martin/Martin, August 15, 2013. 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Amending Section 13-7-8 of the Vail Town Code Regarding Recovery of Costs in Enforcement Actions and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. BACKGROUND: The Town Council desires to amend the Vail Town Code to provide for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in successful court actions to enforce violations of Section 13-7-8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 16 Series of 2013 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 16 SERIES 2013 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13-7-8 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE REGARDING RECOVERY OF COSTS IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 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 have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend the Vail Town Code to provide for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in successful court actions to enforce violations of Section 13-7-8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 13-7-8.B.2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three (3) times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, and which may be collected by foreclosure on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restriction shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, and the town prevails in such litigation, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award the townsuch party its court costs together with reasonable attorney fees incurred. 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 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 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 5th day of November, 2013 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 19th day of November, 2013, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 15th day of November, 2013. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (8:35 p.m.) 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 42 passive use and the quiet enjoyment of the Park. The sub-area also provides buffers between Park uses, a transition to the Gore Creek corridor and creates an important sense of openness within the Lower Bench. This sub-area should continue to be managed to provide the uses and park features listed above. There are no major changes contemplated to the three distinct, yet related uses that occur in this sub-area. These three uses are: Children’s Playground The playground is an immensely popular area of the Park. This use should continue. While refinements and/or upgrading of play structures and facilities within the playground may be made in the future, the basic size or “footprint” of the playground should remain unchanged. The restrooms at the playground provide facilities for the entire Lower Bench and there is a need to upgrade these facilities in the near future in order to meet the demands of park users. No other buildings are contemplated in the playground area. Open Turf Area Aside from natural open space areas along Gore Creek, the open turf area is the only area of the Park that is not programmed with organized uses and activities. It is important that this area remains open and available for informal use by patrons of the Park in the future. The area provides space for picnics, rest, informal games and other passive recreation use. The open turf area also provides an important buffer, or transition from the more actively developed areas of the Park and the Gore Creek Corridor. Given this areas adjacency to Betty Ford Way, it is critical to limit vehicles in this area of the Park in order to prevent conflicts between park users and vehicles. , The open turf area should not be reduced in size and no buildings or structures should be permitted in this area. If Betty Ford Way is improved, all streetscape improvements (lighting, landscaping, seating, etc.) should be located on the south side of the walkway so as to not reduce the size of the open turf area. In the past the southern end of the open turf area has been used for events (weddings, parties, etc.) that have involved the placement of temporary tents and other features within the open turf area. While these events may continue, the number and extent of such events should be limited and events that would monopolize the open turf area and prevent its use by other users of the Park should not be permitted. Any events in the open turf area should be managed in accordance with Park procedures, specifically to minimize the time temporary facilities are in place, minimize the number and extent of vehicles necessary to service the event, etc. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 43 Creekside Area The Creekside area is a narrow strip of land south of Betty Ford Way and north of Gore Creek. A few small structures (i.e. the “art shack, an open air picnic shelter) are located in this area. Arts in Public Places (AIPP) may pursue remodeling or enhancing the art shack at some point in the future. AIPP has placed permanent art installations in this area and also runs summer art programs in this part of the Park. Art programs may include activities such as interactive events, educational and participatory activities, and temporary art installations. The passive use and the limited number of permanent improvements within this area make it an excellent transition to the more natural, undisturbed Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area. The use and character of this area should remain unchanged. No new buildings should be permitted. New art installations may be appropriate, but if pursued, they should be done in a way that minimizes impacts to other surrounding uses and facilities and is sensitive to the natural landscape. Future Improvements Improvements contemplated for this Sub-area include: • Upgrading restroom facilities at the children’s playground. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 44 • Further enhance the buffer between the athletic fields and the children’s playground. • Additional art installations within the Gore Creek Corridor. • Upgrade to Betty Ford Way to include, decorative pavers, seating areas, lighting and other streetscape improvements. The restroom and Betty Ford Way improvements are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter. Amphitheater Sub-area An outdoor amphitheater was contemplated in original plans for Ford Park dating back to 1974. Completed in 1987, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater has evolved into Vail’s most prominent venue for music, dance and other cultural events. The facility is managed by the Vail Valley Foundation and is host to approximately 60 events each summer. The amphitheater is considered one of the community’s most important cultural assets. In 2013 the Foundation completed an initial phase of improvements to the amphitheater. Improvements included re-contouring the lawn seating, new restrooms, expansion of concession areas, and other improvements. While not a project of the Foundation, the Town of Vail recently made major improvements (decorative pavers, widening, and reduction to grade of walkway) to East Betty Ford Way. The Foundation has plans for a second phase of improvements to the Amphitheater that would create a new “public plaza” at the entry to the Amphitheater. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 45 The relationship between the Amphitheater and the neighboring athletic fields will need to be continually monitored to ensure compatibility between these (and all) park users is maintained. It is important to protect and enhance areas of existing vegetation in and around the Amphitheater and where appropriate improve the physical buffers between these uses. The implementation of noise mitigation at the north end of the amphitheater to minimizing noise impacts from the athletic fields and Interstate 70 has also been discussed. The Foundation has completed acoustic studies of the amphitheater and concluded that mitigating noise impacts from the fields and Interstate 70 would have the unintended consequence of impacting sound quality within the amphitheater. As such, noise mitigation is not being pursued. The Amphitheater is a significant generator of people and also generates a significant amount of vehicular traffic into the Lower Bench. Vehicular traffic into the Lower Bench conflicts with a number of goals and objectives for the Park. It is important for the Town and the Vail Valley Foundation to continue to work together to minimize vehicular traffic to the Amphitheater. No new uses or expansion of existing uses at the Amphitheater that would generate appreciably more vehicular traffic into this area of the Park should be permitted. Managing and limiting vehicle traffic that may result from the proposed public plaza will be an important consideration in establishing operational standards for this new facility. Future Improvements Potential improvements contemplated for the Amphitheater Sub-area include: • Development of a “public plaza” at the entry to the Amphitheater. • Restoration of the stream bank adjacent to the Amphitheater south of Betty Ford Way and east of the pedestrian bridge. • Upgrading of the fence/screening of the utility installation along Gore Creek west of the pedestrian bridge. There are a number of important parameters to be considered in the design and development of the public plaza. These parameters are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter of this Plan. Alpine Gardens Sub-area What began with completion of a demonstration garden in 1987 has evolved into a +/- 1.5 acre network of perennials, rock gardens and waterfalls hosting an array of high 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 46 alpine plants. The Betty Ford Alpine Gardens (BFAG) provides an important educational and experiential element of the Park. The gardens and the mission of the organization are in keeping with one of the original goals for Ford Park to provide environmental and educational facilities for the community. The Alpine Gardens have become one of Vail’s most popular summer attractions. The Alpine Gardens has pursued the development of an “alpine education center” in the Park for a number of years. The 1997 Ford Park Management Plan identified the location for this facility to be within the Soccer Field Sub-area. During the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update the BFAG proposed a location adjacent to Gore Creek for the education building and the 2012 Plan recommended this site for a new building. The Vail Town Council subsequently reconsidered this recommendation from the 2012 Update, and while expressing support for the BFAG to develop an educational building within the Park, initiated a new evaluation of site alternatives for the building. The Vail Town Council’s primary criterion for selecting a site for the educational center building was that it not be located on the Lower Bench. Seven sites were evaluated, three of which were determined to be viable sites for the building. The BFAG Building Site Evaluation Matrix outlines the factors considered in this evaluation. A copy is found in the Supplemental Appendix. For a variety of reasons the preferred location for this building was determined to be adjacent to West Betty Ford Way just west of the Children’s Playground. Located directly on the grade transition between the upper and lower bench, the Vail Town Council determined that this location conforms to their site selection criteria that the building not be located on the lower bench. The other two sites that were considered viable alternatives are at the Soccer Field and within the Tennis Center. These sites could still be considered if following further study it is determined that the Betty Ford Way site is not viable. The primary purpose of the building is to provide educational programs for the community and accordingly the uses within the building are expected to include rooms for interpretive displays, meeting/class rooms, a greenhouse and a limited amount of administrative space necessary to support on-site operations of the Gardens. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 47 Future Improvements Potential future improvements within the Alpine Gardens Sub-area include: • Development of an alpine gardens educational center. • Extension of gardens along the northeast entry in order to create a buffer from the adjoining athletic fields and improve pedestrian arrival to the Gardens. There are a number of important parameters to be considered in the design, development and operation of the educational center. These parameters are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter of this Plan. Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area The Gore Creek Preservation Sub-area includes the entire length of the Gore Creek Corridor that passes through the Park. The sub-area is more than 21 acres in size and is generally defined by the park boundary on the south and the 100-year flood plain, the 50-foot Gore Creek setback and/or topographic features on the north. Gore Creek, 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 48 associated wetland and riparian habitat and stands of specimen trees are the primary features of the creek corridor. Existing improvements within this sub-area are limited to bridges, trails, utility improvements and the Nature Center. The Gore Creek corridor is the Park’s most significant natural feature and provides the Park with delightful open space for the quiet enjoyment of nature. The corridor also provides a critical pedestrian link to Vail Village. The designation of this corridor as a preservation zone is in direct response to a number of goals and objectives from previous park planning efforts. The preservation of and enhancement to this area is also suggested by Goal #1 of this Plan. It is essential that adjacent uses respect the natural environment of this sub-area and that effective buffers be maintained between other more intensive uses within the Park. It is intended that existing uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-Area be maintained and in keeping with the goals of preserving this area no new buildings are to be constructed within the sub-area. Any other new uses or improvements should be limited to those that will complement the natural character of the creek corridor and will minimize impacts to this sensitive environment. Resolution No. 27 of 1987 designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area “to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history.” The resolution stipulated that “vehicular traffic is to be restricted and certain policies and procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities” should be enacted. It is acknowledged that the Nature Center will bring a certain level of activity to this sub-area. Nature Center activity should be concentrated on the “upland” portions of the Nature Center in order to minimize impacts to the creek corridor. Improvements within the sub-area should be limited to low-impact improvements such as soft surface walking paths, creek enhancements to improve fish habitat, fishing access, re-vegetation and creek/stream bank restoration projects. In all cases such improvements should be designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts (i.e. avoid wetland habitat and wetland, maintain existing natural vegetation, use of “best management practices”, etc.). The underlying goal of any new trail development and/or bridge crossing should be to improve access in order to enhance awareness of this important natural environment. Utility improvements should not be located within this sub-area unless no other practical alternative is available. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 49 The Gore Creek corridor between the main portion of Ford Park and Slifer Square provides important pedestrian access to and from the Park and Vail Village (and the Vail Village Parking Structure). This corridor is heavily travelled and provides access to the Park for many park users. Enhancing the walking experience along the corridor will ensure its effectiveness as an alternative means of accessing the Park. Fishing access to Gore Creek, while currently not an issue (i.e. excessive use from foot traffic resulting in damage to riparian areas and vegetation), could become an issue in the future. A creek access point was considered at the east end of the Nature Center (using the bus turnaround on Vail Valley Drive as an unloading area) was discussed during the 1997 Planning effort but was rejected as being contradictory to the intended use of the Nature Center. An Action Step suggested for this area (refer to Chapter 4 of this Plan) is to evaluate the benefits of establishing a conservation easement for this area or to apply the “Open Space” designation via the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. The protection afforded by either of these steps would define more permanent limitations on the use of this area and in doing so establish a degree of permanence in preserving this creek corridor. The existing condition of the Nature Center Building and the surrounding area has been a point of discussion. Potential improvements to the Nature Center are further discussion in Chapter 6 – Ford Park Illustrative Plan. Future Improvements Future improvements contemplated for this Sub-area include: • Enhancement and restoration of vegetation along the creek corridor, creek bank stabilization and fishing habitat enhancements. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 50 • Enhancements to the walkway between Vail Village and the Park to include improvements such as seating, art installations, etc. • Design and installation of park entry features at the three pedestrian portals to the Park along the Gore Creek Corridor. • Initiate steps to improve the physical condition of the Nature Center. These improvements are discussed in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan chapter. Soccer Field Sub-area The Soccer Field Sub-area, while often overlooked as an element of Ford Park, provides a valuable community asset. The full-sized athletic field serves the soccer and lacrosse communities, the sand volleyball courts are heavily used and the 65-space parking lot is used year-around. A cul-de-sac at the east end of the sub-area allows in- town buses to turn around when providing express service to Ford Park. These uses should continue as they directly address the broad goals for the Park of “providing the recreational needs of the community” (1985 Plan) and is consistent with the objective of locating active recreation areas “away from the meadow and creek” (1985 Plan). Separated from the rest of Ford Park by Vail Valley Drive and physically removed from the more developed portions of the Park, the Soccer Field Sub-area does not have compatibility or relationship issues with surrounding uses or facilities. No major changes are contemplated to the existing recreational facilities in this sub-area. While no major improvements are anticipated in the near future, the Soccer Field sub- area is unique from the rest of the Park. For example, the uses and activities in this sub-area do not impact other areas of the Park, the sub-area has direct vehicular access that does not impact other park users, and the sub-area has no direct impact on the Gore Creek Corridor. For these reasons this sub-area could be a suitable location for new park uses or buildings to meet the future needs of the Park. If or when new uses may be proposed for this sub-area, consideration should be given to applicable elements of this Plan, how the proposed use could affect surrounding uses, private covenants and other considerations. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 51 Future Improvements Potential future improvements within the Soccer Field Sub-Area include: • Expansion of the existing sand volleyball courts. • Expansion of landscape buffers. The possibility of locating an education center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens within Ford Park is discussed in the Alpine Gardens Sub-area. The preferred location for this building is along West Betty Ford Way. If the West Betty Ford Way site is subsequently determined to not be a viable location, the Soccer Field site has been determined to be a viable alternative. The potential location for this building is at the northwest corner of the sub-area. Private covenant issues (with the neighboring Northwoods Condominiums and with the Vail Village Seventh Filing) will need to be addressed prior to constructing an education center on the soccer field site. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 52 Chapter 6 - FORD PARK ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN The Ford Park Illustrative Plan provides a general description of future improvements contemplated for Ford Park. The Plan indicates the general location of the improvements, a summary of the proposed improvements and parameters or criteria to be considered in the design, development and operation of the improvement. The design parameters and criteria are of particular importance as they establish specific expectations for the proposed improvement. Conformance with these parameters and criteria is a requisite to the Town approving any improvements in the Park. The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan discusses a wide range of potential improvements for the Park. The design and development of some improvements are in progress. Other these improvements are only general ideas and will need further study and design, an example being the installation of art along the Gore Creek Corridor connection to Vail Village to enhance the walking experience. Other improvements are not viable in the near-term but could be viable at some point in the future, examples being structured parking under the athletic fields or a Frontage Road roundabout at the west end of the Park. It is not the intention of this Plan that only those improvements depicted on the Illustrative Plan may be proposed for the Park. Improvements not depicted on the Illustrative Plan may be proposed and will be reviewed relative to their conformance with the goals, objectives and policies for the Park and the applicable Ford Park Sub- areas. It should also be noted that improvements being depicted on the Illustrative Plan does not ensure if or when they will be implemented. Any improvement proposed for the Park is subject to approval by the Vail Town Council and further review by the Town’s review boards prior to being implemented. This review may involve the Planning and Environmental Commission (Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan review) and the Design Review Board prior to being implemented. On the following page is the Ford Park Illustrative Plan and descriptions of future improvements that may be made to the Park. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 53 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 54 Improvement #1 – Gore Creek Corridor Restoration There are a number of areas within the Gore Creek corridor where erosion, over-use or other factors have disturbed or otherwise adversely impacted existing vegetation. A restoration program should be implemented to improve vegetation along the creek corridor. Restoration will improve the visual quality of this area and improve water quality by preventing erosion. A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent restoration is needed. Following completion of this assessment, a detailed landscape plan for the restoration of the corridor should be prepared and implemented. A parallel effort should be to evaluate the condition of the creek bank in order to identify the potential need for stream bank stabilization to protect the bank from erosion. Another opportunity to consider for Gore Creek is how pools or other features could be created in the creek to improve the quality of fishing or potentially improve the creek for other uses. A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent these improvements may be feasible. Following completion of this assessment a detailed improvement plan for the creek corridor could be prepared. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective 1.3, Action Step 1.3.2. Improvements #2 – Gore Creek Village Connector The Gore Creek corridor between the west end of Ford Park and Slifer Square provides important pedestrian access to and from the Park and Vail Village (and the Vail Village Parking Structure). Enhancing the walking experience along this connection will improve its effectiveness as an alternative means of accessing the Park. The installation of seating areas, creek overlooks and public art are examples of improvements that could be made to animate this walkway. Any future improvements shall be outside of wetland areas, the 100-year flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas. An inventory of the creek corridor to identify such areas should be completed prior to initiating any improvements. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.2. Improvement #3 – Entry Monuments at Park’s pedestrian entries Pedestrians arrive to Ford Park from one of seven existing entries as identified on the Illustrative Plan. Currently there is inadequate signage or other features identifying 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 55 these locations as entry points to the Park. The goal of this improvement is to formally identify these portals and announce them as gateways, or arrival points to Ford Park. Landscape features, signage, bollards, monuments, archways or other design features, or some combination thereof, could be used to identify these locations. Landscape enhancements to areas proximate to these entries may also be appropriate. A design process is necessary to determine design solutions for these improvements. While specific solutions for these park entry improvements could vary between locations, all should share a common design vocabulary. It will also be important to locate these improvements in a way that compliments the adjacent pedestrian corridor and does not compromise pedestrian circulation. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.3. Improvement #4 – Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Education Center The education center is envisioned to include multi-use space for year-around educational programs and other activities, a greenhouse and limited administrative space. Below are design, development and operational parameters and/or criteria to be considered in the detailed design of this facility. • Building and site improvements provide adequate clearances from existing utility lines and drainage improvements and when necessary such lines or improvements are relocated to provide adequate clearances. • A building of approximately 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. • Building designed with a low-scale appearance that does not visually dominate the surrounding area and does not loom over West Betty Ford Way. • Provide appropriate horizontal separation from West Betty Ford Way and from the children’s playground in order to not diminish the quality of these spaces. • Ability to construct the project in a manner that does not adversely impact other facilities or uses in the Park. • A viable access management plan designed to minimize to the greatest extent feasible the number and frequency of vehicles accessing the education center. It is acknowledged that a service vehicle or delivery vehicle may occasionally need to drive to the center. However, daily or frequent vehicle access by staff or patrons of the center will not be permitted 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 56 • Acceptable emergency vehicle access to the building and identification of any site improvements necessary to accommodate such access. • Identify the anticipated parking demand from the building and how it will be addressed. No parking shall be provided at the building. • Adequate storage space to meet the operational needs of the building and to minimize the need for vehicle trips to the building. • Coordination with the Vail Recreation District on the need to expand fencing at the athletic fields to protect the building from errant balls. • Evaluate the feasibility of providing public restrooms within the center (see Improvement #7 in Illustrative Plan – Children’s Playground Restrooms) Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.2. The site plan and cross-section are conceptual studies for how a building could be designed on this site. While provided by the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, these sketches do not represent a development or design proposal. They are merely depictions of how the building could be designed and there is no implied approval of the concepts depicted below. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 57 Improvement #5 – Nature Center Over the years a number of additions and modifications have been made to the nature center building. Many of these changes have altered the historic character of this building. An assessment of the building should be completed in order to understand steps that could be taken to restore the architectural integrity of this building and the surrounding area. A current deficiency of the Nature Center is the lack of restroom facilities. If the building is to be renovated consideration should be given to how restrooms could be incorporated into the building. Other improvements to the Nature Center include, re- claiming the informal parking areas proximate to the building and taking steps to limit vehicular access to the site. These site improvements would most efficiently be designed in conjunction with the evaluation of the building. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.5, Action Step 2.5.1-2.4.3. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 58 Improvement #6 – Ford Amphitheater Entry Upgrade/Public Plaza The Vail Valley Foundation has proposed plans for transforming the existing Amphitheater entry into a re-designed and re-purposed Public Plaza. The plaza is intended to provide a more gracious and more functional entry to the amphitheater. The design intent and objective of this improvement is to create a multi-use outdoor space that serves as the primary arrival for the Amphitheater as well as a pre-convene and post-function space during scheduled events. The Public Plaza would also provide a venue for smaller gatherings hosted by other park leaseholders and also be open for public use when not being used for scheduled events. Other elements of the Public Plaza include a tensile roof covering, a tribute to the Ford Family, a small stage within the courtyard, a new donor wall, enhancements to the concession building and ticket windows, and new entry gates to the Amphitheater. Parameters and criteria to be considered: • Plaza design should be done to facilitate/not encumber truck turning movements necessary to provide loading/delivery to the Amphitheater. • Plaza design should be sensitive to and integrated with immediately adjacent improvements at the Alpine Gardens. • Trees removed to accommodate the Public Plaza should be re-located within the Park and to the extent feasible be relocated proximate to the amphitheater. • The space should be available for use by the public when not being used for private functions. • The space should be available for gatherings that support other Park stakeholders (TOV, VRD, BFAG and AIPP). • Any structures/roof elements associated with the public plaza should harmonize with the Amphitheater, not dominate the surrounding area, and conform to the Town’s park design guidelines. • Any fencing that may be required to define the courtyard space or for liquor license or other purposes should be subtle and visually unobtrusive. Landscape materials should be used to soften the appearance of the fence. • A viable management plan for minimizing vehicular access to the social courtyard (employees, service vehicles, deliveries, etc.), and for servicing the facility in a manner that minimizes impacts on pedestrian use of Betty Ford Way. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.1. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 59 Improvement #7 – Children’s Playground Restrooms The playground restrooms provide facilities for the entire Lower Bench. These facilities are under-sized and in need of upgrade and expansion to meet current demand. When designed, the new bathroom building should be one level and be sized no larger than necessary to meet the needs of park users. The location currently considered for the new restrooms is west of the existing facility where play apparatus are currently located. New play apparatus will be provided with the removal of the existing restroom building. The building should not encroach on the adjacent open turf area. The adjoining Alpine Gardens Sub-area identifies a site along West Betty Ford Way and next to the playground for the development of an alpine gardens education center. The potential to incorporate restrooms for playground users within the alpine garden education center should be evaluated. The goal of this approach is to minimize the number of buildings in the Park. Coordination between the Town and the Alpine Gardens will be necessary in order to evaluate the feasibility of this idea Improvement #8 – Betty Ford Way Traffic Control While it is acknowledged that the Alpine Gardens, the Amphitheater and other uses in the Lower Bench require vehicular access, an underlying goal for the Park is to minimize vehicular traffic in this area. Betty Ford Way provides car and truck access to this area. As a means for better regulating traffic into the Lower Bench, the installation of gates, bollards or other improvements will be necessary at either end of Betty Ford Way. In addition to improvements designed to limit car and truck access to the lower bench, a system for managing large truck use on East Betty Ford Way should also be explored. This section of Betty Ford Way is essentially a one-lane road. The purpose of this effort is to prevent two trucks from utilizing East Betty Ford Way at the same time. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #3, Objective 3.2, Action Step 3.2.3. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 60 Chapter 7- PARK MANAGEMENT Four organizations play a role in the management and operation of Gerald R. Ford Park. The Town of Vail is the owner of the Park and manages the community park on the Lower Bench, the stream tract, parking lot areas and pedestrian corridors. In addition, the Town provides park management and coordination with the Park’s three leaseholders. The leaseholders manage and operate their respective facilities: The Vail Recreation District lease includes the Tennis Center, athletic fields and land that includes the Nature Center. The Tennis Center Building is on land owned by the Town but was developed and funded by the VRD. VRD offers environmental education and research opportunities at the Nature Center. The Vail Valley Foundation manages and maintains the Ford Amphitheater and immediate surrounding grounds. The amphitheater seats up to 2,500 people and is scheduled an average of 60 days during the summer months. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens manages the Gardens. The Gardens have developed in four phases that began in 1987. In its role as the overall park manager, the Town addresses a variety of management and operational considerations. Often times this requires the involvement of different town departments and town commissions and boards. Ultimately the Vail Town Council is asked to review and approve management practices. The Town involves one or more of the Park leaseholders when addressing these management topics and in some cases the lease agreements with the Recreation District, the Vail Valley Foundation and the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens address these topics. Below is a list of park management topics the Town is responsible for: • Parking – Management of parking spaces, allocation of spaces to leaseholders, rates at times pay-parking is implemented, etc. • Special events on parking lot, athletic fields and open turf area – coordination with promoters of events, scheduling, pre and post-event operations, etc. • Park Calendar – While not responsible for scheduling events within leaseholder facilities, the Town coordinates (with leaseholders) a comprehensive events schedule for the Park. • Transportation – management of transit operations between the Park and the Vail Transportation Center, including periodic implementation of a Golden Peak bus route. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 61 • AIPP projects – The review of art programs and installations in the Park. • Proposals for new uses, new building or changes to the Park – The review of any proposed change to the Park will involve the Vail Town Council and may also involve the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, AIPP and the Commission on Special Events. 11/19/2013 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 62 Chapter 8 - APPENDIX An extensive number of documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park planning efforts have been assembled. Due to the volume of this material, these documents are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Material found in the Supplemental Appendix includes: 1. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, authorizing the purchase (by condemnation) of the property known as the Antholz Ranch. 2. The Vail Plan, 1974. 3. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, naming the property commonly known as the Antholz Ranch to Gerald R. Ford Park. 4. The Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report, 1985. 5. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, this resolution designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley’s natural history. 6. Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988, amending the 1985 Master Plan to add four tennis courts and to change the location of the aquatics center. 7. Ford Park Management Plan, 1997. 8. Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012. 9. BFAG Building Site Evaluation Matrix. 10. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens – Site Evaluation, Martin/Martin, August 15, 2013. 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Amending Section 13-7-8 of the Vail Town Code Regarding Recovery of Costs in Enforcement Actions and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. BACKGROUND: The Town Council desires to amend the Vail Town Code to provide for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in successful court actions to enforce violations of Section 13-7-8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 on second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 16 Series of 2013 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 16 SERIES 2013 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13-7-8 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE REGARDING RECOVERY OF COSTS IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 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 have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend the Vail Town Code to provide for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in successful court actions to enforce violations of Section 13-7-8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 13-7-8.B.2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three (3) times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, and which may be collected by foreclosure on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restriction shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, and the town prevails in such litigation, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award the townsuch party its court costs together with reasonable attorney fees incurred. 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 11/19/2013 Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2013 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 5th day of November, 2013 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 19th day of November, 2013, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 15th day of November, 2013. _____________________________ Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk 11/19/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (8:35 p.m.) 11/19/2013