Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0826 PECTOWN OF VAft� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 26, 2013 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visit: 1. Sebastian — 16 Vail Road 30 minutes 1. 1 -70 Interchange and Crossing Study Introduction. A review of past Vail Transportation Master Planning efforts specifically with regards to improvements to the 1 -70 Interchanges and a potential new 1 -70 underpass. Presenter: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer 15 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the side setback, located at 2785 Bald Mountain Road /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130023) Applicant: 2002 Carey Family Trust, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: CONDITION(S): 45 minutes 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an existing dwelling unit, located at 16 Vail Road, (The Sebastian) /Part of Lots M, N, and O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130021) Applicant: AMPH, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: CONDITION(S): 90 minutes 4. 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 Planner: George Ruther ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: CONDITION(S): Page 1 5. Approval of August 12, 2013 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. Information Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 23, 2013 in the Vail Daily. Page 2 TOWN OF VAft' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 26, 2013 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Henry Pratt JIIRITMf XYM Pam Hopkins Bill Pierce Susan Bird John Rediker Site Visit: 1. Sebastian — 16 Vail Road 30 minutes 1 -70 Interchange and Crossing Study Introduction. A review of past Vail Transportation Master Planning efforts specifically with regards to improvements to the 1 -70 Interchanges and a potential new 1 -70 underpass. Presenter: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Tom Kassmel gave a power point presentation summarizing the Vail Transportation Master Plan and the study that has begun on the proposed Simba Run underpass. Commissioner Pierce asked Tom Kassmel to elaborate on the selection of the site for the underpass. Tom Kassmel explained that it is the one location where both frontage roads are lower in elevation than the interstate. Additionally, it is approximately located halfway between the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges. Commissioner Bird inquired as to the feasibility of the burying of the interstate and any impacts to the proposed if the interstate was widened (more lanes). Tom Kassmel explained that if the interstate were buried there would be no need for the underpass and the plan is anticipating any changes related to widening or mass transit rail. Commissioner Cartin asked in any thought was given to having interstate access at the new Simba Run underpass. He further asked about the associated retaining walls with the lowering of the interstate. Tom Kassmel discussed the conversation around having access to the interstate and the reason it was not included. He further discussed the preliminary designs and the associated retaining walls. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to where in the process the town was currently involved. He used a slide from the presentation which showed we were in Phase 1 of Step 1 which is gathering existing date. When will the public be involved? Tom Kassmel confirmed that the town was in the initial phase. He spoke to when the public will be involved. Page 1 Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, spoke the fact that he would put something into the newsletter to spread the word about the process. He spoke to the long term benefits and the need to involve the properties that are going to be directly impacted by the underpass. He raised a concern regarding the widening of the frontage roads and the expanse of asphalt. He continued by identifying a need to improve the pedestrian circulation from the north and south sides of the interstate. How will pedestrians be encouraged to use the new underpass? Have raised above grade pedestrian connections been considered? Tom Kassmel stated that the level of design and detail will be as seen at the Main Vail roundabouts with landscaping and medians. 15 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the side setback, located at 2785 Bald Mountain Road /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130023) Applicant: 2002 Carey Family Trust, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1) Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicants obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Jonathan Spence gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Kurz asked if the adjacent properties had been notified. Jonathan Spence stated he had spoken to several neighbors and they expressed their support for the project. Kathy Lagenwalter, applicant's representative, made herself available for any questions. She added that there was a shared driveway. Commissioner Hopkins inquired as to snow shed from the proposed addition on to the driveway. Kathy Lagenwalter described the current situation regarding snow deposits from the existing deck.. There was no public comment. 45 minutes 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an existing dwelling unit, located at 16 Vail Road, (The Sebastian) /Part of Lots M, N, and O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130021) Applicant: AMPH, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to September 9, 2013 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Page 2 Warren Campbell outlined the proposal, the history of the SDD and the criteria for approval of amendments to the SDD. Staff outlined their concerns with the effect of the proposed elevations on neighboring properties. Concerns include architectural rhythm, the deletion of the intermediate roof form, and the relationships between building elements. Staff is looking for feedback on alternatives that might address the applicant's needs while maintaining this architectural rhythm and relationship. Dominic Mauriello, applicant's representative, introduced several individuals who were in attendance and would be available should any questions arise pertaining to their expertise. He gave a brief history of the project including the new ownership's efforts to revamp the hotel in order to be successful. Greg Spencer, with Timbers Resorts, operator of the property, provided examples of the improvements made to the hotel to make it more successful. He spoke to the fact that the second floor of the penthouse had no views to Vail Mountain. He continued by describing the Increased employment, increased art, and increased revenues that have occurred since the property had been purchased out of bankruptcy. The building physically did not work which is why it went into bankruptcy. The changes /improvements made to the project have been good for Vail. The request for the addition is to allow the owners to co- locate multiple families into the unit. Dominic Mauriello further described the existing space and the proposal including increase in GRFA, changes to the building architecture, height, roof forms, elevations, bulk and mass, views and compliance with the intent of the guidelines. There was no public comment Commissioner Kurz stated that the comments on the ownership, their investments, and the functionality /successfulness of the hotel were largely irrelevant. He spoke to the changes to the bulk and mass and the fact that whether or not it can be seen doesn't really matter. Improvements due seem generally balanced. Are the proposed changes acceptable or is it just too big. The proposal needs to be evaluated on the criteria. Commission Rediker identified with staff's concerns. He added that he did not feel there were significant concerns with bulk and mass. Commissioner Bird agreed with Commissioners Kurz and Rediker. She stated her concern was the way the proposal presents itself, particularly on the north elevation with the loss of the eyebrow dormer. Commissioner Pierce asked a question about ceiling height on the second floor of the penthouse unit. Dominic Mauriello stated that the height of the space where the walls meet the roof were between 4 and 5 feet and the height of the space at the ridge was 14 feet. He added that they were proposing to raise the exterior walls two feet and thus the roof ridge the same 2 feet. Commissioner Cartin asked a question about height and the SDD. Warren Campbell stated that within an SDD the bulk, mass, and height of the structure(s) was approved as a part of the development plan. In essence what is constructed is exactly what is approved. Any change requires either a minor or major amendment to the development plan. Commissioner Cartin asked about EHU mitigation associated with the proposal. Page 3 Warren Campbell stated that there was a inclusionary requirement associated with the proposal that was approximately $10,000. Commissioner Cartin asked why the proposal included the conversion of GRFA to common area for the lodge at the entry of the penthouse. Dominic stated the reasoning for the layout and clarified the changes in ceiling heights Kevin Morley, of Poss Architecture, clarified the changes being made to the entry of the penthouse which were to create a grander, more pleasant arrival to the unit. Additionally, he spoke the how the plate heights, wall heights and ridge height were related. Commissioner Pierce asked about ceiling heights in general. He spoke to the goal of doing the minimal amount to accomplish the goal of an improved unit. He asked to see the photograph of the interior of the unit. Commissioner Hopkins stated that she felt the proposed changes to bulk and mass were difficult to see. She added that she felt the applicant had done a thoughtful job. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the process with regard to the Commission's and Design Review Board roles. Warren Campbell clarified that in an SDD the bulk, mass, height, setbacks, etc. would be established by the Commission and the Vail town Council through the adoption of an ordinance. The Design Review Board will simply be determining materials and details elements. In this specific case the materials and color will likely match existing. 90 minutes 4. 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 Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to September 9, 2013 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Bird VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Tom Braun, Braun and Associates, representing the applicant, revisited the discussion had at the previous meeting. He spoke to the comments that were heard regarding the goals and objectives. Commissioner Hopkin's spoke to her thoughts regarding the desire of many projects to have an iconic feature. She identified recent projects that all wanted an iconic feature. She does not believe there should be anything iconic in the park. She felt that no buildings should be seen from the Frontage Road. Commissioner Kurz stated he agreed, with the exception of the cultural venue of the amphitheater. Commissioner Cartin asked for staff to make sure Art In Public Places (AIPP) was aware of this effort. Page 4 Tom Braun stated that the AIPP was informed and that we would circle back to them with an update. Commissioner Bird inquired as to whether or not the athletic fields would be used for parking again in the future. George Ruther stated that it was not anticipated as the fields are used more greatly and the damage that occurred previously would not be acceptable on the fields once reconstructed. Tom Braun spoke to conversations about future parking beneath the athletic fields. He then moved forward to the sub -areas and asked for feedback on the included language. He began with the Parking /Transit Sub -area. Commissioner Pierce spoke to the restoration of the north bank of the Gore Creek (south of the parking lot) and how it was addressed. George Ruther spoke to the previous activities, efforts, and what the Master Plan is drafted to state about the stream bank on the south side of the easternmost parking lot area that was formerly used as a snow dump. Commissioner Pierce spoke to the conversation at the last public hearing regarding the use of the amphitheater for concerts verses the easternmost parking lot. Tom Braun spoke to the conversation at the previous public hearing when the capacity of the amphitheater was identified as approximately 2,400 and there is no heat in the restrooms. Commissioner Kurz spoke to the fact that concerts on the Ford Park parking lot average 7,500 and up to 10,000 guests. The Commissioners spoke to the unsightly appearance of the temporary restrooms associated with the concert on the parking lot and the incorporation of language regarding creating a safe and quality environment. The acts selected for the venue should be evaluated against the practicalities of the venue. Tom Braun next spoke to the Active Recreation Sub -area concepts. Commissioner Cartin spoke to a need to have the Active Recreation area and the Betty Ford Alpine Garden north entrance interact and work together. There needs to be a sense of entry for the gardens on the north side adjacent to the recreation fields. Tom Braun summarized the comment by describing the landscaped interface between the amphitheater and the gardens and the adjacent fence for the athletic fields. Commissioner Cartin stated that the disjointed relationship was his concern (as described by Tom Braun). Commissioner Kurz spoke to the need to maintain tennis, however, is the loss of a tennis court detrimental? Would it create a better arrival to the park? Would it be a good site for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden education center? Commissioner Pierce spoke to the creation of a meaningful drop -off area adjacent to the Frontage Road. Page 5 Commissioner Cartin stated his desire to hear from the Vail Recreation District (VRD). Commissioner Bird spoke to her need to understand the future needs of the VRD. Tom Braun spoke to the concepts for the Lower Commons Area. In general it was the intent to allow for no new structures /buildings in this sub -area. Commissioner Bird inquired as to how the preferred site for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens affects this sub -area. Tom Braun stated that the education center was included in a separate sub -area. He then covered the Amphitheater and the Betty Ford Alpine Garden sub - areas. Commissioner Hopkins suggested the placement of the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center to the east of The Wren backed up to the newly constructed restrooms and storage building on the west side of the athletic fields. Commissioner Pierce spoke to the visibility this location would have and the possibility of creating a drop -off for people and items. Jim Lamont, inquired as to whether or not there were setbacks within the park for structures. Tom Braun spoke to the zoning being General Use which does not define a setback, but rather the development plan is reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Cartin spoke to a concept of having the eastern entry to the park off of the Frontage Road being more prominent. He brought up the idea of overlapping the Betty Ford and Amphitheater sub -areas to reinforce the concept of a shared, multi - purpose /user area. Tom Braun highlighted the concepts for the Gore Creek Preservation sub -area. Commissioner Cartin suggested that this sub -area has potential for improvements for stream paths and water sports to further the goal of establishing a year round economy. Commissioner Bird stated that there should be defined access points for water sport users to the creek. Commissioner Pierce spoke to potential improvements (landscaping sense of arrival) that could occur on the pedestrian path from Vail Valley Drive to the amphitheater. Tom Braun spoke to the concepts contemplated for the Soccer Fields sub -area. Commissioner Cartin spoke to the benefit of having the covenants for the west end of the soccer fields addressed in the sub -area concept. 5. Approval of August 12, 2013 minutes MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Bird recused) 6. Information Update Page 6 Commissioner Bird stated several concerns with the fact that there were now three trash haulers in town all with different pick -up days. She stated noise and traffic flow impacts as the primary concerns. She stated it would be great if they all did trash pick -up on the same day. The Commissioners discussed how other municipalities choose to contract with a single - hauler, such as Eagle. It was suggested that this concern could maybe an element of the efforts to pursue curb -side recycling. 7. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 23, 2013 in the Vail Daily. Page 7 �•L 0 O � CO 0) O ■ O � O V O � V o �•L 0 N ca ca 6:7 . O O V a L 0 m I^ CL L F- r 0 CL 0 r•1 U 0 0 W 0 W Q D R c� O O •� Q Q � 0 0 1 • • • w Ln N r-I QJ f6 C C QJ E f6 Q QJ 4- O N L r� vJ 0 . O O N O L � o a� LL v� �a o L W ai L = V W L M Z Qi L � � N N � Ca a L ra rH Ln N r-I QJ E ro c E ro v 0 4- 0 C6 a E E CL E o 0� 06 > 0 > W (� O N O U � � � U O W Q ra rH Ln N r-I QJ E ro c E ro v 0 4- 0 - I O N \ O O I V w e �59 �o 0 �? a 001 CC 8 ,1� ,n x ti N y1 51 ® S� 9 c N c <] • � 0 0 0 - E _ - > a u m - - m m m_ ` 01 o J Y 2t u c o � a a'e c r CL <a 0 0. 4 m U � o n i cy x os10 .. n.�m���rvn 'LAP��N` E � by ♦ � �a _..ice p,G A5 ® a ©Pe F!en - � s so 0-010 / s ' sue' a -v\. d \ ® e ©a e o -3 -illM 0sy0 d ,r :$ 5� is � S •_�_ ss ] �oe '�' 84l J g lS[ 11JOpZ 4l 1061 � y * � 1Si U F � p N � ro rn r LL � aroi U7 Y ro N W l s .e y � I - I O O N V • O O r•7 ` V �a T a -s b ®�� 4 w1 M'lellon �^ t[P4, l � � b 3 enro 9� pvaywall M ® - Q 4 � B V C \x �e e 13J c ti 8 rprs - �� � � q. L . , • � NN m .•~ g s a 8 v v co U) l LL D O T C o y d � m ms � rs in a am a <` w cg ¢° II N fl 11 p Z u, W x x ®o J � � b 3 enro 9� pvaywall M ® - Q 4 � B V C \x �e e 13J c ti 8 rprs - �� � � q. L . , • � NN m .•~ g s a 8 O O N ca O ca O ca O r•7 vJ O O N A� V • O V r�-1 V i arm E 0 �o s °a n� m m U Ogy � m s O C � b SI a- ODY II IL u u7 N O M W x x _ SUI 06S MM se sls� P, , os°r4> 'N" os l egAA ��ALN4 a� , �U tPd Fd' PEI P-A r • ' ss fss\ ' / � �30 � .� psi ® � ®�` oho a • o'�� 6� 00 zc4 p. B . � S J` 1 h p s veevsuon'3 a n °10, , S has ® 4`�' s '3 Man0 a 09 Pb4stlP11'M • . N4 E v �� ti��o �' mss h $'o° 0 . 008 n rr// 40 B . I.• SOS SOZ 6� llr ® 3 sir fu o M110 SL ... ;- 044 , OE4 . 004' Sl l g� O y a N � I O O N � V • O V O I e @ o �" om j � a m m v °4 ~ a m nev g Z ° L w) = o c 9l o ® `�•OLI u n n _o 0 lz X SOi � � OY9 I 0z p- � 5 MO,ype^ pvA LNG c ; ,IQ ti. Pb. 'oy��W� FdH -Wb FM PA Qc �9 /�• � Q.y �a. o Di, rL.or ,Ol� 3ley Si^ '9 MAO °Wau'olT • ® r 9h ' ♦ �i+sls ss' 6S EF s ' 4 _ eiP40 9s � peeyg °'q13 ® 4 " 6 0,4%ugl'M ! rs G�`�Nf. ny s5 • Os N r B G c o ® 006 �� , •_•n • Q Wro} ' sios 1 ! star �'- • ' S SO l s •"Q Olt tlEl •" 001 SOS • Se 0 40Z m 9tb : 91 � y O m v � m 'o a` .Z Y d ll) O N ^y�ly�• �tf 1NOQ OJ`S''C` t m os I r _ LV�z m O O N n� W Z . O O V m L C 12 $ c c O s 0) o m a V) oc a m m n°• U 0 c U O p 9 N U LL U E o 0 O m �a�1�a�4eY O y v 2 3 a R X O L m u% c m aJ4 ,o 0 o as aq� o p o LL U G % r?pn v U y S J U "m0 m W M 40 Lu O) G O m c t m a m✓ cEN 7 p G a o c mg m�om'm has m� omn oa M X r y l4 d c LU 3 n ] G CL LL p.,.. �� H/ (D E m U a x. m � a. FatgS� ca i od O m O 9 am 0 d v,ff m _ 7 �• JO O C j EE y O ¢ O. O N N U3ca a ^m� E c p o N o m ro a yam= m � o Q a U o �P C m O G o m G m 3� rn � o G R m y N � m m t T � � p� O U m m N O N p -� O .= n y 3 p o aIT a E E- 0 G U N .0 Em-a a ID_ �a o m m 7 6 O m R E t o 3 U G m L _ m O c E m a 0 O U U m L m ID I° G . L p Z F7a z o ` cC C t1 cLC W +� C C CD G] w jCaT 0 ' L Q E cz c N N ° FL c w a cz E N 0 a1 U LL c c o N U Cl) cu .- U U E E ¢ a o N U cn O cr- C m O G o m G m 3� rn � o G R m y N � m m t T � � p� O U m m N O N p -� O .= n y 3 p o aIT a E E- 0 G U N .0 Em-a a ID_ �a o m m 7 6 O m R E t o 3 U G m L _ m O c E m a 0 O U U m L m ID I° G . L p Z F7a z O O N r� vJ O �J O V O O _c > 0 E c 0 m ca cv .� E C N Q C .2 0 m (� � rn y Q) � U � O_ co O 6g0 c ti J C U � c � ro C O L U) 0 -C7 Q Q CL 1 � y o y / y z y o E a CA vi � > E N O l� Q E N N 0 — Q 3 cz O m y' 1 y a y � ° 00 1 - u f y c oe 1 ° \ Z 1� � � \ � S t q I y I I � l I / I 1 \ l N � T � C :3 D_ N 0[ Im w E ca O E E a CA vi � > E N O l� Q E N N 0 — Q 3 cz O m m i N C rn � m o Z N Y ` O O CC M 0 ti cn N Q� w C� C 0 LL- C N >_ E 0 U a> a co a) Q �a z N c� L CCS O L� 1_ �'c� o mU LL- LL. m0 Z mm C-) LL. mc� �w © a � z QQ m© ma a .��o 0 �m�� i J mm LL. LL. mo o z U U) .X .X O N N N N N CO p N ®p W W N N N N N N � 'U)'CD J O O C � � 07 O N O O t i � C O O � �- m in C O � p U-) X1'7 LO LO L L 0 0 0 L7 U C) V1 (!') cn Ln O N r-I ro QJ f6 c c v v 0 0 .X .X O N N N N N OC7 ® ®p W W N N N N N N V1 (!') cn Ln O N r-I ro QJ f6 c c v v 0 0 J W CL 0) .lz U ZRI Q) 0) lz i Q) O w a It O CL a) J E O W ca c�a I-.'l O O F-- a Ln N r-I v ro E ro v 0 4- 0 C6 C6 a� n w z o O CD L O_ L U o • L N .N U � � U 0 O W U (� L � W O O F-- a Ln N r-I v ro E ro v 0 4- 0 WEIIL,COMEtimthe llamlo Interchange 0 and , Study open H�oulse TOWN OF (0)VAIL �j OT - i DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FELSBURG HOLT & LLE I U V G COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION rowN of vain Purpose of this Meeting The Town of Vail and The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are conducting a Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) study to establish a vision for improving the Main Vail and West Vail Interchanges along with improving connectivity and the ability to cross 1 -70. Past planning efforts have identified possible interchange improvements as well as a new additional crossing of 1 -70 between Main Vail and West Vail near the Simba Run Condominiums to improve connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians and transit. This public open house is designed to present: e the PEL process, which will be used as a basis for future design and construction if funding becomes available. review the results of past efforts. solicit your thoughts. This Planning and Environmental Study is jointly funded by the Town of Vail and the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Federal Highway Administration will be an active stakeholder participant as well. August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION rowN of vain What is a Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) Study? A PEL Study is the interim step of evaluation for a transportation need or project that has been identified in the regional transportation plan, yet has not entered a formal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) level analysis. The purpose of a PEL Study is to perform preliminary analysis and make decisions not completed as a part of traditional regional level planning that will make NEPA -level evaluation and decision - making more transparent to resource agencies and the public. PEL represents an approach to transportation decision - making that considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the planning stage and carries them through project development, design, and construction. This can lead to a seamless decision - making process that minimizes duplication of effort, promotes efficient and cost effective solutions and environmental stewardship, and reduces delays in project implementation. Who is involved? Transportation planners ♦ NEPA practitioners Resource agency staff ,� Public August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG COLORADO 6JJW0T DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF PEL and I -70 CSS Relationship CDOT Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Planning Process Flow Chart Identify Transportation Need L. Identify Stakeholders Define Roles /Responsibilities Define /Refine Travel Corridor Develop Purpose and Need, Goals, and Dbjectives Develop Performance Measures [Develop Alternatives and Define Travel Modes [Evaluate and Screen Alternatives and Identify nvironmental Impacts and Potential Mitigation Document Evaluation Process Finalize Planning and Environmental Linkage Document 1 -70 Mountain Corridor CSS 6 -Step Process (VA I Step 3 Establish Criteria Step 5 Evaluate, Select, and Refine Alternatives and Options Step 6 Finalize Documentation and Evaluation Process This Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Planning Process is used by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in its Life Cycle Phase I: System Planning, to develop the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, the Regional Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program and corridor visions. These plans and programs are developed prior to any processes, plans, or projects on the 1 -70 Mountain Corridor. The 1 -70 Mountain Corridor 6 -Step Process is used for all plans and projects within the 1 -70 Mountain Corridor. This is a graphical representation of the correlation between the Planning and Environmental Linkages Corridor Planning Process as presented in the National Environmental Policy Act Manual and the 1 -70 Mountain Corridor 6 -Step Process. This correlation aligns the Systems Planning work done by CDOT and the subsequent work on the 1 -70 Mountain Corridor. 0 FELSBURG August 5, 2013 /A H O L T & ULLEVIG J LL. O Z O F- L = Q AZh O N O z O Q Q ¢ f O OW U W Q a w v (A 0 � 0 Q COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF VAIL Interchange Roundabout Levels of Service (LOS) ..................................... ............................... Existing Conditions West Vail Interchange Main Vail Interchange eR006 /yorthFro p oYthFYO�ta9 ata9eRoad D SpraddleCreek Road � 0 0 FY�nta9eRoQa S °uth O South Frontage Road A Ak NORTH NORTH ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Future (2o -Year) Conditions (if no improvements) West Vail Interchange Main Vail Interchange eRoad /yorthFr IF oYthFYOnta9 °nta9eRoad SpraddleCreek Road F 0 0 FY�nta9eRoQa S °uth O South h Frontage Road F� I DD NORTH NORTH August 5 2013 SOURCE: 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan NFELSBURG g ' HOLT & ULLEVIG O ¢ a a N o o 0 0 U Z W f Q a v J O Z 0 �V L O 0 N c� N cv m I O 0 v s c� N O s v c� O Q N N _O V O O O s M s > 0 = .N � o X O s s � > O 0 0 O s >+ v .L- N s s m� > Cl) O Q J .N O N = cv 2 co � i O O s2 v N � N m � � v c� X O i � V �s = v O J p i n n op u � i N m 4 �O v � > _ L. O LO �s 4- .O L. O cr O m s N m v m • L. 'i N O c� c� O O V Ail u 'i O O N c� 0 > O O O � _ _ 0 > O 0 -� wx� a '41W ULM 03 ®1� ®� I B s >, cvvss O +r v s O v O cv +0 � 4- p >k s O — 0 G) m Q= O O c0CL �..cv'yvcvv Q p m o O >k 'v s 0 = _ > Z 7) QL. — > L. > V Emu M r O N l'!w� w y� Q O O O — G) E Q= O O c0CL �..cv'yvcvv 00 Emu M r O N l'!w� w y� Q COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF VAIL Interchange Traffic Patterns ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Existing Conditions d West Vail Interchange N °Y�h FY Peak hour traffic flows between the roundabouts comprised of Frontage Road "U- turn" pattern: 35%-50% Main Vail Interchange NOrth Peak hour traffic flows between the roundabouts comprised of Frontage Road "U- turn" pattern: 10%-15% 9 r� a9eR °aa S °U��FY °nt 0 A NORTH Spraddle Creek Road South Fro stage Road NORTH / August 5 2013 SOURCE 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan � FELSBURG g ' HOLT & ULLEVIG J -N.M. O Oa O Lo Q O Lo �m Ca 91; I m cc cc o Z 0 � 0 ---------------- ----------------- ----------- '41W ----------- rye ---------------- ----------------- ----------- rye 71— 0 50 = �7 -0 ui XN if L6 dolv 4 f z Tce\ z < 0 FA C/) Ei QL OO y � E vQ) � W,y O � cz v� � v CZ cz 00 O > c� M •M O >� U O a� Cn m a) � M O +� p � U .� w _0 0 M i -0 O -0 CY) � U O M U cz � . C CZ cz cz > .0 U .� CY) 7 c E O ku •— a� 4" O O M > QL COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN Other West Vail Transportation Challenges Include: Emergency Responsiveness OF VAIL ♦ Emergency vehicles are also required to utilize the interchanges today, forcing them to lose valuable response time when crossing 1 -70 during peak hours ♦ The distance between existing crossings at the interchanges requires cumbersome distances to be traveled at times, especially if one of the interchanges is closed due to a traffic incident Bicycle /Pedestrian Mobility & Safety ♦ Pedestrians cross 1 -70 at -grade today since 1 -70 crossing opportunities are limited ♦ Bicycle connectivity from north of 1 -70 to the Gore Valley Trail is limited to the interchange underpasses, necessitating circuitous travel for many bicyclists ♦ Bicyclists and pedestrians crossing 1 -70 are forced through the roundabout interchanges, crossing interchange on and off ramp traffic August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF New 1 -70 Crossing Possible Solutions from Previous Planning Potential Benefits Include: Removal of traffic that would otherwise use congested Main Vail and West Vail interchanges Interception of some 1 -70 traffic traveling between the West Vail and Main Vail interchanges, thereby further reducing traffic demands through the interchange complexes Allows emergency vehicles to cross 1 -70 without reliance on congested interchanges A. a 4 A (VA I MP 175 qW Tim. :' TV }, Provides bus routing flexibility including the potential for a high- frequency trunk -line route directly connecting activity centers including: West Vail Post Office Timber Ridge Future Ever Vail Lionshead Medical Center Municipal Center Vail Village Ford Park Pedestrians who currently cross 1 -70 at -grade would be given a viable safe alternative Bicyclists coming from north of 1 -70 would be provided a direct connection to the Gore Valley Trail and avoid the West Vail and Main Vail interchanges Increased Community Connectivity August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG J O Z O F� z O O ¢ N o o a a � 0 0 0 U z W f Q a v �i O O� L V ,o O� 3�w w O z N =Qa � x W W C O z N � o � x W W ° H V � � O m H J Q oc W cW V, c W W V � O N H W V ° Q a 661 ° N � � O o2i v W J R J R x � z 0 ° x W W Z Wo J �Q W �y V kn J Z H '^ a oc m W N W w 6VI Z J z c Q W H ^ a = U z � � J O � O z N =Qa � x W W C O z N � o � x W W ° H V � � O m H J Q oc W cW V, c W W V � O N H W V ° Q Z 661 N � � O o2i v W J R J R x � z � ° x W W Z Wo J W �y V kn J Z H '^ a oc m W v 0 11D s x � Y c w H O O Z 0 -� rz wx� a mw 1%ma M r N '6 w y� Q N C J C O Q O N O m � O = U O � O U m O N O Q U � � 4 O H Q a L i � O � J C II II II W cm • W LU J J 0 -� rz wx� a mw 1%ma M r N '6 w y� Q COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF VAIL West Vail Interchange Enhancments Possible Solutions from Previous Planning L- - 'A 0 Characteristics of these enhancements include: Incorporating an additional northbound lane under 1 -70 and entering the north roundabout Corresponding expansion of the north roundabout intersection including the Chamonix Road approach These improvements would add capacity to several entering approaches and distribute traffic more evenly across the roundabout's two lanes. August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF VAIL Main Vail Interchange Enhanctnents Possible Solutions from Previous Planning NORTH rRoNTAct ROAD 7, 70 wk'8 OM RAII We o f yfk 5 a£B SourF, 70 EV ON 8 'RQ,t1A I ."'.SIP t.. 9 ry , , 4, 1 Characteristics of these enhancements include: ♦ Incorporating an additional northbound lane under 1 -70 and entering the north roundabout ♦ Corresponding expansion of the north roundabout intersections including two exit lanes to Westbound 1 -70 and two inbound lanes from under 1 -70 ♦ These improvements would add capacity to several entering approaches and distribute traffic more evenly across the roundabout's two lanes. August 5, 2013 P-j FELSBURG A H O L T & ULLEVIG COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN Focus of this PEL Study Update traffic and safety analysis OF VAIL Develop more detail of possible alternatives Quantify benefits and impacts of possible alternatives Identify community and environmental considerations Solicit public involvement Screen possible alternatives and craft recommendations August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF VAIL Next Steps ♦ Complete existing conditions report *Traffic operations using 2013 traffic count data • Safety analysis Specifically define nature of alternative modes within transportation system Identify potentially impacted environmental resources *Assess design constraints /considerations ♦ Develop future travel demand estimates ♦ Craft a project purpose and need ♦ Begin to screen possible alternatives August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG COLORADO OT DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION How You Can Comment ♦ Fill out the comment sheet provided this evening: Leave comments with project team this evening, or Mail to address provided on sheet. ♦ Email the Town Engineer, Tom Kassmel at. TKassmel@vailgov.com TOWN OF (VA I F Sheet`�y °UCEQeab - -- Go��edteam .\SStivay' - -- meQ spec\ S °�tih / ♦ For project updates, please check out the Engineering Department at: www.vailaov.com August 5, 2013 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 2013 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6E -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side setback area, located at 2785 Bald Mountain Road/Vail Village Filing 13, Lot 3, Block 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130023) Applicant: 2002 Carey Family Trust, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, 2002 Carey Family Trust represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC, is requesting a setback variance to allow for an addition into the side setback area at 2785 Bald Mountain Road. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), photographs (Attachment B) the applicants' request (Attachment C), and proposed architectural plans (Attachment D) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, 2002 Carey Family Trust represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC, is requesting a setback variance to allow for an addition into the side setback area at 2785 Bald Mountain Road. The subject property is a two -story single family home built in 1977 and is located in the Two - Family Residential (R) Zone District. The applicant is proposing to extend the existing second floor by approximately 9' -6" to the northwest to allow for the construction of a bathroom and office. The proposed 183 square foot addition encroaches 3' -6" into the required 15' side setback. The addition is to be constructed over the existing garage and replaces an existing second -story rooftop deck. The addition is entirely within the footprint of the existing structure and will not increase site coverage. The addition is an increase in GRFA and meets the requirements of the Two - Family Residential (R) Zone District. The proposed addition will utilize the same materials and architectural style of the exiting home to not appear distinct. III. BACKGROUND The Vail Village Filing 13 subdivision was approved by the Town of Vail and recorded with Eagle County in 1972. The residence was approved by the Town of Vail and constructed in 1977. At that time, the required side setback was 10' in the two - family Residential (R) Zone District and the home was constructed 11' -6" from the west property line. Subsequent to the construction of the home, Ordinance No. 50, Series 1978, increased the required side setback in the Two - Family Residential (R) Zone District to 15'. This ordinance increased setback requirements in all residential zone districts existing at that time. The property is generally rectangular in shape and slopes moderately from front to back. The home shares a common access drive with the property immediately to the west, Lot 4, that was also built in 1977. According to the building permit documents, the owners at that time desired a common driveway to minimize the impacts to the site and to preserve the natural ground cover. In 2013 the property received DRB approval for a 214 square foot exercise room addition to the rear of the stricture. This addition utilized the one time exemption for structures with nonconforming roofs (wood shake). The 183 square foot bathroom /office addition, with the requested variance, and with approval by the PEC and DRB, will require the structure to come into conformance Sec. 14 -10 -5 Building Materials and Design. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) CHAPTER II: LAND USE PLAN GOALS / POLICIES (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and 2 ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: General Growth / Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5. Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development maybe permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7. New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8. Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a. Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b. The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c. The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision - making process. 1.9. The existing condition and use of National Forest Land (USFS) which is exchanged, sold, or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain unchanged. A change in the existing condition and use may be considered if the change substantially complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and achieves a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest, as determined by the Town Council. 1.10. Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11. Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 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. 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2. Quality time share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. CHAPTER VI, SECTION 4, PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORIES (in part) LDR Low Density Residential This category includes single- family detached homes and two - family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acres. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. 4 Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) ARTICLE 12 -6C: TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R) DISTRICT (in part) 12 -6C -1: The two - family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single- family or two - family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same zone district. The two - family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6C -6. Setbacks. In the R district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). CHAPTER 12 -17. VARIANCES (in part) 12 -17 -1. Purpose. A. Reasons for Seeking Variance. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2785 Bald Mountain Road Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13 Zoning: Two - family Residential District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Single Family Residential Geological Hazards: None Density: (max GRFA) 6,797 sq. ft. 2,344 2,526 sq. ft. Building Height: 33 ft. 24 ft. 24 ft. for addition Site Coverage: 3,458 sq. ft. 2,416 sq. ft. 2,416 sq. ft. VI. Parking >_2,000 GRFA, 3 spaces 4 spaces Setbacks 4 spaces North: 15 ft. (rear 16.3 ft. No change West: 15 ft. (side) 11.5 ft. 11.5 ft. East: 15 ft. (side) 16.8 ft. No change South: 20ft. (front) 113 ft. No change SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Open Space South: Open Space East: Single- family Residential West: Single- family Residential VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Natural Area Preservation District Outdoor Recreation District Two - family Residential District Two - family Residential District The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The subject property, Lot 3, is located within a residential development bordered on the east and west by other single family homes and on the north and south by open space. The proposed 183 square foot addition would occur on the second story replacing an existing rooftop deck situated over a two -car garage. The addition will be completely within the existing building footprint and will not increase site coverage nor diminish landscape area. The addition is designed to blend seamlessly into the existing structure architecturally and will have little effect on the building's perceived mass and scale. Therefore, Staff believes this proposal will not negatively affect the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparison to existing conditions. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The original home was constructed within the Town of Vail in 1977 under the Two - family Residential (R) Zone District regulations. The setback regulations at that time required a 10 foot side setback that the building design and construction complied with. The home 31 subsequently became legal nonconforming in 1978 when the side setback was increased in the Two - family Residential (R) Zone District to 15 feet. Property owners in the vicinity whose original homes were built prior to 1978, but meeting the 1978 15 feet setback regulation, are able to pursue building additions utilizing the existing footprint and foundation. Unlike other properties in the vicinity, a variance is necessary to pursue similar building improvements on the subject property. The proposed bathroom and office addition will improve the functionality and value of the home, an upgrade supported by Land Use Plan Goal 1.3. Staff believes the proposed variance is consistent with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and purposes of the Two - family Residential District as identified in Section IV of this memorandum. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed relief from the setback regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will facilitate an addition in the side setback area that will not alter population; will not increase the required number of parking spaces; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side setback area, located at 2785 Bald Mountain Road/Vail Village Filing 13, Lot 3, Block 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: 7 "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants'request for a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side setback area, located at 2785 Bald Mountain Road/Vail Village Filing 13, Lot 3, Block 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicants obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the August 26, 2013 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two - family Residential District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two - family Residential District. C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two - family Residential District IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Photographs C. Applicants' Request D. Architectural Plans P" 70 peel /lanaenwalter architects, I.I.c. david m. peel, a.i.a. kathy langenwalter p.o. box 1202 vail, co 81658 970 - 476 -4506 plarch(d)vail.net July 15, 2013 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Side Setback Variance Application Carey Residence 2785 Bald Mountain Road Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, Town of Vail, CO Dear Planning and Environmental Commission Members; Mike and Wendy Carey, owners of Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, are requesting a side setback variance to construct a third bathroom and small office upon an existing second story deck situated above their two car garage. The 183 square foot addition to the three bedroom home will not increase the existing building footprint and will have little effect on the mass and bulk of the building. The residence was approved by the Town of Vail and constructed in 1977 at which time the required side setback in the Residential Zone District was 10' -0 ". Since then the Town of Vail increased the required side setback in this zone district to 15' -0" thus requiring a setback variance to build the second story upon the existing structure. Per a recent survey by Inter - Mountain Engineering, the Carey residence is located 11' -6" from the west property line. Due to the design and siting of the existing residence, the addition must be situated in the northwest area of the house. One of the physical difficulties of this property is that it shares a common driveway with its neighbor to the west, Lot 4 as discussed below. Another difficulty is a mature conifer growing close to the northwest corner of the structure which the owners and neighbor would very much like to preserve. This can be accomplished by utilizing the existing deck thus leaving the tree roots unaffected by construction. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This property is unique in that it was designed and constructed in conjunction with its neighboring property to the west, Lot 4. When the two sites were originally developed, the owners for both Lot 3 Side Setback Variance Application Carey Residence July 15, 2013 Page 2of3 and Lot 4 chose to construct a common driveway which approximately follows their common lot line. As stated in their April 12, 1977 letter to the town, the owners' intent was to "preserve as much ground cover as possible during the construction phase ". Thus the two residences were designed and sited to create the single driveway for both homes and a "Joint Easement Agreement" was executed for the common driveway which is binding for both properties. At the time the residences were constructed, the zoning regulations required a 10' -0" side setback. Due to site conditions and to accommodate the shared driveway the Lot 3 garage was designed to be 12' -0" from the common property line and the Lot 4 garage was to be located 18' -0" from the line thus allowing a separation of 30' -0" for vehicular maneuverability. This placement was within the zoning regulations and approved by the Town of Vail prior to construction. Since the houses were built, the town increased the side setback requirement to 15' -0" thus creating a non - conformance for Lot 3. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Because its building location happened to be beyond the increased setback of 15-0 ", Rob Ford, the Lot 4 owner, was able to construct a two story addition along the common property line with Lot 3. Mr. Ford is in favor of the proposed addition and the granting of the variance thus affording the Careys the same rights he and other property owners have enjoyed. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested side setback variance and construction on the existing roof deck structure will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Granting of this side setback variance can be made based on the following findings: 1. Due to the existing conditions unique to this property, the granting of the requested variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. Nor will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Side Setback Variance Application Carey Residence July 15, 2013 Page 3 of 3 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. Because the variance request is to construct above an existing structure and not extend beyond the existing building footprint approved by the town in 1977, the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. The siting of the residence to accommodate the common driveway as well as the change from a required side setback of 10' -0" to 15' -0" are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privilege of expanding within the original building footprint which was approved by the town and constructed within the zoning regulations in effect at the time - a privilege enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours truly, Kathy Lan enwalter Peel/Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. Attachments: Town of Vail Zoning Checklist Summary for Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Town of Vail Zoning Checklist Summary for Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Letter to Town of Vail dated 4 -12 -77 Joint Easement Agreement for Lots 3 & 4, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing Google Earth Image showing Lot 3 & 4 common drive and Lot 3 second story deck M O O � � u 00 F- jiJ 4 �I 0 — o W Ps 'z o W. a ��o O :a��zzz as •e i � _ � aq,a� en a mas apssa a� �� a �� f §� vim �� Ij � '�\ �/y i F NOVI s e _ nl 09 J' � / \ wo °o i w f _ I I _ -, Lz I M I �I 1 II I \ II �JI - F�i�iF - +FF 10.1 J IW! E CHI O W i a� i I �0 a I i �IIL!' iii m � m X al sI,.. I � I i i I \ I 858jeE) anogy '.. UOWPPV om I II . flip V k 9 I I } ' is a6x�ey anagy w � ', I® m J x tl �a a I I� g" 'e E x �I r E a r ,n _ v w it m E ao ar ea m 'I Ilo II w N ` had I II I I I' $ it i 7 as.%. -q\{ L common! �I I6 I F f WI i 4�A 1 ii I II f I® f, IJ� It W T' hl I f i k� in �� I Sk a t E k lu k�P % 4 5 5n� 6g go . flip V k 9 k J x tl �a a Fgg:� g" 'e k� in �� I Sk a t E k lu k�P % 4 5 5n� 6g go till S i Rik s�t afl �aY I s € l 1i T 1 rug .. 'a Ul l �t d 1 ,� c • i [ a v „3 � F < r LHos6n r; a: X 1 �j All 1 K y� {; } 1 1 1 Iz -sita K' 4 1 p v E` t +� 1 \� toll r ` fills, 1 r� r _ `o r i n` WAS v got 1 T � I T i fi � r a a 1 III 4F I al i T �� 4d b i r man, J w � /? J F � n 13T Y< I � �T, d i i tJ' s 1 � Z a a i I , OD it LJ sj v z k 1 � x L �I X114 s y n. ok ?i� I c ?: 1 „_I i_ I� I � � �;� ?.� III, ( �� :.�/ I� ��— . -+ -- � -- - -� `'��i. z I✓4=� �1 I 1 1 TF + Y j t, y I, - � F 1 i tl� \� I III I (o I � � � � '� � �I ✓ � II �-�� �� r I � I I li; I I `LT 6 Ii I 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: August 26, 2013 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12- 9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an existing dwelling unit, located at 16 Vail Road, (The Sebastian) /Part of Lots M, N, and O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130021) Applicant: AMPH, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to allow staff and the applicant, AMPH, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, to introduce a proposal to increase the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an existing dwelling unit in The Sebastian. The applicant has provided a written description of their request, dated August 12, 2013 2013, (Attachment A) and plans dated August 8, 2013 (Attachment B), which are provided for review. Final action on the proposed amendments will be requested at a future public hearing. Staff and the applicant ask that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, provide any feedback, ask any questions, and then table this application to the September 9, 2013 public hearing. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add approximately 691 square feet of GRFA to the existing penthouse unit. The proposed addition would result in the unit increasing in size to approximately 5,841 square feet of GRFA. To accomplish the addition the proposal includes the following: • The entry on the first floor of the penthouse would be reconfigured resulting in GRFA being converted to common area hallway for the lodge. • The existing roof form over the second floor of the penthouse at the northeast corner of the building would be raised 2 feet in elevation in order to increase the interior height of the space. • The second floor would be increased in size by with an expansion to the south. This proposed area would include a new roof form which would extend to the south approximately 32 feet. The roof extension would be an increase in height of approximately 12 feet above the existing roof form. • An outdoor patio is proposed to extend approximately 11 feet south of the second floor expansion. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS In response to the application to increase the allowable GRFA for the penthouse in The Sebastian, staff researched the documents on file with regard to the initial review of the Vail Plaza Hotel (The Sebastian). Staff was interested in gaining an understanding of the influences on the approved bulk, mass, and height of the existing structure. Upon conducting this research staff obtained an understanding of the bulk, mass, and height relationships sought between the Vail Plaza Hotel and the adjacent properties. Those relationships can be seen on the approved elevation drawings which include the adjacent Gateway and Vail Village Inn Phase III structures (Attachment C). The inclusion of the adjacent structures on the elevations illustrates the goal of having elements such as roof forms which step down to create a relationship with the adjacent structures. Additionally, it can be seen that the alignment of eaves and a general compatibility with regard to bulk, mass, and height was sought and achieved. As discussed previously, the proposal includes several changes to the roof form in the northeast corner of the existing structure. The proposed changes include the raising of the existing roof form by 2 feet and the expansion of the roof mass south by approximately 32 feet. Staff has a concern with the proposal's impacts on the existing roof form's relationships with adjacent structures. Furthermore, staff believes there are impacts on the perceived bulk and mass from the perspective of a pedestrian. Staff's concern is best illustrated by a comparison of the existing and proposed east and south elevations (Attachment B). The expansion of the second floor of the penthouse unit to the south by approximately 32 feet eliminates an intermediate stepping of the roof forms which was intended to establish a rhythm of incremental decreasing height from north to south. This existing stepping of the roof forms results in the southern portion of The Sebastian having a compatible bulk, mass, and height relationship with the existing structures within the SDD. The proposal to eliminate the intermediate step has a negative effect on the intended design. Staff further believes the proposal will have a negative impact on the pedestrian perception of bulk, mass, and height from the southern perspective looking north. The current design allows for the pedestrian perception of height to stop at the eaves of the lowermost roof form which results in the feeling of appropriate and compatible scale Town of Vail Page 2 between structures. The proposal would extend a roof form which is largely unseen currently from this perspective thus altering the perceived height of the structure. The photo rendering provided in the submitted plans illustrates this concern (Attachment B). Staff believes there may be alternative designs which would address staff's concerns while maintaining the intent to step the height of the structure down from the north to the south. Moving forward staff requests that the applicant include the adjacent structures on the proposed elevation plans. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission share the concerns of staff regarding the proposed changes to the roof forms at the northeast corner of the structure? Should alternative designs be explored to address these concerns? IV. BACKGROUND On September 4, 2001, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001, which amended Special Development District No. 6 to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel (The Sebastian) with one dwelling unit, 99 accommodation units, 18 employee housing units, and 50 fractional fee club units. The Planning and Environmental Commission held public hearings to discuss a request to convert 2 fractional fee units to dwelling units and one dwelling unit to a fractional fee unit on April 27, and May 11, 2009. On May 11, 2009, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7 -0 -0 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Town Council for the proposed special development district amendment. At its May 19, 2009, hearing the Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2009, with modifications that reference to the conversion of the penthouse dwelling unit to a fractional fee club unit be stricken, and that the sale of the penthouse unit be a trigger for the expiration of this ordinance in addition to the Commission's recommended triggers of the specific date May 11, 2012, or the issuance of an occupancy certificate for the penthouse unit. On June 2, 2009, the Vail Town Council denied Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2009, upon second reading. The summary minutes are as follows: "Connie Dorsey asked that the applicant not be forced to move until there is a TCO on another unit in the building. During a pause for public comment, Robert Vogel said there was a pattern of deceit being exhibited by the applicant and there was no compelling reason to grant the applicant's request. Fractional owner's legal representative Lindsey Richards spoke against allowing the applicant to continue to live there. The applicant, Waldir Prado, said he had been occupying a vacant unit and no one had been negatively financially impacted. Councilmember Town of Vail Page 3 Rogers stated, `7 don't feel like 1 was given a straight story on it ...l don't have a good feeling we are going to know what is happening here...) don't feel like passing this ordinance on second reading is going to help the Town of Vail.../ do have an interest in hot beds." Rogers then moved to deny the ordinance with Councilmember Newbury seconding. Councilmember Foley said employee housing in the hotel should be satisfactory for any employee of the hotel. Councilmember Hitt said he felt like he had been misled. He also agreed that employee housing should be adequate for the applicant. Newbury said one of the town's overriding policies is to maintain hot beds. Councilmember Cleveland said the solution that was presented was not in the public interest. '7t is inconsistent with the SDD approval plan." Councilmember Daly said there is a lot more revenue the town is giving up than was previously anticipated. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0." On May 14, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval for amendments to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, and approved amendments to the existing conditional use permit (CUP) to convert fractional fee unit 401 to a dwelling unit. This recommendation and CUP amendment approval resulted in no change to GRFA, an increase in the number of dwelling units from 1 to 2, and the reduction of the number of fractional fee units from 50 to 49. On June 19, 2012, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2012, which resulted in an increase in the number of allowable dwelling units to 2 and a decrease in the number of fractional fee units to 49. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12 -1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12 -1 -2. Purpose. A. General. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes. 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. Town of Vail Page 4 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off - street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. ARTICLE 12 -9A, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (in part) 12 -9A -1: Purpose and Applicability: A. Purpose. The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use, to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. B. Applicability: Special development districts do not apply to and are not available in the following zone districts. hillside residential, single- family residential, two - family residential and two - family primary /secondary residential. 12- 9A -10: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES. B. Major Amendments. 1. Requests for major amendments to an approved special development district shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in section 12 -9A- 4 of this article. 2. Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the special development district, and owners of all property within the special Town of Vail Page 5 development district that may be affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the department of community development). Notification procedures shall be as outlined in subsection 12 -3 -6C of this title. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES Land Uses Zoning North: 1 -70 right -of -way Not Zoned South: Mixed Use Public Accommodation East: Mixed Use SDD #39 (Solaris) West: Multiple Family Public Accommodation and SDD #21 (Gateway) VII. ZONING ANALYSIS Development Standard Approved/ Existing Proposed Change Density - Dwelling Units 2 DU 2 DU No change - Fractional Fee Units 49 FFU 49 FFU No change - Accommodation Units 100 AU 100 AU No change Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) -AU & FFU ( >70 %) 97,788 sq ft (94 %) 97,788 sq ft (93.5 %) No change -DU ( <30 %) 6,136 sq ft (6 %) 6,827 sq ft (6.5 %) +691 sq ft TOTAL 103,924 sq ft 104,615 sq ft +691 sq ft Parking 212.39 spaces 212.39 spaces required (round to required (round to No change 213 spaces) 213 spaces) 218 spaces existing 218 spaces existing VIII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA As this is a work session staff will not be addressing the criteria for review of an SDD amendment. Staff will respond tot the criteria upon request of a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before acting on a major amendment to a special development district amendment application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposal: 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Town of Vail Page 6 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. 5. Natural and /or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 10. Public Benefit: The proposed deviations provide benefits to the town must outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department requests the Planning and Environmental Commission listens to the applicant's presentation, asks questions, and tables this item to its September 9, 2013, public hearing for further deliberation. X. ATTAC H M E N TS A. Written Request dated August 12, 2013 B. Proposed Plans dated August 8, 2013 C. PEC Approved Plans Town of Vail Page 7 THE SEBASTIAN VAIL VILLAGE INN, PHASE IV MAJOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #6 To allow for an addition to the Penthouse Unit at the Sebastian �I 1 ■� Submitted to the Town of Vail: June 24, 2013 Revised August 12, 2013 T H E �Ato ♦ Ti �e[qa FI[so *rs H+�r[ib F[su['m_i. �_.� u Mauriello Planning Group I. Introduction The owners of Sebastian, the Marti family, represented by Timbers Resorts, are requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 (SDD #6) to allow for an addition to the penthouse unit (parcel #: 2101- 082 -85 -051). The addition increases the GRFA by 691 sq. ft., and includes exterior changes to the building, which include changes to the existing secondary roof forms. According to Section 12 -9A -2: Definitions, Vail Town Code, an increase in GRFA is considered a Major SDD Amendment. The existing penthouse, constructed in 2007, at the Sebastian has never been finished. At this time, the owners would like to complete the penthouse. The penthouse is a 2 -story unit of approximately 5,150 sq. ft. (as indicated on the original approval). When completed, the penthouse unit will be a 5- bedroom unit of approximately 5,841 sq. ft. Oddly designed originally, the head - height in some areas of the existing unit make the floor area unusable, and to improve the existing layout, the owners are requesting some modifications to the roof form. The location of the change is difficult to photographic due to the existing building and surrounding properties. The addition is therefore essentially not visible from pedestrian areas within the village. The best location to view the proposed locations is from the road leading to the Spraddle Creek neighborhood as indicated in the photo below: 1 Floor plans are provided below, and a reduction of the complete set of plans has been included in the rL I FII° ,%I , I IM"I I ^ %"' (;RCA 2 . PROPOSEU UPPER I FVEL • GRFA The Sebastian -Vail Penthouse p o ss I S C N E MAT I C OF SIGN Fbn PI*M 2= Calwlnlma i 2 II. Background The Sebastian is located at 16 Vail Road. The property is part of Phase IV of Special Development District No 6, Vail Village Inn. This SDD has an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (PA). SDD #6 was adopted by Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, and has been amended �Ar numerous times since its -� original adoption. Ordinance { No. 16, Series of 2004, amended SDD #6, to allow for k � I 1 - changes to the approval of theme'' Vail Plaza Hotel (now known as Alk the Sebastian) and to extend the expiration date of the project. The Vail Plaza Hotel subsequently lost in a bankruptcy filing by its original owner hotel to Ferruco Vail Ventures LLC in January of 2010 for a purchase price of $46.5 million. Since then, the current owners have invested millions in improvements and the hotel has become a major success, with guests such as the First Lady, Michelle Obama and a feature on the Today Show. The Sebastian has become a major asset to the Town of Vail, and annual tax collections from the property have continued to increase each year. The approval for the Sebastian currently includes two whole ownership condo units, consisting of a total of 6,136 sq. ft. of dwelling unit GRFA. The remaining 97,778 sq. ft. of GRFA is within 100 accommodation units and 49 fractional units. One of the two existing whole ownership condo units is the penthouse unit. However, the interior of this unit has never been completed. At this time, the owners are requesting to finish the interior of this unit, along with some exterior modifications which will allow the space to be more useable. The original approval identifies the penthouse unit as having 5,150 sq. ft. of GRFA. The Sebastian currently deviates from the maximum height limitation of the Public Accommodation zone district, which limits height to 48 ft. The maximum height of the Sebastian is 77.25 ft., with the height of the tower element opened in December of 2007 and was A federal bankruptcy court awarded the 3 at 99.75 ft. The proposed addition to the roof, which is at a maximum of 72.75 ft., does not effect the approved maximum building height and no additional deviation from the approved maximum building height is required. There is no additional parking requirement for this proposal, as parking for the unit has already been assessed. There is an incremental increase to the employee housing requirements as a result of the addition of 691 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is addressed in Section III of this application. The proposed addition will generate an employee housing payment in lieu fee of $9,290.85. The property continues to meet the definition of a lodge, with greater than 70% of the floor area dedicated to accommodation units or fractional fee club units and the property remains compliant with all other zoning standards. North Elevation: Existing Proposed: =;r3 South Elevation: Existing Proposed: i I � if / ..... C .. XsC; r _ 11 r - r A 1 4 III. Zoning Analysis Due to the nature of the addition, only GRFA and employee housing are affected by the project. Below is an analysis of the proposal with regard to these development standards. Parking, height and density have also been included, though these standards have not changed as a result of this proposal. All other standards remain as approved by Special Development District #6. Standard Existing Proposed Density Fractional Fee Units 49 No Change Accommodation Units 100 Dwelling Units 2 (13.6 du /acre) GRFA 103,924 sq. ft. 104,615 sq. ft. In AU and FFU (Required >70 %) 97,788 sq. ft. (94 %) 97,788 sq. ft. (93.5 %) In DU (Required <30 %) 6,136 sq. ft. (6%) 6,827 sq. ft. (6.5%) Parking Required 21 1.69 spaces (rounds to 212) No Change Provided 218 spaces Height 77.25 ft. (sloping roof) No Change 99.75 ft. (tower) Employee Housing Approved prior to Inclusionary 69 sq. ft. (pay -in -lieu) Requirement 5 IV. Criteria for Review for the Major Amendment to a Special Development District Section 12 -9A -8: DESIGN CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS, Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Major Amendment to a Special Development District. These criteria have been provided below, along with an analysis of how this proposal complies with these criteria: I. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Response: The architectural design, scale, bulk, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation of the hotel remain largely unchanged as a result of the proposed major amendment. The proposed changes to the roof do not effect the overall maximum building height of the Sebastian. The proposed roof plan is provided below: (�RGPoSED ROOF PUN .�, IMF Ent, Li I The Sebastian -Vail Penthouse SCHEMATIC DESIGN P=RWf PIW rrw� u The changes to the area of the south side of the penthouse unit roof are not visible from many locations within the Village, as indicated in the photos below: Photo I: Taken approximately from in front of A Secret Garden. Photo 2: Taken from deck area of VVI. The changes to the north side of the penthouse roof are visible from the Frontage Road, as indicated in the photo below: Photo 3: Taken from north side of South Frontage Road A photo analysis of the improvements on the is provided below: (V XISTING VIEW FROM NUR I _ PROPOSED VIEW FROM NORTH 01 EXISTING VIEW FROM SOUTH a /, PROPOSED VIEW FROM SOUTH c 9 As indicated in the analysis, the proposed addition remains true to the character of the existing architecture and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Since the original approval of the Sebastian, the character of the Village has changed dramatically, with many projects approved with greater height than was approved here. The additions to the building do not alter the overall character of the building which remains compatible with the immediate environment. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Response: The Sebastian is a mixed -use type of development, including commercial, lodging, recreational, and residential uses. There is no change in use or activity, along with no change to the number of dwelling units for the property. The addition of GRFA to an existing dwelling unit remains consistent with the intended purpose of the underlying zoning of Public Accommodation and the intent of Vail Land Use Plan. Adjacent properties include a similar mix of uses. The density and uses proposed forThe Sebastian do not conflict with the compatibility, efficiency, or workability of the surrounding uses and activities on adjacent properties. 3. Parking And Loading. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Response: Parking for the penthouse unit was assessed with the original development of the property. The addition of GRFA does not increase the parking requirement for this unit. Currently, the property is required 212 parking spaces and there are 218 parking spaces provided. All parking and loading requirements have been met. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Response: The Sebastian is within the boundaries of the Vail Village Master Plan. The following general objectives are applicable to this application: Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. In addition to the general objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Sebastian is located within Mixed Use Sub -Area #1 as indicated in the following map: D =S) MIXED USE SUB -AREA M1 r� The Vail Village Master Plan offers the following with regard to this property: #1 -1 Vail Village Inn Final phase of Vail Village Inn project to be completed as established by development plan for SDD #6. Commercial development at ground, level to frame interior plaza with greenspace. Mass of buildings shall "step up" from existing pedestrian -scale along Meadow Drive to 4 -5 stories along the Frontage Road. Design must be sensitive to maintaining view corridor from 4 -way stop to Vail Mountain. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 24, 2.6, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1. 5. Natural And /Or Geologic Hazard. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect j`ect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Response:The proposed addition has has no effect on the above criterion. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Response:The proposed addition has no effect on the above criterion. There are no changes proposed to the site plan and all open space provisions remain as originally approved. 10 7. Tra ffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Response:The proposed addition has no effect on the above criterion. 8. Landscaping. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Response:The proposed addition has no effect on the above criterion. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Response:The proposed addition has no effect on the above criterion. 11 V. Adjacent Addresses JOHN D GOODMAN PO BOX 1886 0105 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD, STE D -201, EDWARDS, CO 81632 9VAIL RD,ASSOC 9VAIL RD. VAIL, CO 81657 JOSEF STAUFER 100 E MEADOW DR #31, VAIL, CO 81657 ARTHUR ANDREW ABPLANALP JR. POST OFFICE BOX 2800, VAIL, CO 81658 -2800 SLIFER MANAGEMENT CO. C/O MS. SALLY HANLON, 385 GORE CREEK DRIVE - R -2, VAIL, CO 81657 MCNEILL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2077 N. FRONTAGE RD. #300, VAIL, CO 81657 KEVIN DEIGHAN 12VAIL ROAD, SUITE 600 VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL HOTEL 09 LLC GENERAL COUNSEL 745 SEVENTH AVE NEWYORK, NY 10019 MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP PO BOX 4777 EAGLE, CO 81631 CDOT 4201 E. ARKANSAS AVENUE DENVER, CO 80222 SOLARIS PROPERTY OWNER LLC 141 E MEADOW DR 211 VAIL, CO 81657 FIRSTBANK OFVAIL FIRSTBANK HOLDING CO PO BOX 150097 LAKEWOOD, CO 80215 -0097 SONNENALP PROPERTIES INC 20VAIL RD VAIL, CO 81657 VILLAGE INN PLAZA - PHASEV CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION CROSSROADS REALTY LTD PO BOX 1292 VAIL, CO 81658 TALISMAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PTARMIGAN MANAGEMENT 62 E MEADOW DR VAIL, CO 81657 ONEWILLOW BRIDGE ROAD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY 1560 BROADWAY STE 2090, DENVER, CO 80202, ONEWILLOW BRIDGE ROAD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 4148 NORTH ARCADIA DRIVE, PHOENIX,AZ 85018 -4302 VAIL GATEWAY PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VAILTAX &ACCOUNTING P. O. BOX 5940 AVON, CO 81620 TOWN OFVAIL FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 ONEVAIL ROAD PRIVATE RESIDENCE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. BALLARD SPAHRANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP 1225 17TH ST., SUITE 2300, DENVER, CO 80202 ONEVAIL ROAD PRIVATE RESIDENCE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. I VAIL ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 THE RESIDENCES AT SOLARIS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 5450 AVON, CO 81620 ONEWILLOW BRIDGE COMMERCIAL, LLC 141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE, SUITE 211 VAIL, CO 81657 ONEWILLOW BRIDGE ROAD ASSOCIATION INC I WILLOW BRIDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 VAILVILLAGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2264, C/O SLIFER MANAGEMENT COMPANY, EDWARDS, CO 81632 STEPHEN L STAFFORD 0105 EDWARDS VILLAGE BLVD, SUITE G206, EDWARDS, CO 81632 12 Appendix: Plans for the Proposed Penthouse Unit at the Sebastian 13 f r z \� w-FU- J W W Z_ Q W W O d O a J W W J Z_ Q 0 Z_ N H X W a� m N o U C � om � W= �r �7 J. O R z R � � w N ° t/1 U d1 � � Q H � w U U O= U Z Z- Z Q" d ° w �^ U.^ W w- U ;a _a vs = a o �- o_ of nn { It J W W J W W rl W W O rl O a J W ILL] a a 0 z x w a� m N o O U � N r, C > (6 r 2a �_ >r �R J SZ = 20 R R V, � w N o t/1 U ai - ¢ w U N O= z z- z° w �= U .^ W w- U ;a ¢ _a vs = a o �- o_ I Q / nO m e / 1= � I I I / LL� _ I I I I I € 0/1 1I I 1 I w w m a K / I 0 t m I Ia m I z � a - - o X H O O- w= AW Ii i N R G.! H R o CL � O O bq a. x w z° CD 0 U H w U O zm w e� ,o p- U a' Q,m H we N cm— Cm- I ,, - -- / I I r— _ I I I w I I I g� I — i , CAI lip mi m o m 1 I I m I t m t I x l s 1 R ----------- I m I r w� i�m LLJ LLI X LLI 0 1? -2 T < LLJ Z m H we cm— Cm- W J W W J W d d W N a 0 a W c� J W W J fr W d a c� z X W o" W U m U a � =o R o N R .. � z � w i U H W 2 U O' U Z Z - Z m Q" J W er W U a' Q ,m H we N cm— Cm- E E �E E JE LH JE JE o�°on EE E EJE bm E JE SJ E uE � I — I I _e J o' I E e i i i i F� C- I CJ C i x 4 i o i I I LAM i i i All E N BETRIE] E III --- .�-------- �-- �. - - - - -- - -11 - -- III - -_ z O uiQ W O Z C7 Z H X W N U — O a � o W CL - a — o �I!! b-0._ N X O W Z N � R cf) ILL] U r Q U Z Zm J = CY �° � Wm W w: H a_ U a of ,m N wm N O d z 0 a ui w O Z W 0 a 0 CL CL a� m N o U 0 C N O o � o W W A L a N fl-O O R }' z R u) N w y o d U Q LU U N z z= z� w �= � a^ ww- vs = a o �- o_ W7 E 'EE JE �E 29 b E E E JE E E ° E ° EJE E� 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I5 I I I I h a l l I 4 _ __ i + — — ` — — — - u s — W � II - zE -J J C J I I - I -- _� o- - -- - D _I I 0 CI - FF CJ C -1 _ I � -_ CJ El - - I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I �E :E I I I I I I I I I z 0 a ui w O Z W 0 a 0 CL CL a� m N o U 0 C N O o � o W W A L a N fl-O O R }' z R u) N w y o d U Q LU U N z z= z� w �= � a^ ww- vs = a o �- o_ 0 0 1 O 0 E EoE 'E EEO I � III I I � I I O - � o I I I I i � I III I ' I - I o - I I ---- - - - - -- I ------------ fi mE mE o - z 0 ¢ W J W H N W C7 Z H X W N U - O a � W o A CL N a (6 � Wes;, •� C W Z }� 0 N - 12 W y U G� - H � W U N U Z Z - z m ¢ m CL ° f �m Cr :° U W w: H a_ U of ¢ ,m N wm O d i J of mE b� mE >E z 0 ¢ W J W H N W C7 Z H X W N U - O a � W o A CL N a (6 � Wes;, •� C W Z }� 0 N - 12 W y U G� - H � W U N U Z Z - z m ¢ m CL ° f �m Cr :° U W w: H a_ U of ¢ ,m N wm O d A C OJ AO u£ 98 u£ I I I I I I I 1 1 1 s uE v .E 3m z 0 w V) w 0 w U) O O CL Ir a� a N o U 0 = w� AAW 9L R 1 C R N R N t/1 d) WE C m Oo t6 ca > o N" W N4 (6 W r O °- y m" 0 0 a z c� w 0 U H Q w S U z z- z° U.^ W w- zF U ;a ¢ _a vs = a rn �� o �- o_ „E gE o8 �E`o� � SE wE JE ga WS z/L - s - - u£ 98 u£ I I I I I I I 1 1 1 s uE v .E 3m z 0 w V) w 0 w U) O O CL Ir a� a N o U 0 = w� AAW 9L R 1 C R N R N t/1 d) WE C m Oo t6 ca > o N" W N4 (6 W r O °- y m" 0 0 a z c� w 0 U H Q w S U z z- z° U.^ W w- zF U ;a ¢ _a vs = a rn �� o �- o_ o � z/L I I L I I i S° u£ 98 u£ I I I I I I I 1 1 1 s uE v .E 3m z 0 w V) w 0 w U) O O CL Ir a� a N o U 0 = w� AAW 9L R 1 C R N R N t/1 d) WE C m Oo t6 ca > o N" W N4 (6 W r O °- y m" 0 0 a z c� w 0 U H Q w S U z z- z° U.^ W w- zF U ;a ¢ _a vs = a rn �� o �- o_ LAM � Irl, o-� T fi FM II I I ! I I I I I I I i I E E E mE '' >E E >E >E 3E] z 0 a W J W S H 0 C7 z U) x W N U 0 E O D m — a � o W A � a uo UI W Z N c� R N W � o 0 LLJ S U N z- J = Cr :° U W w: H a_ U a Of ,m N wm N O C2. - =- C C❑p I I i o o- -- I ill i I I I I II I I III - T— 7 - -- -- i C LLL:l L� �� I I ° ° i C CI❑ - - o- "❑ - LLCM F-F-] C❑❑ LAM � Irl, o-� T fi FM II I I ! I I I I I I I i I E E E mE '' >E E >E >E 3E] z 0 a W J W S H 0 C7 z U) x W N U 0 E O D m — a � o W A � a uo UI W Z N c� R N W � o 0 LLJ S U N z- J = Cr :° U W w: H a_ U a Of ,m N wm N O C2. - =- C C❑p o- -- I ill i I I I I II I I I - - T— 7 - -- -- LAM � Irl, o-� T fi FM II I I ! I I I I I I I i I E E E mE '' >E E >E >E 3E] z 0 a W J W S H 0 C7 z U) x W N U 0 E O D m — a � o W A � a uo UI W Z N c� R N W � o 0 LLJ S U N z- J = Cr :° U W w: H a_ U a Of ,m N wm N O C2. �F rcd I �a e N n uN Ery e8 a of gE �E zE JE J£ JE 4E o I II I m c i Li Li o_£ Li vE 3£YE SE iE Z O H Q W J W 2 H (D cn W V) O O cL cL a� m N o U 0 C N O o � o W A L a O r o � no = a` _R R u) N W t/1 in ai U Q ii Lu U N U z z- z° W' t° U .^ W w- U ;a _a vs = a o �- o_ Z O H Q W J W H Ld W z U) X W N U 0 E D m — O a � o W N a N ` C W O z }, CD N � w y U W U U Z Z = J = CL f Em U W w: H a_ U ,m N wm O d 0 0, $0 0 � g°oo No 8o no - - - -- - -- —III - -.— -- � - -. - - -- -- - - - -- �. � � � III III III III III O — Z O H Q W J W H Ld W z U) X W N U 0 E D m — O a � o W N a N ` C W O z }, CD N � w y U W U U Z Z = J = CL f Em U W w: H a_ U ,m N wm O d z O a w J W LUH N cn W U) O a O cL cL a� m N o U 0 C N O o � o W A N a NN Y a= 1 0 R a �.. z N c� R - N Lu � w y o U � H ¢ U N z z- z° W' t° U .^ W w- U ;a ¢ _a vs = a o �- o_ �b b ffia o° b, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o---- I I -4 4- --------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -� I I I - - I I I -I I - -�- I - - -I -- I I I 1 o---- -4 -k -- - - -4 -1— I — — — -- - - - - -- -- - - -1 -- l El L o- - -- _ J o -- L -- - -- -- - - -11 -- o �El W W - I I I I I I 1 I 1 i I I I 1 k > -- — .az.E p.E �E QE E LE LE z O a w J W LUH N cn W U) O a O cL cL a� m N o U 0 C N O o � o W A N a NN Y a= 1 0 R a �.. z N c� R - N Lu � w y o U � H ¢ U N z z- z° W' t° U .^ W w- U ;a ¢ _a vs = a o �- o_ O O LLJ O CD x LLJ Or O O LLJ D 0 O CD x LLJ Or v= >a i _ ■■ —■e • ... ��• m n n ���1�1111i4'i�lhi IIIIIIIIIIIPUiIII — lij�—;;����, r�.� IIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIII • .I� p� I I_ �� ��il�lyl ae iii' �I �°'%� • — IIIIIII��'1' - E Elm, aall ®Cis ••: Ike- l lad; IL Am 44, V Iei4 - 111118200111-1k n A IpI''�r�� rb N�Illyw - 3y� I� 5w111 -IIY— '.r ti y [11111 n`I�� IR'i- IIIIIIIu�G v= >a O o W CL i t2 -C a= V `O ai Ji N � c� 0 y o< c 4-j O e mm' > tU W �o O S U tv .> W \cz k tzrj C iw> —a TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 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 Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to allow the applicant, Town of Vail, to • Review the list of comments we heard at the last hearing; • Review the proposed Sub -area plan chapter; • Review the Illustrative Plan chapter; and • Discuss next steps. II. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department requests the Planning and Environmental Commission listens to the applicant's presentation, asks questions, provide feedback, and then table this application to the September 9, 2013, public hearing. 0w In z O U) U O Q 0 0 0 .♦^ �V ),, U U) U) 0 U - - U) QL V- O Q O 0 H 0 b F- a = L O � y C� y G � L L O a� U O W LL a. M Cfl T- N O N 00 s O N ° co o QL O cn co > E o E °� � o �� O co �o C6 U > U) Co (1) 0 co CD co }>—, 0 Co O p Co }, -I--+ V O E E5 co Co 0 4� 0 O .0 � Co cn O CL co 0 O� o LE5 L- O co 0) — O to m O O Co O :3 � cn U o O LL :3 O o L-� o o� �.� ° U � � � � O •cn � O LU O _ — to o co o 7. 1- n/' C"*-• U) (1) U) co -f-_j U) .X O O n' W Fq- O co � � � o o � � > o ci) _ Co O N N U � o _ •E Q o L �� O LLJ O LL co O M a CD O-Z 0 N 0000 N r Q O L N v O O O O O LL -f--+ O O O O o co m a� Co � m U ^ cn co Co O • (� O 0 (� Co c6 O X Ll Co CO C6 }, }, (� > O 4 -0 co o ^ -0 4- E O cn Co co o o�o�o °boo >� O O O .D U O cn O O M • • • • • • • • • • • 04- O O U) co (1) -f--+ U) 7. 1- `� r7 O O U) O O O QL C� O o O 'U F- U O O o O Co co U O QL o � r O a > co N N c6 O QL �' a o C �� o �W a M ^ N -Z • P1 CV) O N it A 'A I , P- LEGEND 0-5% Slope 5-15% slope EE=l 16-30%SIOPO V� over 30% Slope 1 W I rm a M r O N b CL CL d a 4 N Cn • L O 4-a Cll 4-a O U U W L� O 'F • 0 • C6 —_ O .0 � C6 Co 0 C CL Co L U) U) U) Co E V/ .S O -0 O O U) 4-j O 0-4- u) C U) O C= • • -` W E u) >O O i-=+ LZ Q .E .o C6 U) }' O U O Cll � O H • s -_ z b F- c a = o o a� �v 0 L La M � N 0000 C6 C6 L All r r �P w y "w I -� 91 hdli p' ■ w L Q L O N Cll Cll C6 � (� U � Q s- b F- a = o N 'vs � N o a� �V 0 L La M Cfl O N 04 00 0 LL 4-j O -I>1 + - � j � m O i co U) Q � � O O C6 Q VJ L O O 70 VJ i � O }+ nCo ^ 1 � O U Cll to OV co — , Co D C) .... C6 co •N Cll _0- O . U Q Cll O O U) U) Q� L co co O Cll Cll M U CjtnzU��� L Q L O N Cll Cll C6 � (� U � Q s- b F- a = o N 'vs � N o a� �V 0 L La M Cfl O N 04 00 NY, U) O (co W U Cll ry U El Cll E O L C6 O C O ,all s -_ W O `` a L� - V / W CO co O Cll � Cll � C6 � U) M O L o O •� O Cll � � Cll U) N 3 U) m •� o _0 Co m� •� a� U Q M U) e C6 � W a o co L -0 0 co _ U) O U Co N c6 70 m Q CU a) � Q a) O > E O U)j M" O O a o p 0 O E m O Q }, to O a) -0 L L • E 0 L U ~ C co O �iw U m CY) Cll Cll a to L.L G Co LU CSI a_ a_ Q Q N co Q • • • • • • • • O 0 Co `� • Cll }' co CU O 0 Q }' i > Cll =3 _p Cll 0 cn U) U () :z Cll Cll Cll 0 ±=_ E L c6 •� •U E Cll }, c6 c6 c6 0O O O N C6 LL �--� • Co to C6 � L 0 Cll Cll •� Q� O Q m C6 Q -o c Co Z � � �� v U� � 0� �n s r 17) AM f e b F- C a = o �N �N �o a� �v 0w La M Cfl O N 04 00 4-j C6 Cll E O C C L- E O }' U � Cll O � J � O O U O 0 Co `� • Cll }' co CU O 0 Q }' i > Cll =3 _p Cll 0 cn U) U () :z Cll Cll Cll 0 ±=_ E L c6 •� •U E Cll }, c6 c6 c6 0O O O N C6 LL �--� • Co to C6 � L 0 Cll Cll •� Q� O Q m C6 Q -o c Co Z � � �� v U� � 0� �n s r 17) AM f e b F- C a = o �N �N �o a� �v 0w La M Cfl O N 04 00 U) N Q r7l: al- t� p: s -_ b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M � N 0 04 00 O �--+ co co 4- > O co .� � O co 0. N � E O E U —_ Q p U U U) �_ C6 p O (D 'tn a) � O � > > co }, N Q Q O O O > C6 O U OU '� U O a) r O � E L: . co co N co C O O= U p.E � O � O U ~ J Q O �� CCU CO � a� . Q t� p: s -_ b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M � N 0 04 00 0 L �co V �•7 El co 4-_+ 4-j O c O co L .U) C O A, u 4-j N E O 0 L C6 C6 C6 O 4-a N E _O N N O L. 4-a U C6 O U N s -_ b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl O N 04 00 I O C6 N N L n N U 0 9 0 y pa: rr8N N E O -9I C6 C O 0 .U) C O ,all C6 C6 O Z W �• to . O W O U co co CU • U) Co ' C6 m U O 70 U c 70 'L •� L j = 'L O N QN OUP � U N b U) N :''� O N O L -I.- N z � C N C N Co '(U > N O a O O >O U co `1 m O to Co Q Z OCU E L 4- O U O O _ U) -- _ Cll N _O _O a = o U ' O LEO 0 i > •E (a) to �3: _ O O �w i+ O E ±= v M� ��Q//� �Q/1� �Q/� � N Cll L.L W v ! 0L N co • Q • • • • • U) H I 'W U U O U) 4b s -_ L Cll ° Uz b co O VJ Co V J O LLl VJ R co MM W N O O L = U -0 C O a = co Cll � U Co •N > N O_ j O O -I--+ Co CU L L c • > 0 Q _ -, a Cll (n C6 Co L) U) C CO N cLa 0 C6 X }, N (.) NU�LUQ co • • • rm a a� i a M r O N tt d :r r� r" O 4-j o Q • (D >��+r O (n O L >, w l .E p N O L V •0 L in J Q A t t E I{ J - n� 0 S b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl N O � 04 00 O 4-j o Q • (D >��+r O (n O L >, N .E p N O L V •0 L O Q •E •0 0 O O N O ^� W E n ^, > C r'1 W o o z J - n� 0 S b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl N O � 04 00 a a� L rm a M r O N C E 0 R, c 0 A s- b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L p a� �v 0 L La M Cfl N O � N 00 (6 N O co O O U c U U) 0 0 Co 0 0 O 0 a-- C can c Q Co co U) O � � � �U U �U U-0 a)-0 co co O O Q-0 `o a- 0 0 � U > 0 � L. � �� Co c aoi 0 U czw l ) o IL V � Q c l 0 o Q LO 0 0 0 E as �C� o 15! m I O LL �U I Z E I CO _0 LLI I I li C s- b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L p a� �v 0 L La M Cfl N O � N 00 c O 4-_+ c6 L- 0 4-a ry L- 0 0 L O LJ L U L_ 0 C� r� t r f -JAI, ai a ^r n `t 4- O 4-a X L 4-a co .E L_ O L O L O U ^W L� O 4—a W 'E 'U) ^V^ 1)1 'W 'U) VJ m ^0 W nW, W PA E O U • O O / —//�j VJ n-I-- O � W E Co O Q Q L E • • s- b F- a = L O � N C� N V! O a� V O LV LL M Cfl N O N 00 L- 0 4-a ^U1 W O LJ v nW, W U 0 C� y 11° f f" � f I � I V`'J i CV O _O O Co W O • C6 vi CO co CL o •� co ui U � . � O � ^C^ll1 +� Q " co o O � � O � i N CO � � O Cll � O (1) co co Cm E O cn cn � O N Cll N E Cll O � � Q s= s= W W E • • • s- b F- a = ,o � y c� y n o a� �v 0 L U- a. M Cfl N O � N 00 4-j W CU 0 n L n 4-a O 4-a E CO G W d r` ,, n r f U) 4-j W E O E U) 0 L O U) U) CU C6 Cll U U Cll ^U) Q Co CoL L L Q L O � : N Co L L ^ 1 Al }W U 0 =3 cm 'N Q 0 • • N L m Cll Cll L O VJ C6 U L C6 s- L _co co O > .a) 0 c O E E 0 L co U) O U 4-j co L > m E Cll E > a = L L 0 U � C� N G � O i i � a0 .� C W Cll M a O N N 00 • L U O 4-_+ co W N 0 �co V .CL Q H 4-a 4-a m 0 r: 1 r� i , ,.J �o LL a••' Co A (/\ - sy m /�� co _ > > a) o� cac0 -I..' U) U) o U_ a) E O o � U) co Co c 0 vi a) �a� —_ 0 Q co c-0- E E — E O O > 0 cn O 0+,7 ' co a) Q Co : +r Co O — O cu 3: C E E c6 cn O _0 > C � -0 LL _0 (6 > I U _ O co 0 (6 :3 O C U m fn C (6 a) > a) 5 0 4 = z a > U) �- co >E - a) cn — o > U O O � co E +; C i Co Co (6 0 E 0 a) co :3 i Co U co O Q U) O > co 'U O O (6 U — M 0 U •� 0 O a) i c co v Co a) Co a) - O �_ C E co o .N Q Co :3 �: 0 —, N O 0 y cn O U _O -0 0 G� cn a••, a) 0 .> � Co 0 Co C- c6 -0 co > vi co }, a) 0 -C 0 co a) 0 — cn a — Lm -2 -2 3: >. z a) o �v (1) ° 0 cn 0 0 M D- OD 0 0 0 Q w-0 0 N O 04 00 L 4-a u L 4-a m II M., 21 4 4-a L N C6 U N U L C6 O U) N L O O i ^L W ^ -j W 70 O 4-a 0) c Lei ^VJ W U) Q U) U U co L C6 U_ N .E O U) Q N U) C6 i L E L O L� E U s- b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl O N 04 00 m N m n U I..L L L LI L N 4-a C6 Q E Q H Me. 3PIL-71 r r a k O O •L U N E O + N L L U U N L 1-j Q E J O - O O O O N (D •L •O L � O U O N � Q O L � � -1--j E > O 1-- •L > Q E U > O (� •N E O L > 4-j L U O > (D Q U) L LL 0 ca }, 0 0 O as •_ (0 T L O +r O a > N � C O U U = C-) N _N O W •di T- C14 0 � Q Q > N co U) E O L 4-a U) a) ry 0 C6 n L U v 7N r Wu C O N O U co 0 coL- W W 0 L � � O � 4-a �--+ 4-a E . C6 O 4-a O Ca N U _ }, Co b O C6 N O M U .N Q E OU C6 O E -0 U � C6 •� O L 0o 7� 0) C O O a = N U) O U) ayi N C)) C/) c6+�- a. .Q uj 0 L° a •� O cN m z N co � co 0 L- 0 H N m co J 1 ti 1 1 i �r In 1� c r 'J c O (co W O U co O m L- W co C 0 L co Q E Q c6 0 m N O U —a W 0 O U U) 0 Q N C6 N L U 4-j ' `) ( `�W TM co N N O N N • L _O O U U) co U U) U) N E Q C6 a� W -` W U U) Q U C6 Q NN L.L s- C6 N O N O C6 L O O c� }+ Co F— ui Co O W (A'E M W cm p O c cm O cm O m U }, cm C= L C d _ O 0), CL Fn _0 U a c O c U) Co 0 O +� N 0 Co a N V U70 = � Ma c 70 c 7� N O Q w L N CM U • • • O L 4-a c O U U co c6 0 L H N m O) c O c6 L .(n C O ARFA c6 O co L- W 70 c6 c 0 S lw� c6 c6 0 L LL m O N N N c6 N E O Q E N O O co O ui C6 O C6 U) U co • E s- O N Q O C6 0 L O U- >1 N E N +� m N -1--' E M M LU � N U Co Co U L -0 cm O c U- Fm > c6 � N C6 m E +-j L U) C6 � W = E at = N C as cn co L o O �v L a Co 1 M� U) C14 N co W 4-a V� W r n�� V -1--j nX W s- itl z b F- a = o � y c� y M O a3: L- U O W LL a. M Cfl T- N O N 00 m O H CN N 5I s- Ile � � O O U U- � � O � O O `z- H :3 2 °� o � � U OU O E p '� O o 0 �w O O a A` M Cq uJ � N � N 00 1 O O H N N 5I O U c� L U O U C� C� O C� O n� W W W n� W 0 0 i n� li I 'O H V 0 -f--/� A y y.. Z= b F- a = L 0 � N �N �o a� �v 0W La M Cfl N O � N 00 1 O O H CN N 5I n� ■�/ T U L.L C� Cn Cn U) .X W L- O O O w i W s- b F- a = o N 'vs � N o a� �v 0 L La M � 00 N 00 VJ _U) cl,• �. C"*-' O -t U O LO ch E Z O O � O O LO C: U) _0 :3 — ,� � C: O = }' O _r_ 6 cn }, U) 0 U) � O O 0 _ U) � O � � U O 1 A LL L- O O O w i W s- b F- a = o N 'vs � N o a� �v 0 L La M � 00 N 00 1 O O H N N 5I Cam• L � O O CL H U) L- .� O � O O � > E � O O � W ' U O CO m _Ile LL cn O � O � � U O O co U � W = Cam- U) CV W 4— ^O W E �O VJ O O O n� W n> W 'U O O O O C� C� O C: O 0 A � a Cam• C� O H • • CV W p x 4 ►; s_ b F- a = o �N o a� �v 0 L La M Cfl O N N 00 1 O O H N N 5I nVW'J ■�/ T U L.L C� Cn U) .X W O C� W O V O m O U W O U O U O O VJ O ca O O A CII-' > O O cn ca O O ^U, W or � a� e k A� s- 0 z b F- a = o �N �o a� �v 0 L La M Cfl O N 04 00 1 O O H N N 5I L �p A s -_ b F- a = ,o �y �y M o a3: L- U O W LL a. M Cfl N N 0000 m �_ > O O O 0 O O U � � � O � U _ O � _ Cry E O > > U O 0. O O > U p Q m A L �p A s -_ b F- a = ,o �y �y M o a3: L- U O W LL a. M Cfl N N 0000 1 O H CN N 5I �p A �a� t a. n, �r a Z= C S b F- a = ,o � N �N o a� �v 0 L LL a. M � 04 0000 M w > rR� O O O 0 O O V, U � � U _ O= � � O U) _� • }� E O > O cn p •� Q m A �p A �a� t a. n, �r a Z= C S b F- a = ,o � N �N o a� �v 0 L LL a. M � 04 0000 m L•J O H N N 5I � U O O U � O O � � cn C� to � � O Cn b cn C: a = as .o O O �o •; • — o W LL � }+ M p U `N _ ` -Z L.L Z C� �L/� N vJ -fl-12 --+ 1 O O H N N 5I s- b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl O N 04 00 O O U U to C� ■ O Co LZ � O O Cz L- L- > U O Q. � OO E•� V/ T ■ O O U) U) O s- b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl O N 04 00 O H CN N 5I r 1-9 Y W U ° LL O � O .� W U) O }' ° T 4) O 4) O � � O O ca LL r 1-9 Y A, W r n�� V O U El C� O ■U O nv /' W ■ U O X Ca O s- b F- a = L O � y C� y G � M O a3: L- U O W LL a. M Cfl N O � N 00 U) N N O c� U) m O 61' u r O L U i O 'o , L0 m i E a O i ca a� V O L. a. L. � O '> CL O � v O L � C s L O i O 4- O V i V � � O i � O O � IL os Za i O ca � CL Za cr s � 4 i i ca CL E O O E O Q 4 O c� N U 4-0 N ^O L.L E O ca a 0 W • s � 7. � � }' i L . N � V L CL ma v Q i i ca CL E O O E O Q 4 O c� N U 4-0 N ^O L.L E O ca a 0 W • 7. U }' . N _ Q N aD o 0- 0 E O O U (o N U _0 O •U N _ _0 0 -0 cn O O O zz 0 O U N O O N U E cn m > }' O O O N CD cn O a = (1) -�-j =� �N o m m Z � � U •— N � N � �v N }' cn L° w a. m to U �QZ ZaW coo U) U N O c� U) m O 6u N • V a) 7. 1- n/' U O co Co O O U U E ° co o Co � � co U � O • � (D CL �U� co c: r(n co -0 .. CL - o o�a) o � m 0��m� q) LL O � � }' U O O O U co M Q •° `z O LL co • LL CL ° D M� U ° N 0000 O0QU °CnLL a. — co L � O � O L a .O s o � ANNA i � � 0.O O •O o � o � }' o � � s a) 7. 1- n/' U O co Co O O U U E ° co o Co � � co U � O • � (D CL �U� co c: r(n co -0 .. CL - o o�a) o � m 0��m� q) LL O � � }' U O O O U co M Q •° `z O LL co • LL CL ° D M� U ° N 0000 O0QU °CnLL U) U O c� U) m O 6r' vi ca 3 O c� U O O O 0 c� U O m O O J a� O Z • MID s -_ Z C� MID EL O O 0 U L- O E O O &. '— v ca O '— � .0 •i S ca C E U �— �s U � o oo � U �= Co O � � > O O �= }, tm ,v s O a� a = N.0 ca o > 2cn ME s cn 0 0 v .� ow vi ca 3 O c� U O O O 0 c� U O m O O J a� O Z • s -_ C� U L- O ca E U U � o oo � U �= Co > O O �= }, O a = N.0 o > 2cn CO M a0 0 v .� ow cac ' L L N co U N O Ca _U) m O 61' u • s_ � O • +a a. Z-2 U. O r U O •- Co o L = V m O v, i f '0 L- L) O •— LL a rO, O 5� oN W V O G N 00 4-a C) W r \1 O /U) v O 6r' LO O iD O > O LL r •v -0 i r am 0 >% LL •O :E fca s O .0 O U) jyco i O QL O � L co co U) O co O co E L- O O U Lek W i O • C6 O nV '! W O C6 O W n ' V W CU O � E� • cm r O U 'U C6 a� W O E • i i O C6 L— Z O E O O nV '! W O O C6 W C6 O O � W ^� a 1- n/' b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � � 0 a� 0W La M � N 0000 E .> O IL A O U) jyco i O QL O � L co co U) O co O co E L- O O U Lek W i O • C6 O nV '! W O C6 O W n ' V W CU O � E� • cm r O U 'U C6 a� W O E • i i O C6 L— Z O E O O nV '! W O O C6 W C6 O O � W ^� a 1- n/' b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � � 0 a� 0W La M � N 0000 U) 4-a U N O U) m O 6r' O a ■O O LL O O 0.0 E s. m t.2 ■f^ O N i V ca a� W O C O F- 0 s a� W E O L. CL E O i O V i 1� c� n O C6 V V O U O O c� O m E O • 0 W (n E O O U � O O E O -Co O .� � U O O E cm a) C: �� C: C: CU ' ' a 1- n/' b F- a = ,o � N �N o a� �L) ow La M Cfl O N N 00 (n U) + 4-0 n , CD U) CD ♦ ^ V / rn v' z z b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl O N 04 00 0w In C O 4-_+ co U) i n L- O W s- z b F- a = f- o � y c� y M O a3: L- U O W LL a. M Cfl T- N O N 00 ^V� W _ I ■ W O �Y Y � L T 1 4 r � w �t �v I C3 /I c 4 0 % I w ry 4 Y Yt 1 # I� a Fi G7 4 ZL O QW 4 r� cw s- LL, b F- a = L 0 � N C� N G � L L 0 a� �v 0W La M Cfl N O � N 00 73 C/) n 0 H LO n ! d •fl' fir, A r f LEGEND 0-5% Slope 5-1696 slope F-TT "M 15-30%SIOPO over 30% Slope Z; Z-2 .2 cn 0 L) 0 LU U- a. C14 N 00 ^_� I..L �--+ r 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan An Element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan Planning and Environmental Commission Draft #1 August 12, 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. Design Criteria 58 8. Park Management 59 9. Appendix 61 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 DRAFT 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Update August 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 Anholtz 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 39 acre Anholtz Ranch in 1973 for the stated purpose of "improving the quality of life in the community ". Since that time the property has evolved into one of Vail's most widely used and highly cherished assets. The evolution of the Anholtz 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 tun` 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 planning effort is to create a plan that will maintain the essence of what Ford 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. It is anticipated that 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 this Plan is to define expectations for the use of and future improvements to the Park and as a resource to assist the Town in decision - making regarding capital improvements and or any proposed change to the Park. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 1 Over the past forty years the Town has completed four planning efforts for the Park. To varying degrees these plans have directly influenced the development of Ford Park and each has contributed to the role of the Park in how it serves the community. These previous planning efforts were: 1974 Vail Plan —While the primary purpose of this plan was to address a broader discussion of 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 ". 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 Final Report Ford Park Management Plan — This plan was done to acknowledge new ideas for improvements to the Park that were initiated when Vail voters approved funding by re- allocating a portion of the Convention Center Funds to Ford Park. More detailed summaries of these previous planning efforts are found in Chapter 3 of this Plan. While the impetus for these planning efforts was prompted by different factors, 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 level of development and activity for the Park. The intended outcome of these planning efforts was to implement the original vision for the Park as outlined in the statement above from the 1974 Vail Plan. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 2 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 planning effort 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, • Establish clear expectations for the future land uses, development and management of the Park, • 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 Ford Park. With the adoption of this 2013 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 master plan for the Park. Elements of this Plan This Plan includes the following chapters: 1. Introduction The section provides an introduction to the plan, the purpose of this planning effort and outlines the major elements of the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan 2. Site Assessment and Existing Conditions The Ford Park site assessment and summary of existing conditions is based largely on the site assessment from the 1985 Plan and current observations 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 Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 3 While the 1997 Plan provided a framework for this section, the goals, objectives, policies and actions steps have been re- organized and refined to better express the current direction for the future of the Park. 5. Ford Park Sub -Areas Seven sub -areas of the Park have been defined and are used as a forum for discussion of how specific areas of the Park will be managed and to establish expectations on potential future improvements within the Park. 6. Illustrative Plan The 2013 Illustrative Plan is a refinement of the illustrative plan from the 2012 Plan, it depicts existing improvements and at a diagrammatic level improvements that may occur in the future. 7. Design Criteria The 1985 Plan included design criteria to be used to evaluate building, site and landscape improvements proposed for the Park. The 2013 Plan expands and refines these design criteria. 8. Park Management Park management is provided in this section, along with discussion of how the Town will review proposals for new uses or buildings within the Park. 9. Appendix An extensive number of documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park planning efforts have been assembled. These documents are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 4 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 tun` 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 +/ -36 acres. Today, Ford Park is comprised of approximately 47.1 acres. The four areas of the Park and their acreages are depicted below: Village Connech,r `I- C6 Acres Ford Park, 2013 Main Pack +/ 20.3 Acres / Cc+rn I E Crertin[urr C.r rater +/- .i Acrvg SoIXCr FICIA +f- 5.5 Acres Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 5 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. Existina Conditions Over 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 Garden, a children's playground, the Vail Nature Center, the Vail Tennis Center and parking and transit facilities. With the exception of the Gore Creek Corridor, the majority of the Park has been improved with buildings, facilities or other related site improvements. As a function of past improvement projects infrastructure necessary to serve the Park is currently in place. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the Park and internal park circulation has been established, a comprehensive utility system is in place to serve Park facilities and drainage /storm water management improvements have been completed. Access and circulation is a key element of 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. 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 and a sidewalk along the South Frontage Road. Pedestrian access is also provided by two bridges in the Golden Peak neighborhood. The Town'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. Some of the more significant site influences in this early design process were the South Frontage Road (that establishes the north boundary of the Park), Gore Creek and adjoining wetland and riparian habitat (that runs the entire length of the Park), site topography, vegetation, views and other site considerations. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 6 Topography of the "main" park area includes a prominent and well- defined grade change that creates an "upper bench" and "lower bench ". This grade change, created in large part by grading from the construction of Interstate 70, defined the land area available for various uses and over the years this became a demarcation for the Upper Bench being used primarily for active recreation and the Lower Bench being used primarily for cultural and passive recreational uses. Much of Ford Park was initially developed without the benefit of a detailed design /development plan. The 1974 Vail Plan did, however, set the stage for the future design of the Park by defining a number of broad design objectives. There are many examples of how these early objectives; along with 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. This location provides cars and buses direct access to the Park, but in a location that keeps vehicles on the perimeter of the Park that minimizes their impacts of on other areas of the Park. Athletic Fields Fields were located on the Park's broadest expanse of relatively flat terrain. Not only did the fields "fit" on this portion of the Park, the flat terrain minimizes site grading and associated site disturbance. To a degree, this location also isolates field noise and activity from other park users. The Amphitheater The Amphitheater essentially "straddles" the grade transition between the Upper and Lower Bench. This location allowed the Amphitheater to utilize the sloping terrain to accommodate the 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 features of the creek corridor provide a very suitable location for a "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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 7 "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. 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 property 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 over time and 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. In addition, Ford Park today reflects many elements of the original vision for the Park as outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan and further defined by NIT�i111044 6112907T19ME a LTA FMM- W Tit Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 8 Chapter 3 - HISTORY OF FORD PARK and PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS Over the past forty years the Town of Vail has completed four major planning efforts for Ford Park. This chapter summarizes the purpose, the process and the outcome for each of these planning efforts and in doing so provides relevant 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 36 -acre park site represented the last remaining parcel of 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 following: 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). While the primary purpose of this plan was to address growth control and community development, the plan included a chapter on the town recreation system. The Antholz Ranch property was mentioned as "the only site capable of satisfying the anticipated recreational needs of the community ". Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 9 The Vail Plan identified a wide range of potential uses for Ford Park. The uses included a place for showing and creating art, crafts, etc.; an indoor theater as well as 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 overall vision described the park as a "major community park - cultural center". The plan called for 200 surface parking spaces for 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 began to define how the Park could be developed. A number of existing park improvements reflect some of the basic concepts depicted below. • f n , i - zw -- � ar Aar nne. r., i, 6 Ei tY"L J^ W71 W I r - YY Conceptual Plan for Ford Park, Vail Plan, 1974 Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 10 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 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 and tennis courts. 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 master 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 skating rink (on the Lower Bench), and the realignment of the eastern softball field. Development of the neighborhood park improvements on the lower bench of Ford Park included restrooms, playground area, open turf area, picnic facilities, and the west access road. These improvements were completed in November of 1988. The first major structure to be constructed in the Park, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater, was completed in July of 1987. A Parking and Transit Study for the Amphitheater was completed in April of 1979 and this study made five recommendations: The Village Structure should be considered the major parking facility for Ford Park, with improvements to the signs, sidewalks, and bus service being necessary; extend shuttle bus service to the soccer field; disallow Frontage Road parking; construct a vehicle turn- around and passenger unloading area at Ford Park; and do not schedule concurrent events in the Park. These recommendations were in line with recommendations for parking and transit plan for the Park as outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 11 `•. - __ �til .lY9 F[ - SYMaIC. ✓X i.CAWE r _ { k GERALD R, FOM PARK MA fErti PLAN �P 154N' MASTER PLAN Ford Park Master Plan, 1985 The 1985 Plan identified a location for an alpine garden. In 1989 the first phase of the Betty Ford Alpine Garden 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. 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 courts. Phase two of Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 12 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 Park and the athletic field parking area are also listed as two possible sites for oversized 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 Garden, 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 to solve existing park management issues. Park management issues included parking shortage, Frontage Road access, pedestrian access and circulation, access for the elderly and disabled, utilization of the lower bench, conflicts between uses within the Park, conflicts with adjacent property owners, and delineation of financial responsibilities. At the time the project was authorized, Town Council expressed concern that a new master plan for Ford Park could result in an excessive amount of new development. In Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 13 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 along with 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 among other things 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 Town 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 Town Council in late -1996. The PEC and Town Council 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 for the Park. Foremost among these was identifying the Soccer Field a location for an Educational Center for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden. 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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 14 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 new ideas for improvements planned for the Park. Plans to make improvements to the Park were initiated when Vail voters approved funding by 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. o i11"Notwe pion 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update Iril ... — f? /LOOM The 2012 Update maintained the overall direction for the Park as established by the 1997 Management Plan and in doing so furthers the role the Park has played in the community for the past 30 years. With only a few exceptions the 2012 Update suggests no significant changes to the uses, facilities and activities that currently take place in the Park. One exception is the development of an Education Center for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden 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 remain in place. The Update did Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 15 not change any of the six major goal statements (or related objectives, policy statements and action steps) as outlined in the 1997 Management Plan. The most significant changes reflected in the 2012 Update are found in the Illustrative Plan Component of the Plan. The Illustrative Plan provides conceptual site plan diagrams and narrative explanations of improvements suggested for the Park. Many of these park improvements were first identified in the 1997 Plan, others evolved out of discussions with the Town, stakeholders and the community. Many of these improvements were initiated in 2012 and 2013. Foremost among them were 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 Time Line of Ford Park Activities: April 1973 Condemnation of Antholz Ranch, Ordinance 6, 1973 August 1973 Completion of Vail Plan January 1977 Antholtz 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 Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 16 October 1996 Council allows Vail Alpine Garden 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 Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 17 Chapter 4 - GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTION STEPS The community's goals for Ford Park are summarized in six major goal statements and within each goal statement are objectives, policies and action steps. Each goal statement focuses on a particular aspect of Ford Park. The 1997 Management Plan provided a starting point for the goals, objectives and policies outlined below and many of these new statements include elements from the 1974 Vail Plan and the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. The new goals, objectives and policies also reflect the outcome of Town Council and community input from the 2013 master plan process. The goal statements were written to be consistent with and complementary to each other. They are to be used to provide a framework, or direction, for decision - making regarding the management and future uses of Ford Park. A series of objectives following each goal statement outline specific steps that should be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements are intended to guide decision - making in achieving each of the stated objectives. Action steps involve specific actions to be taken in implementing the goal and objective statements. The goals, objectives and policies of this Plan will be considered during the review process for any new development or improvements proposed to the Park and further that only those proposals deemed to be in compliance with these statements will gain approvals. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 18 Goal #1: Protect the natural environment along the Gore Creek corridor and establish appropriate controls and review procedures to 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 consistent with the Ford Park Sub -Areas and Illustrative Plans. Policy Statement 1: Proposals for new or changes to existing facilities or uses that curtail existing public uses within the Park will not be permitted unless there is either a compelling public interest or adequate alternative facilities can be provided. Policy Statement 2: The existing variety of uses and facilities in the Park will be maintained. 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, educational, and historical centers Picnic areas Recreation and athletic facilities Public utility easements Parking (surface parking /structured parking) Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 19 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 Swimming pools Equestrian trails Type III and IV employee housing Action Step 1.1.2: Review legal descriptions of existing lease areas for the Vail Recreation District, the Vail Valley Foundation and the Betty Ford Alpine Garden and modify, as deemed necessary, so legal descriptions correspond with existing and proposed improvements and uses. Objective 1.2: All existing facilities and uses in the Park are maintained at a high level of quality and that appropriate review procedures, review criteria and design standards for evaluating any new development proposals or other proposed changes to Park are clearing established. Policy Statement 1: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or uses shall be deemed to conform to the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan, including but not limited to: • Goals, Objectives and Policy Statements, • Sub -Area Plans, and • Illustrative Plans. Policy Statement 2: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or uses shall be reviewed for compliance with Ford Park Design Criteria, as well as other applicable Town regulations. Policy Statement 3: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or uses shall be determined to provide a needed recreational, educational, cultural or social benefit to the community. Policy Statement 4: Existing facilities, uses and functions within the Park will be maintained and operated at a high standard of quality reflective of the Vail Brand. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 20 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. Objective 1.3: Preserve and protect the 100 -year floodplain, riparian and wetland habitat along the Gore Creek Corridor and scenic viewsheds from the Park. 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. Objective 1.3 Action Steps: Action Step 1.3.1: Evaluate the need for and feasibility of strengthening preservation controls within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub -area by establishing a conservation easement or by establishing the "Open Space" designation via the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. Action Step 1.3.2: Inventory existing conditions of the creek bank and vegetation within the Gore Creek corridor and initiate restoration programs as may be necessary. Objective 1.4: Enhance the use and ensure the preservation of the Historic School House. 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 1.4 Action Steps: Action Step 1.4.1: Evaluate future alternative uses for the School House that will maintain public access and potentially involve the display of Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 21 historic photos and artifacts or other activities in keeping with the historic nature of the building. Action Step 1.4.2: Complete a historic architectural assessment of the School House and establish a plan to protect and enhance the historic character of the building. Objective 1.5: Enhance the Nature Center building and the natural character of the surrounding area and promote the use of this asset for environmental and other educational programs. Policy Statement 1: Vehicular access to the Nature Center will be minimized and the landscape surrounding the building will be restored and enhanced. Policy Statement 2: New uses proximate to the Nature Center should be limited and shall be consistent with the Gore Creek Preservation Sub -Area. Policy Statement 3: The architectural integrity of the Nature Center building should be restored. Objective 1.5 Action Steps: Action Step 1.5.1: Work with the Vail Recreation District to evaluate potential expansion of uses and programs for the Nature Center. Action Step 1.5.2: Complete an architectural inventory of the Nature Center building and initiate a plan to restore the historic character of the building. Action Step 1.5.3: Define a list of appropriate uses for the Nature Center that are consistent with the goals for the preservation of the Gore Creek Preservation Sub -Area. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 22 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: Maintain areas within the Park for the passive enjoyment of nature and open space and preserve significant view corridors to the Gore Range, Gore Creek, and Vail Mountain in order to reinforce the Park's connection to the natural environment. Policy Statement 1: The Gore Creek Preservation Sub -area of the Park shall be maintained for the "quiet enjoyment of nature ", uses and activities within this area shall be limited. 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: Replace the Children's Playground restrooms with expanded and improved facilities. Action Step 2.1.2: Establish management and operations 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: Active recreation and team sport activities shall be concentrated within the Active Recreation and Soccer Field Sub -Areas and limited in other sub -areas of the Park. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 23 Policy Statement 2: Landscape berms and buffers should be maintained and enhanced to mitigate potential impacts of noise and activity on other sub areas of the Park. 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 summer- time performing arts facility in the Town of Vail. Policy Statement 2: Support Art in Public Places in their efforts to continue public art programs (i.e. interactive events, projects, 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 by the Nature Center and the Betty Ford Alpine Garden. Objective 2.3 Action Steps: Action Step 2.3.1: Work with the Vail Valley Foundation on their proposal 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 Garden Foundation on their proposal to create an educational and visitor center within the Park. Action Step 2.3.3: Coordinate with the Vail Recreation District on an evaluation of the Nature Center Building and grounds to identify opportunities to restore the integrity of the building and improve the appearance of the surrounding area. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 24 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 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: Prior to approving any new facility or use or the expansion of any existing facility or use in the Lower Bench it shall be demonstrated that the proposal will not generate an unnecessary 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; 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 (semi's) trucks shall access the Lower Bench via East Betty Ford Way and may exit via West Betty Ford Way. Objective 3.1 Action Steps: Action Step 3.1.1: Establish a system for managing truck movements proximate to the Amphitheater loading dock and for coordinating truck use of East Betty Ford Way. Objective 3.2: Reduce the presence of passenger vehicles in all areas of the Park, with the exception of the Parking /Transit Sub -Area, and minimize conflicts between service /delivery vehicles and park users throughout the Park. Policy Statement 1: Passenger vehicle access to the Alpine Gardens, the Amphitheater or other uses in the Lower Bench shall not be permitted other than those used to provide access for people with limited mobility or to deliver goods or materials too heavy to be carried by non - motorized means. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 25 Objective 3.2 Action Steps: Action Step 3.2.1: Coordinate delivery schedules to reduce the frequency of delivery and service vehicles into the Lower Bench during peak use time periods. Action Step 3.2.2: Require stakeholders to utilize on -site storage facilities to reduce and control the frequency of delivery and service vehicles into the Park. Action Step 3.2.3: 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. Objective 3.3: Concentrate vehicular activity within the Parking /Transit Sub -Areas by improving vehicular access from the South Frontage Road and improving parking lot design to maximize the number of parking spaces, aesthetics, and safety while mitigating environmental impacts. Policy Statement 1: All stakeholders are required to adhere to the Parking and Transit Management Plan. Policy Statement 2: 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 shall be maintained. 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 Park users within the Parking /Transit Sub -Area and facilitate the use of the Vail Village Parking Structure to satisfy peak parking demands of the Park. Objective 3.3 Action Steps: Action Step 3.4.1: 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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 26 Action Step 3.4.2: Evaluate the feasibility of expanding the In -Town bus route beyond Golden Peak to provide service along Vail Valley Drive. Action Step 3.4.3: Implement an improved wayfinding sign program directing pedestrians from the Village Parking Structure and Slifer Square in Vail Village. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 27 Goal #4: Ensure compatible relationships are maintained between all venues and all uses within Ford Park Objective 4.1: Coordinate with leaseholders on their scheduling of events in order 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 an overall 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 a representative of the Vail Valley Foundation, the Betty Ford Alpine Garden and the Vail Recreation District. Objective 4.1 Action Steps: Action Step 4.1.1: Expand the master schedule kept by the Town Clerk to include all venues within the Park. Action Step 4.1.2: Hold preseason event /activity coordination meetings with all affected stakeholders. Action Step 4.1.3: 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 4.2: Maintain and where necessary improve existing berms and landscape buffers between facilities and uses. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 28 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 and site design of the proposed facilities or uses, and the design parameters outlined in the Ford Park Sub -Areas and the Illustrative Plan. Objective 4.2 Action Steps: Action Step 4.2.2: 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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 29 Goal #5: Provide a safe, enjoyable and efficient pedestrian circulation system both within Ford Park and between Ford Park and Vail Village. Objective 5.1: Provide clear and effective directional and informational signs to and within Ford Park. Objective 5.1 Action Steps: Action Step 5.1.1: Develop a comprehensive sign plan to direct Ford Park visitors from central sites in Vail Village and from each level of the Village Parking Structure to destinations within Ford Park. Objective 5.2: Improve pedestrian routes to Ford Park. Policy Statement 1: The five existing pedestrian access points to the Park from Vail Village and Golden Peak should be maintained and be managed to maximize their effectiveness in providing access to the Park. Objective 5.2 Action Steps: Action Step 5.2.1: Implement improvements to the Gore Creek Trail that will improve safety, grading, surfacing, and lighting. Action Step 5.2.2: 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 5.2.3: 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). Objective 5.3: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park. Policy Statement 1: New developments or other improvements in the Park shall not be permitted to diminish the quality of the pedestrian circulation system and when appropriate shall include provisions to improve pedestrian circulation. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 30 Objective 5.3 Action Steps: Action Step 5.3.1: Improve the portion of Betty Ford Way within the Lower Commons Sub -area to create a "feature pedestrian corridor" with improved surface materials, lighting, seating and landscaping. Objective 5.4: Encourage leaseholders in Ford Park, through their marketing efforts, to promote walking or riding the bus as an alternative to driving to the Park. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 31 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: Formalize cost sharing arrangements with lease- holders for costs associated with the Park's management and operation costs. 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: Research current lease, license and use agreements to determine existing financial responsibilities of each lease holder. Action Step 6.1.2: As may be necessary, modify existing leases to correct any inequities in utility billing procedures and distribution systems, current utility use, and cost sharing relationships. Objective 6.2: Create a cost - sharing agreement for 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 necessitate by such improvements. Policy Statement 2: Services, functions, and programs provided by Ford Park 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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 32 Objective 6.2 Action Steps: Action Step 6.2.1: Create and maintain a five year capital improvements program for Ford Park. Action Step 6.2.2: Establish the benefit/cost relationship for capital projects to determine appropriate cost sharing agreements. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 33 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 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 11985 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 Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 34 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 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 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 -areas were drawn with thought and attention to a variety of considerations. That said, they should not be considered hard, inflexible "parcel" lines. It is reasonable to anticipate that when considering future improvements for the Park that 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 overall goals for the Park and the vision 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, Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 35 • 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. Sub -area discussions address the Park at a fairly broad, "master plan" level. More specific discussion of potential future improvements that may be appropriate for the Park are found in the Illustrative Plan Chapter of this Plan. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 36 ► �\ { � \ � — � / ~+ / \ / 1 / \z 2 / .!>Z � Z } / / 3 / ® / / • - .f, c : § Draft #DREReview 2ol Gerald E Ford Park Master Plan R7 37 Parking /Transit Sub -area The Parking /Transit Sub -area provides on -site parking for the "main" portion of Ford 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 "works" 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 at the Park). This parking /transit concept had its origins in the original planning of the Park. "This major community park- cultural center will contain parking for over 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 in 1979 and 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 the improvements to the athletic fields in 2013 the Park had approximately 200 parking spaces. The athletic field expansion will require the removal of approximately 50 parking spaces at the west end of the parking lot. The re- design of remaining portions of the parking lot will allow for the approximately 200 parking spaces to be maintained. A "no net loss" policy is in effect for the +/ -200 on -site parking at Ford Park. 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 at the Park. The parking lot was designed such that it can continue to be used for concerts and other special events. It is anticipated that this use will continue. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 38 :,r 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 monument -type 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 what is now surface 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 either of these ideas could create new opportunities for this area of the park, costs to do so would be significant. It is expected that if and when this idea is pursued, an initial step would be to evaluate implications on the overall goals for the Park and potentially initiate an amendment to the Park Master Plan. Active Recreation Sub -area This sub -area is the focal point of active recreation, team sports, tournaments and on occasion other events at Ford Park. The location of these uses (proximity to the Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 39 Frontage Road and parking, removed from the Gore Creek Corridor) is consistent with some of the earliest design direction established for the Park. It is expected that these uses within the sub -area will continue in order to meet the community's needs for active recreation facilities. Over the years 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. 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 Active Recreation Sub -area (initiated in 2012 and expected to be completed in 2014) were extensive and included expansion and re- organization of the athletic fields, construction of a new restroom /storage building (at the west end of fields) and a new concession /restroom building (at the east end of the fields). It is anticipated that these improvements will address the active recreation needs of the community for the foreseeable future. The only immediate improvements contemplated for this sub- area are: • Design and installation of monument -type entry features at the west end of the Park along the Frontage Road and the two pedestrian portals from the parking lot. • 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 serve a future parking structure ". No detailed design work on this Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 40 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 corridor between the parking /transit area and the Upper Bench. If or when the relocation of one or more tennis courts is considered, study should be given to how improved pedestrian flow 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. Consideration should be given to replacing or renovating this building with a structure more consistent with the building design objectives for the Park. The possibility of locating an education center for the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens within Ford Park is discussed in the Alpine Garden Sub -area. The preferred location for this building is along West Betty Ford Way. If the West Betty Ford Way site is determined to not be a viable location for the building the Tennis Center site could be a "back up" alternative. The potential site for this building is proximate to the Tennis Center building. Coordination and cooperation from the VRD will be necessary if this site is to be pursued. The idea of constructing structured parking below the athletic fields has been discussed in the past. This could increase the supply of on -site parking and also provide an increase in parking to address other town needs. On a related note is the idea of locating developing parking below the tennis center and re- constructing the tennis center on the surface of the structure. While either of these ideas could create new opportunities for this area of the Park, costs to do so would be very significant. 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 potentially initiate an amendment to the Park Master Plan. Lower Commons Sub -area The Lower Commons Sub -area plays an important role in the Park by providing "structure ", or organization to the Park's overall site design. The area serves as a Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 41 "transition zone" between other uses 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. Restrooms should be sized to be no larger than necessary to meet the needs 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 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 landscape improvements, lighting, seating and other similar features, the open turf area should not be reduced in size and no buildings or structures should be permitted in this 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 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 Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 42 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. Cr Lower Commons Creekside Area The Creekside area is a narrow strip of land located south of Betty Ford Way and north of Gore Creek at the natural "grade break" where terrain drops down to Gore Creek. A few small structures (i.e. open air picnic shelter) are located in this area and the Arts in Public Places (AIPP) have placed permanent art along Betty Ford Way. AIPP also runs summer art programs in this area. Art programs may include activities such as interactive events, educational and participatory activities. Permanent art installations have also been located in this area. 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, however, if pursued, they should be done in a way that minimizes impacts to other surrounding uses and facilities and is sensitive to the landscape. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 43 Future Improvements The only 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 potential improvements listed above are described in greater detail in the Illustrative Plan section of this Plan. 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 2012 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, in 2012 the Town of Vail 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. The purpose of the plaza is to provide a multi -use space that serves as the primary arrival for the Amphitheater and as a pre- convene and post- function space during scheduled events. The plaza could also serve as a new programmable space for smaller gatherings, weddings or other events and could also be open for public access when not being used for scheduled events. Plans for the public plaza envision a hardscape area of approximately 4,000 square feet to include a tensile roof element to provide shade and protection from rain. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 44 40 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. Any measures to mitigation noise from the athletic fields and Interstate 70, if pursued, would also need to consider adverse impacts to the sound quality of performances within the Amphitheater. 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 operation and use of the proposed public plaza will be an important consideration in the evaluation of this proposal. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 45 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 is 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 identified this site (along with a number of design parameters such as a square footage limitation of 3,000 square feet). The Town Council subsequently revisited this recommendation from the 2012 Update, and while expressing support for the BFAG to develop an educational building within the Park, re- opened an evaluation of site alternatives for the building. The Town Council's parameter for selecting a site for the educational building was that it not be located on the Lower Bench. Five alternative sites were evaluated, two of which were selected for further study. These two sites were at the Soccer Field and within the Tennis Center. A sixth site adjacent to Betty Ford Way and just west of the Children's Playground was also evaluated. Ultimately the Betty Ford Way site was selected as the "preferred alternative ". The Soccer Field and Tennis Center sites could still be Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 46 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. The total building size is expected to not to exceed 3,000 square feet. Other design parameters and considerations to be addressed in the design of the building are outlined in Chapter 6 - Illustrative Plan. Future Improvements Potential future improvements within the Alpine Garden Sub -area include: Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 47 • Development of an alpine garden educational center. There are a number of important parameters to be considered in the design, development and operation of the educational center. Foremost among these is how the BFAG can be managed to prevent vehicular traffic to the new building and the design of the building relates to Betty Ford Way and the children's playground. 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 over 21 acres in size and is generally defined by the park boundary on the south and by one or more of 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 natural open space for the quiet enjoyment of nature and a critical 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 and the preservation of 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, however 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. 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". While it is acknowledged that the Nature Center will host a higher level of use and activity than other portions of this sub -area, such uses should be concentrated on the "upland" portions of the Nature Center in order to minimize impacts the creek corridor. 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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 48 Improvements within the sub -area should be limited to low- impact improvements such as soft surface walking paths, fishing access, 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. avoidance of wetland habitat, 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. Utilities, drainage 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. Installation of seating areas, overlooks and public art are examples of improvements that could animate this walkway. Any such improvements shall be outside of wetland areas and the 100 -year flood plain. 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) but was rejected as contradictory to the intended use of the Nature Center. A defined creek access point is considered for a location east of Ford Park in the vicinity of the Pulis Bridge. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 49 An Action Step suggested for this area (refer to Chapter 3 of this Plan) is to evaluate the feasibility 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. Future Improvements Future improvements contemplated for this Sub -area include: • Enhancement and restoration of vegetation along the creek corridor. • Enhancements to the walkway between Vail Village and the Park to include improvements such as seating, art installations, etc. • Initiate steps to remove or reduce the use of existing parking located at the Nature Center. 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. The sub -area is somewhat of an "island onto itself'. No major changes are contemplated to the existing recreational facilities in this sub -area. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 50 vw 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 Garden Sub -area. The preferred location for this building is along Betty Ford Way. If the Betty Ford Way site is determined to not be a viable location for the building the Soccer Field site could be a "back up" alternative. The potential site for this building is at the northwest corner of the parking lot. Covenant restrictions currently do not allow for this building and would need to be addressed if this location is pursued. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 51 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 improvement, a summary of the proposed improvements and parameters or criteria to be considered in the design, development and operation of the improvements. The 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. Some of these improvements are only general "ideas ", an example being the installation of art along the Gore Creek Corridor connection to Vail Village to enhance the walking experience. Other improvements are considered solutions that might be viable but not in the near term, an example being structured parking under the athletic fields or a Frontage Road roundabout at the west end of the Park. These types of potential improvements are not highlighted in this chapter. Rather, this chapter highlights potential improvements that are further along in discussion and more likely to be proposed in the near future. 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. The 2013 Ford Park Illustrative Plan replaces the Illustrative Plan from the 2012 Management Plan Update. Some improvements contemplated by the 2012 plan have been included in the 2013 Plan. Any improvement proposed for the Park is subject to approval by the 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. symbols" which identify future improvements to the Park these improvements follow. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan This Plan includes "numbered . Narrative descriptions of Page 52 f ," 1 E j Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 53 Improvement #1 — Gore Creek Corridor Restoration There are a number of areas within the Gore Creek corridor where erosion, use or other factors have disturbed or otherwise adversely impacted existing vegetation. A restoration program should be implemented to improve vegetation where necessary along the creek corridor. Restoration will improve the visual quality of this area and improve water quality by preventing erosion. There are a number of areas along the corridor where enhancements could occur. 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 improvements. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective 1.3, Action Step 1.3.2. Improvements #2 — Gore Creek Villaae Connector 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). Enhance the walking experience along this this "Village Connector" will ensure 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 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 #5, Objective 5.2, Action Step 5.2.2. Improvement #3 — Entry Monumentation at Park's pedestrian entries Pedestrians arrive to Ford Park from one of seven existing entries. Refer to the Illustrative Plan for these seven locations. Currently there is inadequate signage or other features identifying 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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 54 Landscape features, signage, bollards, monuments, archways or other design features, or some combination thereof, could be used to identify these locations. A design process is necessary to evaluate alternative 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 #5, Objective 15.2, Action Step 5.2.3. Improvement #4 — Betty Ford Alpine Garden Educational 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 3,000 square feet that is "low- scale" in appearance, 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 in order to not diminish the quality of this walkway. • Ability to construct the project in a manner that does not adversely impact other facilities or uses in the Park. • A viable management plan to prevent vehicular access to the building (employees, service vehicles, deliveries, etc.), in order to maintain the pedestrian nature of West Betty Ford Way. • Demonstrate how emergency vehicles will access the building and identify any site improvements necessary to accommodate such access. • Identify the anticipated parking demand from the building and demonstrate how that will be addressed. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.2. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 55 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 integrity of this 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. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.1. 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 could also provide a venue for smaller gatherings and events and also be open for public use when not being used for scheduled events. The ability to utilize this space for gatherings and other events could provide an alternative to the use of the open turf area for special events. Other elements of the Public Plaza include an "iconic" 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. • 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 the public for gatherings and events and the space should be open and accessible to the public when not being used for private functions. • Any structures /roof elements associated with the public plaza should harmonize with the Amphitheater, not dominate the surrounding area, and also conform to the Ford Park Design Criteria. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 56 • 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. 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. Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2. 1, Action Step 2.1.1. 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, or 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 5.3, Action Step 5.3.1. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 57 Improvement #9 — 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. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 58 Chapter 7 - DESIGN CRITERIA Note — this chapter is still under development. Below is an initial list of potential design criteria for Ford Park. The notion of including design guidelines in the master plan evolved from the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan which included design guidelines. It should be noted that the Town's Zoning Code includes design guidelines, a chapter of which is devoted to "park design guidelines ". As an alternative to incorporating design guidelines into the master plan, an alternative would be to embellish as deemed necessary the park design guidelines found in the zoning code. This topic will be discussed with the PEC. Architectural Design Architectural Character Scale /Integration with Site Building Materials /colors Roofs Lighting Landscape and Site Design Grading Hardscape /pavers Plantings — screening /buffering /soften "edges" /frame views /preservation of existing vegetation Transitions between manicured /native Lighting Play Structures Construction Practices BMP's Erosion Control Construction Management Plan Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 59 Chapter 8 - PARK MANAGEMENT Note — this chapter is still under development. 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 overall 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 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 Vail Alpine Garden Foundation manages the Betty Ford Alpine. The Gardens have developed in four phases that began in 1987. In its role as the overall park manager the Town addresses on an on -going basis a variety of management and operational considerations. Often times this requires the involvement of different town departments and town commissions and boards. Ultimately the Town Council is asked to review and approve management practices. In virtually every case 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, Vail Valley Foundation and Alpine Garden Foundation address these topics. Below is a list of park management topics the Town is responsible for: • Parking — manage use 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. • Overall Park Calendar — While not responsible for scheduling events within leaseholder facilities, the Town coordinates (with leaseholders) an overall events schedule for the Park. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 60 • Transportation — management of transit operations between the Park and the Vail Transportation Center, including periodic implementation of a Golden Peak bus route. • AIPP projects - overview of review process. • Proposed new use or new building - overview of review process. • Cost sharing of park expensive, funding of capital improvements. • Appearance standards. Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 61 Chapter 9 - 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 7. Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012 Draft #1 -PEC Review 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 62 Ad Name: 9481379A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM August 26, TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL BEE Your account number is- 1OP2P 33 / PUBLIC WELCOME 75S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Vail Daily MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visit: PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1. Sebastian - 16 Vail Road 30 minutes 1.1 -70 Interchange and Crossing Study Introduc- tion. A review of past Vail Transportation Master Planning efforts specifically with regards to im- STATE OF COLORADO } provements to the 1 -70 Interchanges and a poten- tial new 1 -70 underpass. 1 ss Presenter: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer I 15 minutes COUNTY OF EAGLE } 2.A request for the review of a variance from Sec- tion 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the side setback, located at 2785 Bald I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified Mountain Road /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper (PEC130023) Applicant: 2002 Carey Family Trust, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC printed, in whole or in part and published in the County Spence of Eagle, State of Colorado and has a general circulation g g ACTION;�onathan MOTION; :VOTE: CONDITIONN(S)(S): > > therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously : 45 minutes 3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Council on a major amendment to Special Devel- opment District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to an existing dwelling unit, located at 16 Vail Road, (The Sebas- ublication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and tian) /Part of Lots M, N, and 0, Block 5D, Vail Vil- that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice lage Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 0021) Applicant: AMP H, LLC, by Mauriello and advertisement as requested. represented Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: MOTION: SECOND:VOTE: The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, CONDITION(S): 90 minutes 4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail only or jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Y ] p g Town Council on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald Rule R. Ford Park Master Plan, an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park provision. Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Man- agement Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East/Unplatted, and That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130012) Applicant: Town of Vail published in the regular and entire issue of every Planner: George Ruther number of said daily newspaper for the period of I MOTIION: SECOND:VOTE: CONDITION(S): consecutive insertions; and that the first of said August minutes publication P O E: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: E notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 8/23/2013 and 6.Information Update that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/23/2013 in 7.Adjournment the issue of said newspaper. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours at the Town of Vail Community De- In witness whereof, I have here unto set m hand this day, y y ent Department, 75 South Frontage Road. T The he is invited to the 08/29/2013. p puublic attend project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be re- lied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional in- formation. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call General Man a er/Publisher/Editor 479 -nform Telephone for the Hearing Im- g pain paired, for information. Vail Daily Community Development Department Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for Published August 23, 2013 in the Vail Daily. the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 08/29/2013. (9481379) � 2m.&& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt -ARP$ My Commismn Expires 11/0112015 Ad Name: 9443160A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 vail Daily PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 8/9/2013 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/9/2013 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 08/19/2013. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 08/19/2013. � 2M 4,& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt -ARP$ My Commismn Expires 11/0112015 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12 -3 -6, Vail Town Code, on August 26, 2013 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the side setback, located at 2785 Bald Mountain Road /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130023) Applicant: 2002 Carey Family Trust, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24 -hour notification. Please call 970 - 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Published August 9, 2013 in the Vail Daily. (9443160)