HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0909 PECTOWN OF VAIt f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 9, 2013 at 1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
45 minutes
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
2. 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):
3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6E -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code,
pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in dwelling units
per acre to facilitate the construction of two single - family residences, located at 1183 and 1191
Casolar Del Norte Drive /Lots 4 and 5, Casolar Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC130010)
Applicant: Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to October 14, 2013
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
4. Approval of August 26, 2012 minutes
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5. Information Update
Page 1
6. 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 September 6, 2013 in the Vail Daily.
Page 2
TOWN OF VAIL' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 9, 2013 at 1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Pierce Susan Bird
Henry Pratt John Rediker
JlCaifTa�:l11'i�
Pam Hopkins
Luke Cartin
45 minutes
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: Recommendation of approval with condition(s)
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 2 -3 ( Cartin, Pratt, Hopkins opposed)
Motion failed
ACTION: Tabled to September 23, 2013
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Hopkins VOTE: 4 -1 (Kurz opposed)
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum
Commissioner Pierce asked for clarification regarding what portion of the square footage
requested resulted from an increase in wall height.
Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, estimated that approximately 10% of the proposed
GRFA addition was a result of raising the roof.
Commissioner Kurz asked what issues were related to an SDD and a granting special privilege.
George Ruther, Director of Community Development, discussed that the review criteria for both
the approval and modification of an SDD were the same. He added that each SDD is evaluated
pursuant to the criteria, independent of any previous approvals.
Commissioner Kurz asked how this potential approval effects other SDD applications to push the
envelope regarding height.
George Ruther spoke to the lack of precedent setting action in this or any other adopted SDD.
He reiterated staff's approach to the first criteria.
Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, introduced the team. Dominic discussed the
conceptual meeting, site walk, and general commission feelings articulated at the work session.
Dominic showed changes to the plans made since the previous meeting. Dominic talked about
staff's concern and how the application demonstrates compliance. Dominic discussed how this
Page 1
element would not, in his belief, be a factor in the original approval. He walked through some of
the slides showing before and after views of the project and its purported lack of effect on the
pedestrian experience.
There was no public comment.
Commissioner Kurz talked about the mass and scale and the design /function of the existing
space, as not being liveable /workable space. He added he felt it was in compliance.
Commissioner Pratt stated that he believed the north elevation was not a concern, however the
east elevation was not in compliance with the criteria. He discussed how the proposed addition
destroyed the stepping down of the mass.
Commissioner Cartin asked for clarification regarding the building addition in the sight lines and
how much reduction would be necessary to meet the stepping need.
Warren Campbell stated that there is likely a design which would be appropriate to maintain the
stepping of the bulk, mass, and height; however, staff would await design sketches illustrating
options, before determining what was appropriate to meet the criterion.
Dominic Mauriello spoke to the building stepping in context to other projects in the areas and the
roof plan. He added that their were minimal impacts from the pedestrian view of this proposal.
Commissioner Hopkins asked about the floor and ceiling heights in each of the areas
Kevin Morley, Poss Architecture, stated that the current height is 14' and the additional roof
height request (2 feet) allows for the height of the walls where it meets the spring point for the
roof increasing to approximately 7.5 feet. He showed the pictures inside the unit and spoke to
the wall heights.
Hopkins clarified her question.
Dominic Mauriello talked about the addition and unit layout and how its works together to create
adequate wall and ceiling height.
A motion to recommend approval failed.
Commissioner Cartin mad e a motion to table to the next meeting.
George Ruther spoke to the process and if there was interest on the part of the applicant to alter
the application. If there was no interest in making changes the failed recommendation should
move forward in the process.
Dominic Mauriello reiterated the applicants desire to continue with the Commission and possibly
make changes.
Greg Spencer, Timbers Resorts, representing the applicant, stated that the team would go back
and discuss any changes with the owner.
Page 2
90 minutes
2. 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 September 23, 2013
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
George Ruther, Director of Community Development, introduced the goal of the work session.
He added that he was hopeful of providing a draft of the completed document to the community
for review and comment.
Tom Braun, Braun and Associates, representing the Town, began his presentation by speaking
to the discussion around the suggested location of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens near the new
public restrooms and storage building on the west end of Ford Park. He went through a matrix
depicting the analysis that staff and the gardens had gone through in analyzing seven potential
locations.
Commissioner Pierce suggested that the word "potential" should be removed from the document
regarding the impact of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Education Center on views from The
Wren condominiums in order to put the discussion on the site to rest.
Commissioner Kurz stated he felt the site for the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center
would not work to the east of The Wren.
Commissioner Pratt spoke to his comments over the past two years in opposition to a building to
the east of The Wren. He was concerned about view impacts, bus stop and parking access
proximity.
Commissioner Hopkins spoke to the potential to split (not stacking the upper floor on the lower)
the structure so it steps down the slope. According to Hopkins, architects have solved more
difficult site constraints than are present, including view, ADA accessibility, height, trees, bus
stop location, etc.
George Ruther stated that staff could do more review and research if that was felt to be
necessary. He stated that it would be beneficial to have the Garden's representatives speak to
these comments and questions.
Commissioner Cartin stated that he did not see this as a preferred site (east of The Wren). He
felt strongly that more effort should be focused on the tennis center site.
Commissioner Pierce stated that this discussion is exactly why he voted in opposition to the
social courtyard at the last hearing. The location to the east of The Wren may be compromised
as there wasn't full thought in the Master Plan on where certain uses and building were
appropriate. He feels it is more important for the building to be seen from the Frontage Road.
Commissioner Hopkins raised the point that the Betty Ford Alpine Garden and park are used
primarily in the summer, however, the building is proposed to be open year round.
Page 3
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, spoke to several transportation concepts that have
been previously explored with round - abouts. He agreed with Commissioner Pierce that maybe a
bus stop is appropriate and needed on the Frontage Road on the west side of Ford Park. He
spoke to the Commission's previous discussions which were to prevent additional buildings on
the lower bench of the park. The location proposed below the retaining walls for the sports fields
would violate this policy from the start. He asked where the round -about that has to be at Ford
Park and not in front of Solaris of the Blue Cow Chute was to be located. He asked that it be
shown in the document. .
Nicola Ripley, Director to the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, spoke to the difficulty in finding a
location when there are many existing improvements and users within the park. Ideally the
education facility would be located near parking, be visible from the Frontage Road, and be close
to the gardens. That site is probably where one of the tennis courts are currently constructed.
Accessibility is very important and the location near The Wren is about as far away as you could
get from the garden. Vehicular access is not that important to the structure.
Commissioner Pratt summarized that the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens ideally should go where the
tennis center is today. He stated he understood the issues with regard to current users of that
location, but that the Master Plan should not compromise the site that is best.
Jack Hunn, stated that his perception was that the Commission was trying to narrow the
Education Center down to one site. Could there be a couple of sites identified as possibilities?
Such as the tennis courts, soccer fields, or below the retaining walls supporting the athletic
fields. He felt that a size limitation on the structure should not be contained within the Master
Plan. He asked that flexibility in building size and traffic access be included within the language
for the Education Center. Other users benefit from limited access and the Education Center
should be permitted access as well.
Commissioner Pierce spoke to a desire to remove the specifics on size and speak more to the
scale that is appropriate.
Commissioner Cartin spoke to the overall goal of the Commission to look for efficiencies and
reduce the perception of three separate users within the park. The tennis center and soccer
fields keep coming up as preferred locations.
Commissioner Kurz spoke to the need for more information from the Vail Recreation District
(VRD). How do we work with the VRD if they own their building? The tennis center area is the
ideal location as it consolidates users, is visible, and is near parking. Can that area be jointly
planned and developed?
Jim Lamont stated that the VRD lease contains language that allows for the Town Council to
discuss differing thoughts about uses, structures, etc. on the site. He raised the concern about
the Master Plan not showing the round - about.
Commissioners Pierce and Kurz spoke to the need to include a visual depiction of the round-
about in the plan in addition to the written text.
George Ruther summarized that VRD involvement is needed, more study of the tennis center
site is needed, more study of the round -about is needed, and some conceptual study on the
Education Center design is necessary.
Commissioner Cartin stated that he strongly believes the tennis center area is the best location
for the Education Center.
Page 4
Commissioner Pierce stated that he agreed, but would add that the concessions building site
would work as well.
The remaining Commissioners stated their support for those comments and it was agreed by all
that equal focus should be placed on the tennis center site and the West Betty Ford Way
locations. The Commission recognized the challenges with the tennis center, but don't give up
on the site.
Tom Braun moved forward to a discussion of the goals, objectives, and policy statements.
Jim Lamont suggested that a criterion for review of new structures within the park should be that
the structure mitigates the noise impacts of the interstate on the park.
The Commissioners, George Ruther, and Tom Braun had a discussion regarding Policy
Statement No. 2 and the desired architectural direction within the park and a prohibition of
"iconic" structures. Commissioner Pierce, architect of the tennis center, stated that the intent of
that design was to be iconic and clearly identify the building as the tennis center. Commissioner
Hopkins spoke to "iconic" as being buildings with egos. Commissioner Pratt and others agreed
that architectural elements could be included within the Master Plan as a general policy direction.
3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6E -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code,
pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in dwelling units
per acre to facilitate the construction of two single - family residences, located at 1183 and 1191
Casolar Del Norte Drive /Lots 4 and 5, Casolar Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC130010)
Applicant: Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to October 14, 2013
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
4. Approval of August 26, 2012 minutes
MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Hopkins VOTE: 4 -0 -1 (Pratt recused)
5. Information Update
Commissioner Kurz wanted to object strongly to the Town Council statement that the
Commission erred at a public hearing with the press present. This board works hard and invests
a great deal of time.
Commissioner Pratt stated that he has been on several Commissions and this Commission
spends more than others he has been on reviewing each proposal.
6. Adjournment
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -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
Page 5
information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please
call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published September 6, 2013 in the Vail Daily.
Page 6
TOWN OF VAIL `
Memorandum
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: September 9, 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
SUMMARY
The applicant, AMPH, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a
recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special
Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10,
Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to increase the allowable Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA) to allow for an addition to an existing dwelling unit in The Sebastian.
Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation denial, of the major amendment to Special Development District
(SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this
memorandum.
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.
The applicant has provided a written description of their request, dated August 12, 2013
2013, (Attachment A) and plans dated August 29, 2013 (Attachment B), which are
provided for review.
III. 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
Rogers stated, '7 don't feel like 1 was given a straight story on it ... l don't
Town of Vail Page 2
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. "lt 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, 2012, 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.
On August 26, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a work session
on the proposal to add approximately 691 square feet of GRFA to the penthouse unit.
The Commission offered comment on the proposal with regard to the need to evaluate
the proposal pursuant to the criteria, the north elevation, and the limited visibility of the
proposed expansion.
IV. 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.
Town of Vail Page 3
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.
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.
Town of Vail Page 4
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
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.
V. 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)
VI. 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
VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
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
Town of Vail Page 5
design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
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 B). 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
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 are 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.
In reviewing the proposal for compliance with this criterion, staff considered the entirety
of The Sebastian structure. Staff did not simply focus on the changes to the northeast
corner of the top floor of the structure. This was done in order to determine if staff
Town of Vail Page 6
would have found the structure, as currently proposed, to be of an appropriate scale,
bulk, mass, height, character, and relationship to adjacent properties. Staff does not
believe the proposed changes would have met this criterion during the entitlement
process and therefore cannot find the proposed changes to be in compliance with this
criterion.
Staff finds the proposal does not comply with this criterion.
2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient
and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The proposal does not propose to change any of the uses, activity, or densities which
are currently constructed within the project. The uses, activities and density of The
Sebastian were evaluated during the entitlement process and found to be compatible as
currently operated and constructed.
The proposal to increase the allowable GRFA within the SDD requires mitigation of the
impacts to employee generation pursuant to Chapter 12 -24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail
Town Code. The applicant has stated in their written materials that the pay -in -lieu
option would be selected if the proposal were approved. An increase in the allowable
GRFA by 691 square feet results in a pay -in -lieu fee of $9,304.32 (69.1 sf x $134.65).
Staff finds the proposal complies with this criterion.
3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in chapter 10 of this title.
The proposal to add approximately 691 square feet of GRFA to the existing penthouse
unit does not change the required parking or loading and delivery requirements for the
development.
Staff finds the proposal complies with this criterion.
4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans.
Staff has reviewed the Vail comprehensive plan and found the following documents and
associated goals, objectives, statements applicable to this proposal.
Vail Land Use Plan (in part
1. General Growth / Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
Town of Vail Page 7
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
4. Village Core / Lionshead
4.1. Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in
existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core
areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery.
4.2. Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
4.3. The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should
be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains,
natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental
quality.)
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.
Vail Village Master Plan (in part)
V. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTION STEPS
GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING
UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITYAND IDENTITY.
Obiective 1.1. Implement a consistent development review process to reinforce the
character of the Village.
Policy 1.1.1: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village
shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations
as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan.
Obiective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action
Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design
Guide Plan.
VII. VAIL VILLAGE SUB -AREAS
Town of Vail Page 8
A major goal of this Plan is to address the Village as a whole and at the same
time be sensitive to the opportunities and constraints that may exist on a site
specific basis. To facilitate long range planning unique to each area of the
Village, ten different sub -areas are delineated in this Plan. Sub -areas were
determined based on a number of different considerations. Foremost among
these were.
• design and site characteristics
• geographic or physical boundaries
• land uses and ownership patterns
Each of the ten sub -areas have been evaluated relative to the overall goals,
objectives, and policies outlined for Vail Village. The potential improvement
projects, referred to as sub -area concepts, which have emerged from this
evaluation are graphically represented on the Action Plan. These sub -area
concepts are physical improvements intended to reinforce the desired physical
form of the Village as outlined in the various elements of the Master Plan.
The 10 sub -areas (which follow), provide detailed descriptions of each sub -area
concept and express the relationship between the specific sub -area concepts
and the overall Plan. The applicable goals and objectives are cited for each of
the sub area concepts at the end of each description under "special emphasis. "
The sub -area concepts described in this Section are meant to serve as advisory
guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental
Commission and the Town Council. Compliance with the sub -area concepts
does not assure development approval by the Town.
It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for
those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. The
Urban Design Guide Plan includes additional design detail that is to be used in
conjunction with the Vail Village Master Plan sub -area concepts.
Town of Vail Page 9
MIXED USE SUB -AREA ( #1
i' ... GOOF p.M-NO YEIl
i
1 I � I I � �- ~f `- �. !� CxV 51R7•La c+a�iFU+� � I)
iRA
� T 111 r• �. 8
6.
- �tvs�L� _t G•. J
... l—F ivy P1.4Zh
. r
f 4 ti r
1
TL
1*.
1 12'
f.
N
cr a
....
z
flLp
� BUMP`
w 1 -9 ILL(JW U aE '
H1CFF i \ 1�• ` j�. I_91 N�.1P FT, .
Lr.Ka PF "� [ � -, LV�n *inn .`•
0a ,r
The Mixed -Use sub -area is a prominent activity center for Vail Village. It is
distinguished from the Village core by the larger scale buildings and by the limited
auto traffic along East Meadow Drive. Comprised of five major development
projects, this sub -area is characterized by a mixture of residential /lodging and
commercial activity.
There is a great deal of potential for improvements to both public and private
facilities in the area. Among these is the opportunity to develop gateway entries to
the Village at the 4 -way stop and at the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow
Drive. It is also a long term goal to strengthen the connection between this area
and the Village core area by reinforcing the established pedestrian linkages.
Pedestrianization in this area may; benefit from the development of retail infill with
associated pedestrian improvements along East Meadow Drive and the
development of public access to Gore Creek.
A significant increase in the Village's overnight bed base will occur in this sub -area
with the development of the final, phase of the Vail village Inn project. In addition,
commercial and residential /lodging development potential is identified in sub -area
concepts 3, 4, 6 and 8. The completion of these projects will essentially leave the
sub -area "built out ".
Town of Vail Page 10
#1 -1 Vail Village In
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, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1.
The review of The Sebastian during the entitlement process determined that the project
was in compliance with the elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. There have
been no changes to the Vail Comprehensive Plan with regard to the documents which
address this site. Staff believes the proposed change does not have an overall
negative impact to the intent of stepping building height up from the pedestrian oriented
East Meadow Drive to the South Frontage Road East. As stated in the response to
Criterion 1 staff is concerned about the visual impacts on the south side of the structure
in the pedestrian plaza. Staff believes there are designs which would permit for some
expansion and eliminate the proposal's impact on the pedestrian.
Staff finds the proposal complies with this criterion.
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.
The Sebastian is not located within any identified geologic hazard. The property during
construction identified an impact with ground water and implemented a mechanical
system to mitigate the impacts of the ground water on the structure.
Staff finds the proposal complies with this criterion.
Town of Vail Page 11
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.
The proposal does not include any changes to the site plan, building footprint design or
location, or open space provisions.
Staff finds the proposal complies with this criterion.
7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and off site traffic circulation.
The proposal does not include any changes to the pedestrian or vehicular circulation on
or off site.
Staff finds the proposal complies with this criterion.
8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to
optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
The proposal does not include any changes to the landscaping or open space on the
site as identified on the approved development plan.
Staff finds the proposal complies with this 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.
The proposal is intended to be constructed in one phase. Staging for any construction
related activity will be reviewed by the Town of Vail staff to ensure impacts are
minimized to public rights -of -way and adjacent properties. It is anticipated that the use
of the South Frontage Road East right -of -way will be necessary. This right -of -way is
controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and will require all
appropriate review and permits from CDOT should the project move forward.
Staff finds the proposal complies with this criterion.
10. Public Benefit: The proposed deviations provide benefits to the town must
outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations.
The initial entitlement approval for The Sebastian included provisions for the inclusion of
public benefits. Staff does not believe this proposal warrants any additional public
benefits, beyond the codified provisions for the mitigation of employee housing.
Town of Vail Page 12
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of denial, to the 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. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in
Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of denial for this request, the Community Development Department
recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of denial to the Town Council for 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. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of denial for this request, the Community Development Department
recommends the Commission makes the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll this Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated
September 9, 2013, and the evidence and testimony presented, the
Planning and Environmental Commission finds.
1. That the special development district amendment does not comply
with the standards listed in Article 12 -9A, Special Development
District.
2. That the special development district amendment is not consistent
with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
comprehensive plan and is not compatible with the development
objectives of the town, and
3. That the special development district amendment is not compatible
with and suitable to adjacent uses and is inappropriate for the
surrounding areas, and
4. That the special development district amendment does not promote
the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and
Town of Vail Page 13
does not promote the coordinated and harmonious development of
the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural
environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval for this request, the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval to the Town Council for 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. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval for this request, the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings:
"Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll this Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated
September 9, 2013, and the evidence and testimony presented, the
Planning and Environmental Commission finds.
That the special development district amendment complies with the
standards listed Article 12 -9A, Special Development District, or that
a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been
achieved.
2. That the special development district amendment is consistent with
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
comprehensive plan and compatible with the development
objectives of the town, and
3. That the special development district amendment is compatible with
and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding
areas, and
4. That the special development district amendment promotes the
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and
promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town
in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment
and its established character as a resort and residential community
of the highest quality. "
Town of Vail Page 14
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval for this request, the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions:
"1. This SDD major amendment approval is contingent upon the applicant
obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review
application.
2. The applicant shall mitigate the employee generation impact created by
the addition of 691 square feet of GRFA in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 12 -24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code.
3. The applicant shall receive and submit in conjunction with the building
permit, all applicable Colorado Department of Transportation approvals
for all impacts to the South Frontage Road East, including construction
staging.
4. The applicant shall amend the recorded condominium map to reflect
the increase in floor area and space designation, prior to requesting a
planning certificate of occupancy inspection."
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Written Request dated August 12, 2013
B. Proposed Plans dated August 29, 2013
Town of Vail Page 15
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
J
LLJ
LU
LU
_j
Z
Ld
Ld
(1) �
0
n-
o
Q-
-i
LLJ
LLJ
d)
ti
CL
V)
LLJ
C-)
V)
CL
O
CL.
J
LLJ
LLJ
D
O
0
C-1
W �
-i
LLJ
LLJ
LLJ
CL
CL
X
LOLj �
d)
CL
>
CD
LLJ
CD
0
<
:E
LLJ
L)
V)
Z
CL
CG f
0 -
_ F _ _ d 7 O o
I f i T I o'
o.
f
�-
sa I I Ld
CD
Ld
I I
I
I-
— —1
r � r
c.>
£�
0❑ b 1� I, I I I I I I I cn
o F ,
T
i
P
R
i
N
x ,
I
! - a
L
� z
_
a x
I � z
x
1 �
—
I
w =:
cm-
I, 3
r x
x { m
a_
x
"mr
I I
EL
? a
ff "Icl _ I t4 cs
j
I
w
r -
't
—YI / V x
CL
IL
- ��, � " � ✓ I h I I I ;h I I I
w
LL
<
_ r _
i
/
m
I
i
/
/
r
i
rl�
(I I
<aI i, —1J�m III I I fir o e
- a
T
r
m � / m
` I
x_�� m tz
cm-
H _
LLJ
LLJ
LLJ
U)
0
0-
0
0
LLJ
LLJ
o
c6 N
CL
O
O
>
LLJ
LLI
V)
Z
CL
CG f
0 -
g _ _
<g
W
C7
J
W
W
J
W
d
d
D
m
W
N
O
d
O
d
W
C7
J
W
W
J
W
a
a
cs
z
F-
X
W
N o
U
O = �m
A 00
c6 �
CLW U m
U
R�
N
' C �
d
R o
O
N
R
� z
(D
V) N
R w
U
H
W
2
U
N
O`
CD
z
z =
z
Qm
w .^
.m
w --
� W.
Kf
N'm
N
0.=
d
= sa o 60 00 0o em go
J9 JE ' i EJi 2 J E E
LI
III �g
o S � Icy
i
o r
�� 11
i yy
-. � iii �
I
� � I� III
0 _
r
I
I
I F
- - -- 4 I 1
-
- ITIr,
n --
Ll
1
LJ I I ii
I�
w
i
w
I -
ti
z
0
w
J
W
0
z
z
X
W
y
U
O = c
� - oO
yr is T
N w
L
A a
lip O
Z �
•� bA
in
W
Z
W
U
i F-
Ld
H
x
U
(n
U
Z
Z =
Z
Qe
U .•
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y
0.=
d
m � a °e sq a 6b o0o n oo em ga
E 'E J9 JE i EJi 2 J E E
I I I I I
I i II III III�� II I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
i
L — -�
Lt1Ll -
—� - �. --
i
0
I I
�I
I
I I
ILL
I TAI
w � -
II I
j
K"
zj-
z
O
Q
w
J
w
O
z
0
w
O
a
O
a
y
U
0 = C
w m
C L a
lip O
o
Z �
N
� Q V
O
c / �A w
O
� U
w
x
U
N
c�
z
z=
zn
¢e
Cc .�
w =:
tz
2
K f
Q
H'.
CO*
0.=
d
m � a °e sq a 6b o0o n oo em ga
JE i EJi 2 J E E
8 0 8 8 E 8 8
I
Icy
LL . Ll —.—
I
i
/I
--
I�
'I,
i,
JLI III
Li
r �
ICI � I I
u
I
I
r
I�
I
I�
C —
i I I I
I
I
z
0
w
J
Ld
2
H
0
z
0
w
0
a
0
a
U
0 = Am
j N
OL
^^� C m
CL N a'
O
� ; U
� N
W
L
~, z
(� Z
w
U
H
w
U
N
c�
z
z
zn
¢e
Cc .�
2 "
K f
H'.
y
0.=
d
y o
U
0 =
^C W m
CL N 4
t6 `
W
.R no
N
X
1 W
Z
}� C7
N
W
U
� Q
W
2
U
z
z-
=n
d °
cc .�
� 3=
U
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y
0.=
d
O w
E
J E J E
J E
9
aE
III
- -- III - - - -_
L� Ili III
III
P
_ I
I
r
—-
i II
�
I I
I - -- I
o--------
s
III -
-- II _
___ .
I �
- - -- I - --
0
F=
w
Lj
cn
o--
- - - - - -- -
- -�— —
w
- -—
LL z
°E
ga
b b
8&
"s
y o
U
0 =
^C W m
CL N 4
t6 `
W
.R no
N
X
1 W
Z
}� C7
N
W
U
� Q
W
2
U
z
z-
=n
d °
cc .�
� 3=
U
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y
0.=
d
y
U
yr is T
� w
� N<
w
Q
� O
= a`
}, z
V1 �
•gyp u)
W
U
r
LLj
2
U
V)
z
z-
zn
d °
cc .�
U
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y-
0.=
d
° w
E E E
9s
J E
J E
J E
9
JEbE 5 Ja
xo
_
I
o- -
- --
- --
- --
I
III
I
� I
-I
-
I
- --
,,
I
I
i
o
f
All
1
xl
-
�I
I
-
-
-
-_ - >
W
J
W
o-
- --
----
--- -
- - -- - -- o
i
I o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
I
s
b b
�E
G
y
U
yr is T
� w
� N<
w
Q
� O
= a`
}, z
V1 �
•gyp u)
W
U
r
LLj
2
U
V)
z
z-
zn
d °
cc .�
U
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y-
0.=
d
O
O
o-- -
o--
o- --
a
Sb
?E
d
I �I ii j
I
I �
III
R I
o---- - -I - -- - -- �a
I j I iii �
II II II I ,
I I ,
I �
I
I
I
I ,
I
s
b b
�mE
G
z
0
Ld
W
w
-- �
w
V)
0
a
0
a
n
�o _
U
� N
//� C m
Lim N ¢'
°R C
O
W
N
}� W
� z
W
U
H
ILL]
U
N
U
z
z-
zn
d °
cc .�
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
H'.
y
cm
d
z
0
Q
w
0
z
X
W
y o
U
0 = C
^^W W
CL L a
o
C b
1 x
w
� Z
N C7
� w
C o
y
U
i
Q
2w
LLJ
U
U
Z
Qm
J =
d
Cc .�
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
CO*
0.=
d
$
w
�.
—.— -I. —.— — .—
.-4. —.— —.—
i
I
I
LL-
- -
Ell
LT
1
--
--
T
Ll
L
--
Cl-
I ,l
----
III
II
II
�I
I
II
_
I
m E
b
mE
EE
w Bi
YEi
FE ooQ
£E
��SE
z
0
Q
w
0
z
X
W
y o
U
0 = C
^^W W
CL L a
o
C b
1 x
w
� Z
N C7
� w
C o
y
U
i
Q
2w
LLJ
U
U
Z
Qm
J =
d
Cc .�
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
CO*
0.=
d
Z
O
Q
w
w
F-
O
0
V)
O
O
yo
U
0 =
^^� W
CL L a
o
N
O °
1 0-
CL
z
U
V)
G% w
U
Q
W
2
U
(n
=n
J =
d
Cc .�
U
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
CO*
0.=
d
j8
s°
o--
---
�-- L----
�--
-
- - -
--
,
--
o
I
F
—
LL
--
L
„
—
i
'"
�—
- - --
--
--
;I
o- -� -- - -- -
T - -fi
- - --
--
- --
m 3
b
mE
EE
w Bi YEi
FE
ooQ
£E
��SE
Z
O
Q
w
w
F-
O
0
V)
O
O
yo
U
0 =
^^� W
CL L a
o
N
O °
1 0-
CL
z
U
V)
G% w
U
Q
W
2
U
(n
=n
J =
d
Cc .�
U
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
CO*
0.=
d
m
El -I °
°N p� x- n ANA sF j8 s$
lidI
I A -
Lml
o- - - -- ------
I
mEE
Ya
S
VU F
I
-. T - -. - - - - - -
I
I
m E
o Ri sE �E oN 3EOE £w ��
Z
O
H
Q
W
J
W
2
H O
(n
0
LU
V)
O
O
�o _
U
� N
//� C m
Lim N ¢'
Ldt6
O
N
c�
a� z
a� w
� o
U
H
Q
W
U
N
U
�n
J =
d
Cc .�
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y
0.=
d
yo
U
O =
T
yr
is
NR
-
C
w m
<.
�
�n
�„
em
W
a
E
CL
�
g
�
u
..
z
CD
W
o----------------
-�
- -
-I
- -� --
-
- -I --
Cl
U
o------
- - - -!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
I
0
-
i
(n
W
z.
=n
J =
CL
-
23
sg
Y�
so
Po
s°
Y�'
s
Ym
so
L�
s
Y3
so
P3
F
U
w w:
K f
4„
cm
d
o-
o-
i
-- -- ---- - - - - -- —
ttl_ -
i
Y a
of of � N of nn
s° s so s s8
z
0
w
Ld
w
0
w
V)
0
0
y
U
0 = C
^^� W m
CL N 4
N `
N _
O
Q°
1 O
CD
N
o
� U
s
Q
W
2
U
U
z
z.
=n
U .•
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y
cm
d
nD
E �E
o----
? - -
- -- ------
_-
-! - - -j
-- --
- - -! --
-----------
-II - --
- -- --- - - -! --
--
- --
o-
o-
i
-- -- ---- - - - - -- —
ttl_ -
i
Y a
of of � N of nn
s° s so s s8
z
0
w
Ld
w
0
w
V)
0
0
y
U
0 = C
^^� W m
CL N 4
N `
N _
O
Q°
1 O
CD
N
o
� U
s
Q
W
2
U
U
z
z.
=n
U .•
2 =°
K f
4„
H'.
y
cm
d
z
0
w
Ld
w
0
w
V)
0
O
n
�o _
U
0 = A m
j N
OL
^^� C m
CL N 4
(6 °
•R C _
w
N
z
w
o
U
LLJ
H
U
N
z-
=n
¢e
wnz
2 =°
U
K f
4„
H'.
y
cm
d
nD
E
E
o-
- -- - -
- -- - -
- -
-- - - ! - -- -
-! --
- - - --
o-
- -- - -
- - -! - -
- --
- --
--- - - -! --
- - !--
i
- -
- - -- - ! -
- -
- - --
- - - --
--
- -
--
--
o--
at
ooi
= of
as
°E
-
Op -E
- 23
1.m sg
o"'
Y�
so
of
Po
s°
of
Yy'
s
of
Ym
so
of o
L Y3 P-'
so so
z
0
w
Ld
w
0
w
V)
0
O
n
�o _
U
0 = A m
j N
OL
^^� C m
CL N 4
(6 °
•R C _
w
N
z
w
o
U
LLJ
H
U
N
z-
=n
¢e
wnz
2 =°
U
K f
4„
H'.
y
cm
d
z
L.LJ
CD
0
m
0
z
V)
x
LLJ
! s
i
i _ L
o- J
II
- -- --- --- - - - --
I �
I I
i
T _
—T
I -T-
Z
O
Q
w
u)
Q
w
C7
Z
H
N
w
/C)
LLJ
C /
0
n
0
O r—
41/ -
o- -
a
i
I
� I
d
Z
O
UiH
Q
w
Q
w
0
w
N
O
a
0
y o
U
0- M
� N
//W� C m
Lim N ¢'
•R C
O
�a
w
w
� Z
W w
U
H
Q
w
2
U
N
U
z
z-
zn
J =
d '
U .•
w --
� w.
2 =°
K f
H'.
y-
0.=
d
iL
N -1
0
A
/)
Q) C
iL
Lu
0
<
CD LLI
L)
c2
Z:
0
F-
LLJ
-i
LLJ
N
F-
Cl)
a
LLJ
V)
0
a_
0
CD
CL
•7
CD
m
Cl)
N I
Cl)
LLJ
am
S
0
z
2
0
w
LL
3:
cl
LLJ
CO
0
0-
0
Of
0-
0
0
U
W
X
LLJ
yr iv
CL
o
IL
>
(Y)
I
CZD
V)
LLJ
M
Q)
L)
<
LLJ
zn
O
C0
2
0
iz)
LU
C()
0
0—
0
cr
0—
D
0
0
C()
X
LLJ
o
CL Na
o
IL
>
(Y)
I
CZD
4-0 —
V)
LLJ
Q)
cn L)
W <
LLJ
L)
(0
LD
zn
O
TOWN OF VAIL �
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 9, 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
Over the course of the past four meetings, the Commission has reviewed and
commented on a draft of the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan. These discussions have
been focused on various elements of the Plan. Based on comments received from the
Commission and public, a number of refinements have been made to the
draft. Examples of these refinements include:
• New objective, re: limiting the number and scale of buildings, encouraging
shared -use buildings, designs integrated with land, etc.;
• Expansion of Gardens Sub -area at northeast corner;
• Additional language on the potential benefits of removing one or more tennis
courts, re: more gracious entry to park;
• Recommendation that new Amphitheater pubic plaza provide "seamless" design
with adjoining Gardens improvements;
• Expanded language, re: vegetation enhancements, creek bank stabilization and
enhancements to fish habitat;
• New objectives, re: cooperation between leaseholders and decision - making in
best interest of Park/comm unity;
• Provision that annually staff and PEC review work program, re: action steps;
• New objective, use of environmentally sensitive design, construction, etc.; and
• General clean -up to narrative, clarification /refinement of objective /policy
statements.
At this work session staff will present a brief overview of the Plan, summarize significant
refinements that have been made in response to Commission comments, and answer
any questions the Commission or public may have. Red -lined and clean versions of the
Plan are attached to aid in the review.
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 23, 2013, public hearing. It is
anticipated that a recommendation from the Commission will be requested at the
September 23, 2013, public hearing.
Town of Vail Page 2
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park
Master Plan
An Element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan
FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
Planning and Environmental Commission Draft #2
September, 2013
E
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 35
6. Illustrative Plan 54
7. Park Management 62
8. Appendix 64
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
September 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 38 acre Anholtz Ranch in 1973 for the stated purpose of
"improving the quality of life in the community." Since that time the property has
increased in size to over 47 acres and 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 this 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. 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 the Park and to assist the Town in decision -
making regarding capital improvements and other changes proposed to the Park.
Draft #2 -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.
These plans have directly influenced the development of Ford Park and each has
contributed to the role the Park plays in the community. These previous planning efforts
were:
1974 Vail Plan — While the primary purpose of this plan was to address
Vail's growth and development, it did include a chapter on recreation and
defined at a very broad level the role Ford Park could play in providing
recreational, cultural and community- oriented uses.
1985 Gerald R. Ford Park /Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final
Report — At the time this plan was prepared; ballfields, tennis courts, and
parking had already been developed and construction of an amphitheater
had commenced. The purpose of this plan was to "guide the future
development of the park and establish guidelines for the implementation of
improvements."
1997 Ford Park Management Plan — This plan was initiated in response to
several development proposals for the Park. The plan was a product of
extensive focus group and public input sessions and in essence served as
an amendment to the 1985 plan.
2012 Update to the Ford Park Management Plan — This plan was done to
acknowledge new for improvements to the Park that were initiated when
Vail voters approved re- allocating a portion of the Convention Center
Funds to Ford Park.
Summaries of these previous plans are found in Chapter 3.
While the impetus for these planning efforts varied, each involved extensive community
input, debate, and at times, controversy. These planning processes revealed the
community's intense passion for the Park as town staff, elected officials and the public
worked to diligently find the appropriate levels of development and activity for the Park.
The 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan presents a compilation of these previous
planning efforts along with new direction and ideas that have evolved from this latest
planning effort. The primary objectives of this Plan are to:
• Incorporate key elements of previously completed plans for Ford Park into one
document, specifically those guiding principles that have successfully shaped the
development of the Park from its inception,
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 2
• 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 planning document 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
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.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 3
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 2012 Illustrative Plan, it depicts
existing improvements and at a diagrammatic level improvements that may occur
in the future.
7. Park Management
This chapter provides a brief summary of the various management and
operational aspects of the Park that are managed by the Town of Vail.
8. Appendix
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 #2 -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 +/ -38 acres. Today, Ford Park is
comprised of approximately 47.1 acres. The four areas of the Park and their acreages
are depicted below-
Main Park
+1- 20.3 Acres
Ford Park, 2013
Uore CreeklNature Center
+1.26.7 Acres yam'
_
soccer Fi eld
Ames
n. ____ .. ......,
Draft #2 -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.
Existing 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, a
sidewalk along the South Frontage Road and by two bridges in the Golden Peak
neighborhood. The Park's main transit stop is located on the South Frontage Road
with additional stops on Vail Valley Drive. These stops are served by the in -town shuttle
and by dedicated express bus service during special events.
Site Characteristics and Park Design
Physical characteristics of the land and the relationship of the Park to surrounding uses
and facilities influenced the earliest design concepts for the Park. Significant site
influences in the early design of the Park include the South Frontage Road (that
establishes the north boundary of the Park), Gore Creek and adjoining wetland and
riparian habitat (that run the entire length of the Park), site topography, vegetation and
views
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 6
Topography of the main portion of the park between the Frontage Road and Gore Creek
includes a prominent and well- defined grade change that creates an "upper bench" and
"lower bench ". Over the years this grade change, created in large part by grading from
the construction of Interstate 70, became a demarcation for the active recreation use on
the Upper Bench being and the cultural and passive recreation uses on the Lower
Bench.
Much of Ford Park was initially developed without the benefit of a detailed design or
development plan. The 1974 Vail Plan did, however, set the stage for the future
development of the Park by defining a number of broad design objectives. There are
many examples of how these early objectives for the park and 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
in a location that keeps vehicles on the perimeter of the Park and 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 minimized the
need for site grading and associated site disturbance. This location also
provides a buffer between highway noise and other areas of the Park. .
The Amphitheater
The Amphitheater essentially straddles the grade transition between the Upper
and Lower Bench. This location allowed the Amphitheater to utilize 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 character of the creek corridor provides a fitting location for
the environmental education programs offered by the Nature Center.
The 1985 Ford Park Master Plan spoke eloquently about the philosophy of good park
design and the role site conditions and characteristics should play in the design
process.
Draft #2 -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. Ford Park today reflects many elements of the original
vision for the Park as outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan and as further defined by the 1985
Ford Park Master Plan.
Draft #2 -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, process and outcome for each of
these planning efforts and 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 38 -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 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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 9
The Vail Plan's vision for the Anholtz Ranch was to create a "major community park -
cultural center." A wide range of potential uses for the park were identified:
• a place for showing and creating art, crafts, etc.,
• an indoor theater and an 800 seat outdoor amphitheater,
• meeting rooms and community workshops,
• wide outdoor terraces and natural landscapes
• indoor ice arena,
• tennis and handball courts
• children's play facilities and space for family activities,
• headquarters for the Annual Vail Symposium and local television,
• a possible location for an ecologium (nature center), and
• a grammar school.
As a balance to this extensive program of uses and facilities for the Park, the Vail Plan
contemplated the preservation of the Gore Creek corridor as a passive, "quiet place" to
enjoy the natural beauty of the site.
The plan called for 200 surface parking spaces to meet the daily parking needs of the
park. Parking for major events was planned to be provided in the Vail Transportation
Center with town transit and various trails and bikeways providing alternative means to
access the Park. The Vail Plan also depicted a potential road connection at the east end
of the park that would link the Frontage Road with Vail Valley Drive.
While the Vail Plan did not include a detailed design plan for the Park, the conceptual
site plan below began to define how the Park could be developed. A number of existing
park improvements reflect some of the basic concepts depicted below.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 10
� s
f j
a J
P
C
� l RuevlC on Pawn jTs , �`
Conceptual Plan for Ford Park, Vail Plan, 1974
Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan, 1985
In August of 1985 the Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan
Development Final Report was adopted by the Town Council (a copy of this plan and
Resolution No. 19, Series of 1985 is found in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan
Supplemental Appendix).
When the 1985 planning process was initiated, improvements in the Park were limited
to athletic fields, tennis courts and parking. A foundation for an amphitheater was in
place but this project was not yet completed. At that time the very eastern end of the
Park along the Frontage Road was utilized as a snow -dump.
The purpose of the 1985 plan was to prepare a more detailed plan for the future
development of the park and to establish guidelines for the implementation of park
improvements. The master planning process included a Recreation Needs Analysis
Survey and extensive community input via workshops and community meetings. The
outcome of these efforts was an indication of the type and extent of improvements the
community wanted to see in the Park. Alternative site plans were considered and a
final, preferred plan was selected. This final plan included a swimming pool complex,
"neighborhood park improvements" (on the Lower Bench), a skating rink (on the Lower
Bench), and the realignment of the eastern softball field. Development of the
neighborhood park improvements on the lower bench were completed in 1988 and
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 11
included restrooms, playground area, open turf area, picnic facilities, and the west
access road.
The first major structure to be constructed in the Park, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater,
was completed in July of 1987 and shortly thereafter a Parking and Transit Study for the
Amphitheater was completed. This study made five recommendations: 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 validated the recommendations for
parking and transit outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan.
L, as W t!'�✓-e'�.�� y .�"'t 4' �� `� `l .... �.-
y y
`V �r�: . . � ..� � ' .�/ wJ`^ Wig '• � .dY� l
GERALD R.
MASTER PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
pi
ASTER PLAN
T
M 11T � °w w.._
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
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 12
preserved as an example of the Gore Valley's natural history. Vehicular traffic
was to be restricted and certain policies and procedures for preservation and
maintenance of the grounds and facilities were established by the resolution. A
copy of resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, is included in the 2013 Ford Park
Master Plan Supplemental Appendix.
In December of 1988, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (Now the Vail
Recreation District) and the Town of Vail, requested an amendment to the 1985
Ford Park Master Plan. The two phase amendment was adopted by Council as
Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988. A copy of the resolution is included in the
2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Phase one of the
amendment was to allow the construction of four additional tennis courts. Phase
two of the amendment changed the proposed location of an aquatic facility to the
eastern softball field. Funding of the aquatic facility was rejected by voters in a
special election on February 6, 1989. Vail Town Council was presented with a
petition to delete all reference to an aquatics center from the Ford Park Master
Plan in April of 1990. No record of Council action on the petition was found.
While the tennis center building is not mentioned in the Master plan amendment,
the VRD did receive a Conditional Use Permit for the project on May 8, 1990.
The Vail Village Master Plan, adopted in 1990, addresses Ford Park as a specific
study area. This plan acknowledged the use of the Park to accommodate
overflow skier and local parking needs. It recommended that the Park be studied
further as a site for additional skier parking to serve expansion of the eastern
side of Vail Mountain. Action Step #5 under Goal #5 states: Study the feasibility
of an underground (recreation fields would remain) parking structure in Ford
Park. The Parking and Circulation Plan (an element of the Vail Village Master
Plan), identified the western portion of the upper bench for potential parking
beneath the Park, and called for separated bike /pedestrian ways along the South
Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive.
The Vail Transportation Master Plan, completed in 1993, states that the existing
Ford Park Parking area (at the east end of the Park) should be considered for a
possible 2 -level parking facility with the second level below existing grade. Ford
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.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 13
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
mobility impaired, utilization of the lower bench, conflicts between uses within the Park,
conflicts with adjacent property owners, and the delineation of financial responsibilities.
At the time the project was authorized, Town Council expressed concern that a new
master plan for Ford Park could result in an excessive amount of new development. In
response, staff noted the intention of the project was to create a management plan as a
means to adequately and consistently evaluate development proposals, with the goal of
limiting development and protecting the character of the Park.
Park leaseholders, two neighborhood representatives and town staff served as the
Stakeholder Group for the planning process and a third party facilitator was retained to
coordinate this effort. The Stakeholder Group developed alternative design solutions
addressing parking, vehicular access, Frontage Road improvements, additional sports
facilities and management policies. These plans were presented to the public in an
open house at the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater in June of 1996.
The open house presentation was a turning point in the process of developing the
Management Plan. Several residents were alarmed by the alternatives included in the
presentation and initiated a grass -roots movement to place a referendum on any future
expansion /development within the Park. This strong public reaction, combined with a
lack of closure within the Stakeholders Group, prompted the 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
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 14
Plan also included an Illustrative Plan that identified a number of future improvements.
Foremost among these was identifying the Soccer Field 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."
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
improvements to the Park. Plans to improve the Park were initiated when Vail voters
approved re- allocating a portion of the +/- $9,000,000 Convention Center Funds to Ford
Park. The other stakeholders in the Park also participated in the funding of these
improvements.
The 2012 Update maintained the overall direction for the Park as established by the
1997 Management Plan. With only a few exceptions, the 2012 Update suggested no
significant changes to the uses, facilities and activities that currently take place in the
Park. One exception was the 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 were to remain in place. The
Update did not change any of the six major goal statements (or related objectives,
policy statements and action steps) in the 1997 Management Plan.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 15
11"Natme plhn
2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update
f1
AECOM
The most significant changes in the 2012 Update are found in the Illustrative Plan
chapter of the Plan. The Illustrative Plan provided conceptual site plan diagrams and
narrative explanations of improvements suggested for the Park. Many of these
improvements were first identified in the 1997 Plan, others evolved out of discussions
with the Town, stakeholders and the community during the winter of 2012. 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
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 16
November 1987
Preservation of Nature Center, Resolution 27, 1987
December 1987
Vail Valley Foundation lease signed
November 1988
Lower Bench improvements completed
December 1988
Ford Park Master Plan amendment by VRD, Resolution 44, 1988
December 1988
Service agreement with VRD, Resolution 46, 1988
May 1989
Tennis Center receives Conditional Use Permit
July 1989
Alpine Perennial Garden completed
January 1990
Completion of Vail Village Master Plan
February 1990
Aquatic Center rejected by voters in special election
April 1990
Council petitioned to delete Aquatic Center from Master Plan
May 1990
Tennis Center construction completed
June 1991
Alpine Meditation Garden completed
April 1993
Completion of Vail Transportation Master Plan
December 1993
Vail Recreation District agreement renewed
June 1994
Vail Alpine Garden Foundation license agreement signed.
June 1995
Town begins Ford Park Management Plan
October 1996
Council allows 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 #2 -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 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 policy statements outlined below. Elements
from the 1974 Vail Plan and the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan have also been
incorporated into these statements. These new statements 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 or ideas that should be taken
toward achieving each goal. Policy statements are specific guidance for future. Action
steps address specific actions to be taken in implementing the goals and objectives.
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. Only those
proposals deemed to be in compliance with these statements will gain approvals.
This chapter includes thirty -six action steps. In some cases action steps involve a
single, defined task intended to implement an objective or policy statement. An
example of this would be initiating refinements to the park design guidelines specific to
Ford Park. Other action steps involve on -going tasks. An example would be the
coordination and management of events in the Park. The Community Development
Department, with participation from the Public Works Department, will prioritize action
steps and present recommendations annually to the Planning and Environmental
Commission regarding that year's work program for implementing action steps. The
Planning and Environmental Commission will provide a recommendation that will be
forwarded to the Town Council who will make final decisions on the work program.
Draft #2 -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 #2 -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
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 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 new development or change to existing Park facilities
shall be reviewed for compliance with Section 12 -11 -6 Park Design Guidelines of
the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as well as other applicable Town regulations.
Policy Statement 3: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or
uses shall provide a needed recreational, educational, cultural or social benefit to
the community.
Policy Statement 4: Maintain and operate existing facilities, uses and functions
within the Park at a high standard of quality reflective of the Vail Brand.
Draft #2 -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.
Action Step 1.2.2: Evaluate the park design guidelines in Section 11 -12 -6
of the Vail Town Code and modify as necessary to address design
considerations specific to Ford Park.
Objective 1.3: Preserve and protect the environmentally sensitive areas along the Gore
Creek Corridor.
Policy Statement 1: Uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor
shall be limited to only those prescribed in the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-
area.
Policy Statement 2: No new buildings should be permitted within the Gore
Creek Preservation Sub -area.
Policy Statement 3: Any new improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor
shall respect the 100 -year floodplain and minimize impacts to wetland or riparian
habitats.
Objective 1.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 1.3.1: Evaluate the merits of strengthening preservation
controls within the Gore Creek Preservation Sub -area via a conservation
easement or the Natural Area Preservation Zone District "Open Space"
designation.
Action Step 1.3.2: Inventory existing conditions of the creek bank and
vegetation within the Gore Creek corridor, initiate programs to stabilize or
restore these areas as may be necessary.
Objective 1.4: Utilize Ford Park as a showcase for environmental sensitivity and
sustainability.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 21
Policy Statement 1: Encourage all lease holders and events at the Park to
implement comprehensive recycling programs.
Policy Statement 2: Sustainable design and environmentally "friendly" materials
and construction methods be utilized on all new development within the Park.
Objective 1.5: Limit the number and scale of buildings and structures within the Park to
no more than necessary to meet the needs of park operations and to provide
appropriate services and facilities to park users.
Policy Statement 1: As an alternative to new buildings, encourage shared or
joint -use buildings and /or facilities among Park lease- holders.
Policy Statement 2: The design of new buildings or structures shall be
integrated with the land with a subtle, understated, low- profile in appearance so
as to not dominate the Park's landscape; "iconic" architecture or building designs
that may be visually distracting are not appropriate.
Draft #2 -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 ", with uses and activities limited
within this area.
Policy Statement 2: The primary use of the open turf area within the Lower
Commons Sub -Area should be to provide a place for un- programed and informal
passive recreation. The use of this area for special events should be limited in
frequency and scope in order to minimize impacts on the primary use of this
area.
Objective 2.1 Action Steps:
Action Step 2.1.1: 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 2.1.3: Identify key viewsheds from strategic locations within
the Park and as may be necessary establish designated view corridors to
ensure the protection of these viewsheds.
Objective 2.2: Utilize Ford Park to meet the community's needs for active recreation
and formal team sport activities.
Policy Statement 1: The Active Recreation and Soccer Field Sub -Areas shall be
managed first and foremost to provide faculties for active recreation and team
sports.
Draft #2 -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 at the Nature
Center and the programs provided by the Betty Ford Alpine Garden.
Objective 2.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 2.3.1: Work with the Vail Valley Foundation on their efforts to
create a new "public plaza" at the entry to the Gerald R. Ford
Amphitheater.
Action Step 2.3.2: Work with the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Foundation on
their proposal to create an educational and visitor center within the Park.
Action Step 2.3.3: Promote and support the use of the Nature Center and
surrounding area as a center for environmental education programs.
Action Step 2.3.4: In conjunction with the Vail Valley Foundation, evaluate
the feasibility of winterizing the Amphitheater to allow for use the venue
during winter months.
Objective 2.4: Enhance the use of the Historic School House and preserve the historic
integrity of the building.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 24
Policy Statement 1: Maintain public access to the School House and continue
the utilization of the building in accordance with the terms of the lease with the
Betty Ford Alpine Gardens.
Objective 2.4 Action Steps:
Action Step 2.4.1: Evaluate alternative uses for the School House that
will maintain public access and potentially involve the display of historic
photos and artifacts or other activities in keeping with the historic nature of
the building.
Action Step 2.4.2: Complete an architectural assessment of the School
House and establish a plan to protect and enhance the historic character
of the building.
Objective 2.5: Enhance and restore the Nature Center building and the landscape
surrounding the building.
Policy Statement 1: Limit vehicular access to only those vehicles necessary for
the operation of the building and educational programs.
Policy Statement 2: Uses proximate to the Nature Center should be limited and
shall be consistent with the Gore Creek Preservation Sub -Area.
Policy Statement 3: Restore the architectural integrity of the Nature Center
building.
Objective 2.5 Action Steps:
Action Step 2.5.1: Work with the Vail Recreation District to implement
measures for controlling vehicular access to the Nature Center building.
Action Step 2.5.2: Complete an architectural inventory of the Nature
Center building to define steps that could be taken to restore the historic
character of the building.
Action Step 2.5.3: Reduce the parking areas around the Nature Center
building by reclaiming these areas to a natural landscape condition.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 25
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: Proposals for any new facility or use or the expansion of
any existing facility or use in the Lower Bench it shall not generate an
unnecessary or appreciable increase in vehicular activity in the Lower Bench
area of the Park.
Policy Statement 2: Uses in the Lower Bench shall operate in a manner that
limits vehicular traffic to the greatest extent possible. Vehicular access to the
Lower Bench of the Park should be limited to: maintenance; delivery of goods or
materials too large or too heavy to be carried by non - motorized means; 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 4.1.1: 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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 26
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 to all vehicles except trucks too
large to utilize East Betty Ford Way (for exiting the Park).
Objective 3.3: Utilize the Parking /Transit Sub -area as the primary means for satisfying
the Park's parking and transit needs.
Policy Statement 1: All stakeholders are required to adhere to the Parking and
Transit Management Plan.
Policy Statement 2: 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 daily park -use within the Parking /Transit
Sub -Area and utilize the Vail Village Parking Structure to satisfy peak parking
demands of the Park.
Objective 3.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 3.3.1: 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.
Action Step 3.3.2: Evaluate the feasibility of expanding the In -Town bus
route beyond Golden Peak to provide service along Vail Valley Drive.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 27
Action Step 3.3.3: Implement an improved wayfinding sign program
directing pedestrians from the Village Parking Structure and Slifer Square
in Vail Village.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 28
Goal #4:
Provide a safe, enjoyable and efficient pedestrian circulation system within Ford
Park and between Ford Park and Vail Village.
Objective 4.1: Provide clear and effective directional and informational signs to and
within Ford Park.
Objective 4.1 Action Steps:
Action Step 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 4.2: Encourage and promote park users to access the Park via pedestrian
routes from Vail Village and the Vail Transportation Center.
Policy Statement 1: The five existing pedestrian access points to the Park from
Vail Village and Golden Peak should be maintained and enhanced to maximize
their effectiveness in providing access to the Park.
Policy Statement 1: Encourage leaseholders in Ford Park to utilize their
marketing efforts to promote walking, biking and the use of Town buses as an
alternative to driving to the Park.
Objective 4.2 Action Steps:
Action Step 4.2.1: Implement enhancements to the Gore Creek Trail that
will improve safety, grading, surfacing, and lighting.
Action Step 4.2.2: Evaluate opportunities for additional seating areas,
public art and other features to enhance the walking experience along the
Vail Village Connector (within the Gore Creek Sub -area) and where
appropriate provide rest /sitting areas along all pedestrian routes to the
Park.
Action Step 4.2.3: Establish gateways or portals (signage, monuments,
landscape elements, etc.) at the main entries to the Park (Frontage Road,
Gore Creek Trail, Manor Vail, Slifer Plaza, Vail Valley Drive and the
Parking /Transit Sub - area).
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 29
Objective 4.3: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park.
Policy Statement 1: New developments or other improvements in the Park shall
not diminish the quality of the pedestrian circulation system and when
appropriate shall include provisions to improve pedestrian circulation.
Objective 4.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 4.3.1: Upgrade the portion of Betty Ford Way within the Lower
Commons Sub -area to create a high quality pedestrian corridor with
improved surface materials, lighting, seating and landscaping.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 30
Goal #5:
Maintain compatible relationships between all venues and all uses within Ford
Park.
Objective 5.1: Manage the overall carrying capacity of the Park by scheduling events to
prevent overlapping or simultaneous events that exceed the availability of community
parking or other park infrastructure.
Policy Statement 1: The Town of Vail through its designee shall coordinate with
leaseholders an 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 representation from the Vail Valley
Foundation, the Betty Ford Alpine Garden and the Vail Recreation District.
Objective 5.1 Action Steps:
Action Step 5.1.1: Expand the master schedule kept by the Town Clerk to
include all venues within the Park.
Action Step 5.1.2: Hold preseason event /activity coordination meetings
with all affected stakeholders.
Action Step 5.1.3: Hold semiannual (or as deemed necessary)
coordination and input meetings with the Town of Vail, leaseholder
representatives, and neighborhood and adjacent property owner
representatives.
Objective 5.2: Provide sufficient separation, berms and landscape buffers between
facilities and uses.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 31
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.
Policy Statement 2: Maintain and where necessary improve existing berms and
landscaping between facilities and uses.
Objective 5.2 Action Steps:
Action Step 5.2.1: Enhance existing landscape buffers between tennis
courts adjacent to the Active Recreation Sub -area and the Parking /Transit
Sub -area and evaluate the need to enhance landscape buffers between
other uses throughout the Park.
Objective 5.3: To foster a spirit of cooperation between all leaseholders within the Park
regarding their use of the Park and how to collectively use and manage the Park for the
benefit of all.
Policy Statement 1: Encourage the shared use of buildings and facilities.
Policy Statement 2: Decisions regarding proposals for new buildings or
improvements are made in the best interest of the Park and the Vail community,
not just in the interest of the leaseholder.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 32
Goal #6:
Delineate financial responsibilities among Ford Park leaseholders and the Town
of Vail for both on -going maintenance /operation and capital improvements.
Objective 6.1: Equitably share the costs of park management and operations with Park
lease- holders.
Policy Statement 1: All Ford Park leaseholders shall participate in cost sharing
with the Town of Vail for common operating costs at a level proportionate to the
leaseholders benefit from or relationship to said operation or management cost.
(or as may be outlined in current lease or license agreement). Management and
operations cost may include but are not limited to, electrical for pedestrian path
and parking lot lighting, trash removal, and parking lot and pedestrian path
maintenance costs.
Objective 6.1 Action Steps:
Action Step 6.1.1: 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: Establish equitable cost sharing agreements for Park capital
improvement costs.
Policy Statement 1: Ford Park leaseholders desiring to make capital
improvements within their respective lease areas shall be required to provide
funding for those improvements and for any modifications outside of the lease
area necessitated by such improvements.
Policy Statement 2: Services, functions, and programs provided by Ford Park
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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 33
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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 34
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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 35
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 -area boundaries were defined based on a variety of considerations. They
should not be considered hard, inflexible parcel lines. It is reasonable to anticipate that
when considering future improvements for the Park some latitude with the location of a
sub -area boundary may be appropriate. Any consideration to modify a sub -area
boundary shall be made in the context of the 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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 36
• 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 planning level. More
specific discussion of potential future improvements that may be appropriate for the
Park is found in the Illustrative Plan Chapter of this Plan.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 37
\
V\ /
.
\ \
K�\
)
\ \\'
/ [
Z |
\�=
/ !!
� 22/
) �
\�z
/
Draft # $ECG §e&
2013 Gerald m Ford Park Master Plan Page 38
Parking /Transit Sub -area
The Parking /Transit Sub -area provides on -site parking for the Park and includes a
transit stop, a passenger car drop -off area and a central trash /storage facility.
Strategically located along the South Frontage Road and on the periphery of other park
facilities and uses, this sub -area plays a vital role in how the Park functions by
separating parking and vehicles from other areas of the Park. The transit facility is a
key component of the Park by facilitating direct bus service to the Town's parking
structures (which provide parking for peak demand days 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 making improvements to the athletic fields in 2013 (to be completed in 2014) the
Park had approximately 200 on -site parking spaces. The athletic field expansion
displaced approximately 50 parking spaces at the west end of the parking lot. These 50
spaces were re- established by re- designing other portions of the parking lot,
maintaining the approximately 200 on -site parking spaces.
A "no net loss of parking" policy is in effect for the +/ -200 on -site parking 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.
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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 39
LLT
Future Improvements
With parking lot and transit improvements scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2013
and spring of 2014, it is anticipated that the Parking /Transit Sub -area will adequately
address the needs of the Park for the foreseeable future. Improvements that may be
considered in the future include:
• Design and installation of park entry features at the two pedestrian portals from
the parking lot into the Park.
• Installation of traffic control devices (gates or other means) at the east and west
ends of Betty Ford Way.
The potential improvements listed above are also described in the Illustrative Plan
section of this Plan.
The idea of constructing structured parking below the existing surface parking lot has
been discussed in the past. This could accomplish two objectives — increase the supply
of on -site parking (parking that could also address other town needs) and allow for
some alternative use on top of 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 if necessary initiate amendments to the Ford Park
Master Plan.
Active Recreation Sub -area
This sub -area is the focal point of active recreation, team sports, tournaments and other
special events. The location of these uses is consistent with some of the earliest
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 40
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 the Active Recreation Sub -area initiated in 2012 (expected to be
completed in 2014) were extensive and included expansion and re- organization of the
athletic fields and construction of a new rest room /storage building and a new
concession /restroom building. It is anticipated that these improvements will address the
active recreation needs of the community for the foreseeable future. The only additional
improvements contemplated for this sub -area are:
• Design and installation of park entry features at the west end of the Park along the
Frontage Road and the two pedestrian portals from the parking lot.
• 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
improvement has been done, but conceptually this roundabout could be located just
west of the athletic fields.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 41
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 rest of the Park. If
or when the relocation of one or more tennis courts is considered, study should be given
to how improved pedestrian flow and new uses could be established in this area. By
way of example, the removal of the two courts adjacent to the Frontage Road and the
Athletic Field concession building would not only allow for a much improved "arrival
sequence" for pedestrians, but could also provide land for new facilities.
The Tennis Center building has been in existence for over 25 years and the design of
the building is inconsistent with the architectural character of buildings recently
constructed in the Park. 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 an alternative
site. 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.
As with the parking lot area, the idea of constructing structured parking below the
athletic fields has been discussed in the past. It is expected that if and when this idea is
pursued that an initial step would be to evaluate implications to the overall goals for the
Park and if necessary initiate amendments to the Ford Park Master Plan.
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
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
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 42
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 very minor encroachments from landscape improvements,
lighting, seating and other similar features associated with improvements planned for
Betty Ford Way, 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 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.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 43
7,
Playraur�i�
Jx Cr e, W Turf
Area
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 and 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, but if pursued, they should be
done in a way that minimizes impacts to other surrounding uses and facilities and is
sensitive to the natural landscape.
Future Improvements
The only improvements contemplated for this Sub -area include:
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 44
• 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 chapter.
Amphitheater Sub -area
An outdoor amphitheater was contemplated in original plans for Ford Park dating back
to 1974. Completed in 1987, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater has evolved into Vail's
most prominent venue for music, dance and other cultural events. The facility is
managed by the Vail Valley Foundation and is host to approximately 60 events each
summer. The amphitheater is considered one of the community's most important
cultural assets.
In 2013 the Foundation completed an initial phase of improvements to the amphitheater.
Improvements included re- contouring the lawn seating, new restrooms, expansion of
concession areas, and other improvements. While not a project of the Foundation, 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.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 45
The relationship between the Amphitheater and the neighboring athletic fields will need
to be continually monitored to ensure compatibility between these (and all) park users is
maintained. It is important to protect and enhance areas of existing vegetation in and
around the Amphitheater and where appropriate improve the physical buffers between
these uses. The implementation of noise mitigation at the north end of the amphitheater
to minimizing noise impacts from the athletic fields and Interstate 70 has also been
discussed. 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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 46
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 criterion for selecting a site for the educational center 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
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 47
still be considered if following further study it is determined that the Betty Ford Way site
is not viable.
The primary purpose of the building is to provide educational programs for the
community and accordingly the uses within the building are expected to include rooms
for interpretive displays, meeting /class rooms, a greenhouse and a limited amount of
administrative space. 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:
• Development of an alpine garden educational center.
• Extension of the gardens along the northeast entry in order to create a buffer
from the adjoining athletic fields and improve the arrival to the Gardens.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 48
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
vehicle access to the education center can be limited to only those vehicles absolutely
necessary (i.e. deliver of large items, service vehicles, emergency vehicles), and how
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 open space for the quiet enjoyment of nature. The corridor also
provides a critical pedestrian link to Vail Village. The designation of this corridor as a
preservation zone is in direct response to a number of goals and objectives from
previous park planning efforts. The preservation of this area is also suggested by Goal
#1 of this Plan. It is essential that adjacent uses respect the natural environment of this
sub -area and that effective buffers be maintained between other more intensive uses
within the Park.
It is intended that existing uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Preservation
Sub -Area be maintained and in keeping with the goals of preserving this area no new
buildings are to be constructed within the sub -area. Any other new uses or
improvements should be limited to those that will complement the natural character of
the creek corridor and will minimize impacts to this sensitive environment.
Resolution No. 27 of 1987 designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an
area "to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley's natural history." The
resolution stipulated that "vehicular traffic is to be restricted and certain policies and
procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities" should be
enacted. It is acknowledged that the Nature Center will bring a certain level of activity
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 49
to this sub -area. Nature Center activity should be concentrated on the "upland"
portions of the Nature Center in order to minimize impacts the creek corridor.
Improvements within the sub -area should be limited to low- impact improvements such
as soft surface walking paths, creek enhancements to improve fish habitat, fishing
access, re- vegetation and creek /stream bank restoration projects. In all cases such
improvements should be designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes
environmental impacts (i.e. avoid wetland habitat and wetland, maintain existing natural
vegetation, use of "best management practices ", etc.). The underlying goal of any new
trail development and /or bridge crossing should be to improve access in order to
enhance awareness of this important natural environment.
Utilities and 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.
�o
- -�
,I
A —*n
Fishing access to Gore Creek, while currently not an issue (i.e. excessive use from foot
traffic resulting in damage to riparian areas and vegetation), could become an issue in
the future. A creek access point was considered at the east end of the Nature Center
(using the bus turnaround on Vail Valley Drive as an unloading area) was discussed
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 50
during the 1997 Planning effort but was rejected as being contradictory to the intended
use of the Nature Center. A defined creek access point has been discussed for a
location east of Ford Park in the vicinity of the Pulis Bridge.
An Action Step suggested for this area (refer to Chapter 3 of this Plan) is to evaluate the
benefits of establishing a conservation easement for this area or to apply the "Open
Space" designation via the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. The protection
afforded by either of these steps would define more permanent limitations on the use of
this area and in doing so establish a degree of permanence in preserving this creek
corridor.
The existing condition of the Nature Center Building and the surrounding area has been
a point of discussion. Potential areas of improvement include restoring the architectural
character of the building, elimination or reduction of surface parking around the building,
extending water and sewer service to the building and implementing measures to limit
vehicles from accessing the site. These potential improvements are further discussion
in Chapter 6 — Ford Park Illustrative Plan.
Future Improvements
Future improvements contemplated for this Sub -area include:
• Enhancement and restoration of vegetation along the creek corridor, creek bank
stabilization and fishing habitat enhancements.
• Enhancements to the walkway between Vail Village and the Park to include
improvements such as seating, art installations, etc.
• Design and installation of park entry features at the three pedestrian portals to
the Park along the Gore Creek Corridor.
• Initiate steps to improve the physical condition of the Nature Center.
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).
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 51
Separated from the rest of Ford Park by Vail Valley Drive and physically removed from
the more developed portions of the Park, the Soccer Field Sub -area does not have
compatibility or relationship issues with surrounding uses or facilities. No major
changes are contemplated to the existing recreational facilities in this sub -area.
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 with the preferred location for this
building 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 an alternative site. The
potential location for this building is at the northwest corner of the sub -area. Private
covenant issues (with the neighboring Northwoods Condominiums and with the Vail
Village Seventh Filing) will need to be addressed prior to constructing an education
center on the soccer field site ".
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 52
Chapter 6 - FORD PARK ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
The Ford Park Illustrative Plan provides a general description of future improvements
contemplated for Ford Park. The Plan indicates the general location of the
improvements, a summary of the proposed improvements and parameters or criteria to
be considered in the design, development and operation of the improvement. The
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. This Plan includes numbers
which identify future improvements to the Park. Narrative descriptions of these
improvements follow.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 53
R
+Y
f
1'
n
r
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 54
Improvement #1 — Gore Creek Corridor Restoration
There are a number of areas within the Gore Creek corridor where erosion, over -use or
other factors have disturbed or otherwise adversely impacted existing vegetation. A
restoration program should be implemented to improve vegetation along the creek
corridor. Restoration will improve the visual quality of this area and improve water
quality by preventing erosion. A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary
in order to determine precisely where and to what extent restoration is needed.
Following completion of this assessment, a detailed landscape plan for the restoration
of the corridor should be prepared and implemented.
A parallel effort should be to evaluate the condition of the creek bank in order to identify
the potential need for stream bank stabilization to protect the bank from erosion.
Another opportunity to consider for Gore Creek is how pools or other features could be
created in the creek to improve the quality of fishing. A detailed assessment of the
creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent
these improvements may be feasible. Following completion of this assessment a
detailed improvement plan for the creek corridor could be prepared.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective 1.3, Action Step 1.3.2.
Improvements #2 — Gore Creek Village Connector
The Gore Creek corridor between the 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). Enhancing the walking experience along this connection to
the will improve its effectiveness as an alternative means of accessing the Park. The
installation of seating areas, creek overlooks and public art are examples of
improvements that could be made to animate this walkway.
All improvements shall be outside of wetland areas, the 100 -year flood plain or other
environmentally sensitive areas. An inventory of the creek corridor to identify such
areas should be completed prior to initiating any improvements.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.2.
Improvement #3 — Entry Monuments at Park's pedestrian entries
Pedestrians arrive to Ford Park from one of seven existing entries as identified on the
Illustrative Plan. Currently there is inadequate signage or other features identifying
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 55
these locations as entry points to the Park. The goal of this improvement is to formally
identify these portals and announce them as gateways, or arrival points to Ford Park.
Landscape features, signage, bollards, monuments, archways or other design features,
or some combination thereof, could be used to identify these locations. Landscape
enhancements to areas proximate to these entries may also be appropriate. A design
process is necessary to determine design solutions for these improvements. While
specific solutions for these park entry improvements could vary between locations, all
should share a common design vocabulary. It will also be important to locate these
improvements in a way that compliments the adjacent pedestrian corridor and does not
compromise pedestrian circulation.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #4, Objective 4.2, Action Step 4.2.3.
Improvement #4 — Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center
The education center is envisioned to include multi -use space for year- around
educational programs and other activities, a greenhouse and limited administrative
space. Below are design, development and operational parameters and /or criteria to be
considered in the detailed design of this facility.
• Building and site improvements provide adequate clearances from
existing utility lines and drainage improvements and when necessary
such lines or improvements are relocated to provide adequate
clearances.
• A building of not more than 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 access management plan designed to minimize to the
greatest extent feasible the number and frequency of vehicles
accessing the education center. It is acknowledged that a service
vehicle or delivery vehicle may occasionally need to drive to the center.
However, daily or frequent vehicle access by staff or patrons of the
center will not be permitted
• Acceptable emergency vehicle access to the building and identification
of any site improvements necessary to accommodate such access.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 56
• Identify the anticipated parking demand from the building and how it
will be addressed.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.2.
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. These
site improvements would most efficiently be designed in conjunction with the evaluation
of the building.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.5, Action Step 2.5.1- 2.4.3.
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 a tribute to the Ford Family, a small stage
within the courtyard, a new donor wall, enhancements to the concession building and
ticket windows, and new entry gates to the Amphitheater.
Parameters and criteria to be considered:
Plaza design should be done to facilitate /not encumber truck turning movements
necessary to provide loading /delivery to the Amphitheater.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 57
• Plaza design should be sensitive to and integrated with immediately adjacent
improvements at the Alpine Gardens.
• Trees removed to accommodate the Public Plaza should be re- located within the
Park and to the extent feasible be relocated proximate to the amphitheater.
• The space should be available for 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 conform to the
Town's park design guidelines.
• Any fencing that may be required to define the courtyard space or for liquor
license or other purposes should be subtle and visually unobtrusive. Landscape
materials should be used to soften the appearance of the fence.
• A viable management plan for minimizing vehicular access to the social
courtyard (employees, service vehicles, deliveries, etc.), and for servicing
the facility in a manner that minimizes impacts on pedestrian use of Betty
Ford Way.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.1.
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.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 58
It is anticipated that the existing path will be widened from approximately 10 feet to
between 11 and 13 feet to accommodate the multiple user types that visit the park at
peak use times and to reduce conflicts when Amphitheater /golf cart shuttles share the
path with pedestrians. The path surface will be replaced with finer textured, higher
quality pavements such as colored concrete, stone or concrete pavers. Seating areas
with benches at select locations along the path, landscape enhancements, lighting and
wayfinding may also be incorporated into this design.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #5, Objective 4.3, Action Step 4.3.1.
Improvement #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 #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 59
Chapter 7- PARK MANAGEMENT
Four organizations play a role in the management and operation of Gerald R. Ford
Park. The Town of Vail is the owner of the Park and manages the community park on
the Lower Bench, the stream tract, parking lot areas and pedestrian corridors. In
addition, the Town provides 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 Betty Ford Alpine Gardens manages the Gardens. The Gardens have
developed in four phases that began in 1987.
In its role as the overall park manager, the Town addresses a variety of management
and operational considerations. Often times this requires the involvement of different
town departments and town commissions and boards. Ultimately the Town Council is
asked to review and approve management practices. The Town involves one or more of
the Park leaseholders when addressing these management topics and in some cases
the lease agreements with the Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation and Alpine
Garden Foundation address these topics. Below is a list of park management topics the
Town is responsible for:
• Parking — Management of parking spaces, allocation of spaces to leaseholders,
rates at times pay - parking is implemented, etc.
• Special events on parking lot, athletic fields and open turf area — coordination
with promoters of events, scheduling, pre and post -event operations, etc.
• Overall Park Calendar — While not responsible for scheduling events within
leaseholder facilities, the Town coordinates (with leaseholders) an overall events
schedule for the Park.
• Transportation — management of transit operations between the Park and the
Vail Transportation Center, including periodic implementation of a Golden Peak
bus route.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 60
• AIPP projects — The review of art programs and installations in the Park.
• Proposed new use or new building — The review of any new building or use in
the Park. This review will involve the Town Council and may involve the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board and the
Commission on Special Events.
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 61
Chapter 8 - APPENDIX
An extensive number of documents relative to the history of the Park and previous park
planning efforts have been assembled. Due to the volume of this material, these
documents are provided in a separate document, the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan
Supplemental Appendix. Material found in the Supplemental Appendix includes:
1. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, authorizing the purchase (by condemnation) of
the property known as the Antholz Ranch.
2. The Vail Plan, 1974
3. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1977, naming the property commonly known as the Antholz
Ranch to Gerald R. Ford Park.
4. The Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final
Report, 1985
5. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, this resolution designated the seven acres
around the Nature Center as an area to be preserved as an example of the Gore
Valley's natural history.
6. Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988, amending the 1985 Master Plan to add four
tennis courts and to change the location of the aquatics center.
7. Ford Park Management Plan, 1997
7. Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012
Draft #2 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 62
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park
Master Plan
An Element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan
FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
Planning and Environmental Commission Draft #2
September, 2013
E
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 35
6. Illustrative Plan 54
7. Park Management 62
8. Appendix 64
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
41g6ist September 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 38.9 acre Anholtz Ranch in 1973 for the stated purpose of
"improving the quality of life in the community." Since that time the property has
increased in size to over 47 acres and 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 turf space and the delight of the natural earth forms and mature tree
growth adjacent to Gore Creek."
The Vail Plan, 1974
The goal of this 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. 44s
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 f„ +„r° ;rr, ^r^"°rr eRt6 +^
the Park and a- ° r ° °^ - to assist the Town in decision - making regarding capital
improvements and mother changes proposed GhaRge to the Park.
Draft #2-1 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. Te.
^g degF °° +These plans have directly influenced the development of Ford Park
and each has contributed to the role e-f-the Park plays in hew it s the community.
These previous planning efforts were:
1974 Vail Plan — While the primary purpose of this plan was to address a
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 Ford Park Management Plan — This plan was done to
acknowledge new +E4eaa for improvements to the Park that were initiated
when Vail voters approved f6lRdiFIg by re- allocating a portion of the
Convention Center Funds to Ford Park.
MA -Fe detail° J Summaries of these previous plaRlRiRg ° #°g° plans are found in Chapter
3 Af tmoo Imo.
While the impetus for these planning efforts varied, was PFGF ,pted by .cliff8FeFIt faGtGF6
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 diligently find the appropriate levels of
development and activity for the Park. The inte.p ecd °, A -A- Ae r,f +h °o° r,laRRiRg °#redo
#Ar.A. the 1. 974 \ /oil Dlor,
Draft #2-1 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 plaRR'Rg ° #^4Plan 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 F`RaGt8F plaRplanning
document 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.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 3
4. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Action Steps
While the 1997 Plan provided a framework for this section, the goals, objectives,
policies and actions steps have been 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 iIL o +ratove plan frAPA +ho 2012
I Illustrative Plan, it depicts existing improvements and at a diagrammatic level
improvements that may occur in the future.
�7. Park Management
This chapter provides a brief summary of the various management and
operational aspects of the Park that are managed by the Town of Vail. PaFk
o.,+ 06 PFGViGlP_d_ iA +him olr,.,g With d-i'r,1 1''ir,., of hew the Te wp
ill r
PFGPG)Gals fr,r R r 16'01.diRgS wi hop +ho Dort
8. 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 #2-1 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 turf areas, proximity to the Frontage Road
for simple and direct access by autos or buses, natural beauty such as the
Gore Creek provides, and directness of connection to major bicycle and
pedestrian trails. "
The Vail Plan. 1974
When purchased, the original Anholtz property was +1 -38ra acres. Today, Ford Park is
comprised of approximately 47.1 acres. The four areas of the Park and their acreages
are depicted below:
AIA r,&
11. 763 Acre=
Ford Park, 2013
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan
3s.: A-
5-"o K04
,1. 9.1 A—
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.
Existing 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, a
sidewalk along the South Frontage Road and . Ped_estri °^ ° °'°^ pFqvided by
two bridges in the Golden Peak neighborhood. The Te s-Park's main transit stop is
located on the South Frontage Road with additional stops on Vail Valley Drive. These
stops are served by the in -town shuttle and by dedicated express bus service during
special events.
Site Characteristics and Park Desiqn
Physical characteristics of the land and the relationship of the Park to surrounding uses
and facilities influenced the earliest design concepts for the Park. c„n,o Gf +ho
Ssignificant site influences in t#i -s-the early design PFGG@66 of the Park were include the
South Frontage Road (that establishes the north boundary of the Park), Gore Creek and
adjoining wetland and riparian habitat (that run the entire length of the Park), site
topography, vegetation and views°^' eth er .S; +o rid_e_F;+,,,.,6
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 6
Topography of the "main" portion of the park area between the Frontage Road and Gore
Creek includes a prominent and well- defined grade change that creates an "upper
bench" and "lower bench ". Over the years Tthis grade change, created in large part by
grading from the construction of Interstate 70,
°Rd ever the „° °r^ this became a demarcation for the active recreation
use on the Upper Bench being 6ised pripRarily f ^r ° ^ +;"° r +, ^n and the cultural and
passive recreation uses on the Lower Bench.
Much of Ford Park was initially developed without the benefit of a detailed design or
development plan. The 1974 Vail Plan did, however, set the stage for the future des+gR
development of the Park by defining a number of broad design objectives. There are
many examples of how these early objectives for the park, a4eqg -and w44-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 -
in a location that keeps vehicles on the perimeter of the Park t#at-and
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 a
minimized the need for site grading and associated site disturbance. Tee
degfee,4This location also provides a buffer between highway noise and other
areas of the Park. °^'°+°^ n and- °^+,",+„ frGFR ^ +heF nark
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 f,p;;t- -reT character, of the creek corridor provides a
fitting �,;e location for ° "Pat ur° ^°.,+ °r ".the environmental education
programs offered by the Nature Center.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 7
The 1985 Ford Park Master Plan spoke eloquently about the philosophy of good park
design and the role site conditions and characteristics should play in the design
process.
"Compatibility of the park development within the environment is the most
significant aspect of the master plan. The existing landscape is an integral part of
each plan and not merely a backdrop against which the plans are staged. This is
essentially necessary with parklands, for there we expect the landscape to be
stable, pleasant and above all, functional. Accordingly, the planning and design
process was founded on a sound understanding of the features and dynamics of
the park site environment.
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. 1R add4iGR, Ford Park today reflects many elements of
the original vision for the Park as outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan and as further defined
by the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan.
Draft #24 -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, th,e process and th�.-outcome for
each of these planning efforts and 'R GlGiRg se 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 38,&-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 fGllGWiRg:
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 #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 9
The Vail Plan's vision for the Anholtz Ranch was to create a "major community park -
cultural center." ice', d-Aa wide range of potential uses for herd -Park he park were
identified:. The
• a place for showing and creating art, crafts, etc.,
• an indoor theater as well asand 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
• aka 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 o` er 'as+e„- dPserbedthe -parka ^i+„ park ^ llt' Ir°l ^eater ". The
plan called for 200 surface parking spaces fer to meet the daily parking needs of the
park. Parking for major events was planned to be provided in the Vail Transportation
Center with town transit and various trails and bikeways providing alternative means to
access the Park. The Vail Plan also depicted a potential road connection at the east end
of the park that would link the Frontage Road with Vail Valley Drive.
While the Vail Plan did not include a detailed design plan for the Park, the conceptual
site plan below began to define how the Park could be developed. A number of existing
park improvements reflect some of the basic concepts depicted below.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 10
00 00 � 7�ks,
f.
Conceptual Plan for Ford Park, Vail Plan, 1974y
> 130
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, andteR fields, tennis courts and parking. A foundation for an
amphitheater was in place but this project was not yet completed. At that time the very
eastern end of the Park along the Frontage Road was utilized as a snow -dump.
The purpose of the rpaster 1985 plan was to prepare a more detailed plan for the future
development of the park and to establish guidelines for the implementation of park
improvements. The master planning process included a Recreation Needs Analysis
Survey and extensive community input via workshops and community meetings. The
outcome of these efforts was an indication of the type and extent of improvements the
community wanted to see in the Park. Alternative site plans were considered and a
final, preferred plan was selected. This final plan included a swimming pool complex,
"neighborhood park improvements" (on the Lower Bench), a 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 Fend -Park were completed in
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 11
1988 and included restrooms, playground area, open turf area, picnic facilities, and the
west access road. These im eRts ,Y PIRPlete d OR Wove -P,hor „f 1 QRR
The first major structure to be constructed in the Park, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater,
was completed in July of 1987 and shortly thereafter —Aa Parking and Transit Study for
the Amphitheater was completed. '^ April of 1970 Apd +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,�
4validated the recommendations for parking and transit ^'°^ fer the Dork as
outlined in the 1974 Vail Plan.
r
GERALD R.
' FOM PARK
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:
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 12
Resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, was passed on November 3, 1987. This
resolution designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an area to be
preserved as an example of the Gore Valley's natural history. Vehicular traffic
was to be restricted and certain policies and procedures for preservation and
maintenance of the grounds and facilities were established by the resolution. A
copy of resolution No. 27, Series of 1987, is included in the 2013 Ford Park
Master Plan Supplemental Appendix.
In December of 1988, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (Now the Vail
Recreation District) and the Town of Vail, requested an amendment to the 1985
Ford Park Master Plan. The two phase amendment was adopted by Council as
Resolution No. 44, Series of 1988. A copy of the resolution is included in the
2013 Ford Park Master Plan Supplemental Appendix. Phase one of the
amendment was to allow the construction of four additional tennis courts. Phase
two of the amendment changed the proposed location of an aquatic facility to the
eastern softball field. Funding of the aquatic facility was rejected by voters in a
special election on February 6, 1989. Vail Town Council was presented with a
petition to delete all reference to an aquatics center from the Ford Park Master
Plan in April of 1990. No record of Council action on the petition was found.
While the tennis center building is not mentioned in the Master plan amendment,
the VRD did receive a Conditional Use Permit for the project on May 8, 1990.
The Vail Village Master Plan, adopted in 1990, addresses Ford Park as a specific
study area. This plan acknowledged the use of the Park to accommodate
overflow skier and local parking needs. It recommended that the Park be studied
further as a site for additional skier parking to serve expansion of the eastern
side of Vail Mountain. Action Step #5 under Goal #5 states: Study the feasibility
of an underground (recreation fields would remain) parking structure in Ford
Park. The Parking and Circulation Plan (an element of the Vail Village Master
Plan), identified the western portion of the upper bench for potential parking
beneath the Park, and called for separated bike /pedestrian ways along the South
Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive.
The Vail Transportation Master Plan, completed in 1993, states that the existing
Ford Park Parking area (at the east end of the Park) should be considered for a
possible 2 -level parking facility with the second level below existing grade. Ford
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.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 13
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 aPA
d+sa 1pdand mobility impaired, utilization of the lower bench, conflicts between uses
within the Park, conflicts with adjacent property owners, and the delineation of financial
responsibilities.
At the time the project was authorized, Town Council expressed concern that a new
master plan for Ford Park could result in an excessive amount of new development. In
response, staff noted the intention of the project was to create a management plan as a
means to adequately and consistently evaluate development proposals, with the goal of
limiting development and protecting the character of the Park.
Park leaseholders, two neighborhood representatives and town staff served
as the Stakeholder Group for the planning process and a third party facilitator was
retained to coordinate this effort. The Stakeholder Group developed alternative design
solutions addressing °m^^^ ^+" °r t R 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
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 14
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 thp Pwk. 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."
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 fer
improvements p4Rge44erto the Park. Plans to make improve m t -to the Park were
initiated when Vail voters approved #eed+eg -byre- 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.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 15
2012 Ford Park Management Plan Update
The 2012 Update maintained the overall direction for the Park as established by the
1997 Management Plan and OR dGiRg °^ fi r+h °r° the Fele the oE;rk has played ;n +ho
With only a few exceptions, the 2012 Update
suggested& no significant changes to the uses, facilities and activities that currently take
place in the Park. One exception was+& the 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 were to remain in place.
The Update did not change any of the six major goal statements (or related objectives,
policy statements and action steps) as the 1997 Management Plan.
The most significant changes ref,�d -in the 2012 Update are found in the Illustrative
Plan GGPIRPGReRt chapter of the Plan. The Illustrative Plan provided 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 during the winter of
2012. 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.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 16
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
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 #24 -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 faajeF 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 policy +estatements outlined
below. °nom, F °f the o° n stater,°. ts; ,nA-',,d° °Elements from the 1974 Vail Plan
and the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan have also been incorporated into these
statements. These new statements 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 or ideas that should be taken
toward achieving each stated -goal. Policy statements are ilRteRded to ^6, specific
guidance for future OR aGhieViRg -eaGh °f the Stated Gl ,eGf; Action
steps +Puelve address specific actions to be taken in implementing the goals and
objectives staterpeats.
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. ;;A
that Only those proposals deemed to be in compliance with these statements will
gain approvals.
This chapter includes thirty -six action steps. In some cases action steps involve a
single, defined task intended to implement an objective or policy statement. An
example of this would be initiating refinements to the park design guidelines specific to
Ford Park. Other action steps involve on -going tasks. An example would be the
coordination and management of events in the Park. The Community Development
Department, with participation from the Public Works Department, will prioritize action
steps and present recommendations annually to the Planning and Environmental
Commission regarding that year's work program for implementing action steps. The
Planning and Environmental Commission will provide a recommendation that will be
forwarded to the Town Council who will make final decisions on the work program.
Draft #24 -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 #24 -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
SWOPRIPRORg PGG4
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 t#at-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 prspesed new development or change to existing Park
facilities er 6ises shall be reviewed for compliance with Section 12 -11 -6 Park
Design Guidelines of the Town of Vail Municipal CodeF=^rd' Pork GFiter,^
as well as other applicable Town regulations.
Policy Statement 3: Any proposed development or change to Park facilities or
uses shall be dote- FrPine +^ provide a needed recreational, educational, cultural
or social benefit to the community.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 20
Policy Statement 4: Maintain and operate €existing facilities, uses and functions
within the Park v.411 h° PR iRt -AiRed and GPGF at a high standard of quality
reflective of the Vail Brand.
Objective 1.2 Action Steps:
Action Step 1.2.1: With participation of all Park stakeholders, Town staff to
prepare standards which outlines expectations regarding the appearance,
maintenance, and operation of facilities within the Park.
Action Step 1.2.2: Evaluate the park design guidelines in Section 11 -12 -6
of the Vail Town Code and modify as necessary to address design
considerations specific to Ford Park.
Objective 1.3: Preserve and protect the environmentally sensitive areas along the 440-
Gore Creek Corridor. aft— sAPAM6
.oh °.Jo frr,r,-, +h° Dort
Policy Statement 1: Uses and improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor
shall be limited to only those prescribed in the Gore Creek Preservation Sub-
area.
Policy Statement 2: No new buildings should be permitted within the Gore
Creek Preservation Sub -area.
Policy Statement 3: Any new improvements within the Gore Creek Corridor
shall respect the 100 -year floodplain and minimize impacts to wetland or riparian
habitats.
Objective 1.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 1.3.1: Evaluate the Peed- f ^r apd- feasihili +„merits of
strengthening preservation controls within the Gore Creek Preservation
Sub -area by establi °hi^ ^via- a conservation easement or by establi °hi!R
the " Natural Area Preservation Zone
District "Open Space" designation.
Action Step 1.3.2: Inventory existing conditions of the creek bank and
vegetation within the Gore Creek corridor, aft initiate Yesteratiep
programs to stabilize or restore these areas as may be necessary.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 21
Objective 1.4: Utilize Ford Park as a showcase for environmental sensitivity and
sustainability.
Policy Statement 1: Encourage all lease holders and events at the Park to
implement comprehensive recycling programs.
Policy Statement 2: Sustainable design and environmentally "friendly" materials
and construction methods be utilized on all new development within the Park.
Objective 1.5: Limit the number and scale of buildings and structures within the Park to
no more than necessary to meet the needs of park operations and to provide
appropriate services and facilities to park users.
Policy Statement 1: As an alternative to new buildings, encourage shared or
joint -use buildings and /or facilities among Park lease- holders.
Policy Statement 2: The design of new buildings or structures shall be integrated
with the land with a subtle, understated, low - profile in appearance so as to not
dominate the Park's landscape; "iconic" architecture or building designs that may
be visually distracting are not appropriate.
Draft #2-1 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 ", with uses and activities withi , =this
arm sh.a.. be limited within this area.
Policy Statement 2: The primary use of the open turf area within the Lower
Commons Sub -Area should be to provide a place for un- programed and informal
passive recreation. The use of this area for special events should be limited in
frequency and scope in order to minimize impacts on the primary use of this
area.
Objective 2.1 Action Steps:
Action Step 2.1.1: 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 2.1.3 -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: 4-tive r o;;t,„r, App- tear. 914 aGt,",tieG shall he
A_A_F1..or1trato9J ,.,, +h,., the The Active Recreation and Soccer Field Sub -Areas shall
be managed first and foremost to provide faMl+esfaculties for active recreation
and team sports. -nrt Limited- ;n ether s, ,h areas of the Dort
Draft #2-1 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 at the Nature
Center and the programs provided by the Betty Ford Alpine Garden.
Objective 2.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 2.3.1: Work with the Vail Valley Foundation on their missal
efforts to create a new "public plaza" at the entry to the Gerald R. Ford
Amphitheater.
Action Step 2.3.2: Work with the Betty Ford Alpine Garden Foundation on
their proposal to create an educational and visitor center within the Park.
Action Step 2.3.3: Promote and support the use of the Nature Center and
surrounding area as a center for environmental education programs.
Action Step 2.3.4: In conjunction with the Vail Valley Foundation, evaluate
the feasibility of winterizing the Amphitheater to allow for use the venue
during winter months.
Objective 2.4: Enhance the use °^d' °^-s, Ire the nr °° °^ atigR of the Historic School
House and preserve the historic integrity of the building.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 24
Policy Statement 1: Maintain public access to the School House and continue
the utilization of the building in accordance with the terms of the lease with the
Betty Ford Alpine Gardens.
Objective 2.4 Action Steps:
Action Step 2.4.1: Evaluate fi,twPP uses for the School House
that will maintain public access and potentially involve the display of
historic photos and artifacts or other activities in keeping with the historic
nature of the building.
Action Step 2.4.2: Complete an architectural assessment of the School
House and establish a plan to protect and enhance the historic character
of the building.
Objective 2.5: — Enhance and restore the Nature Center building and the landscape
surrounding the building.
Policy Statement 1: Limit vehicular access to only those vehicles necessary for
the operation of the building and educational programs.
Policy Statement 2: Uses proximate to the Nature Center should be limited and
shall be consistent with the Gore Creek Preservation Sub -Area.
Policy Statement 3: Restore the architectural integrity of the Nature Center
building.
Objective 24-.5 Action Steps:
Action Step 24-.5.1: Work with the Vail Recreation District to implement
measures for controlling vehicular access to the Nature Center building.
Action Step 24.52 Complete an architectural inventory of the Nature
Center building to define steps that could be taken to restore the historic
character of the building.
Action Step 24-.5.3: Reduce the parking areas around the Nature Center
building by reclaiming these areas to a natural landscape condition.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 25
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: Proposals for any new facility or use or
the expansion of any existing facility or use in the Lower Bench it shall be
cdelp AGIAo+ratecd that the prepesal will not generate an unnecessary or appreciable
increase in vehicular activity in the Lower Bench area of the Park.
Policy Statement 2: Uses in the Lower Bench shall operate in a manner that
limits vehicular traffic to the greatest extent possible. Vehicular access to the
Lower Bench of the Park should be limited to: maintenance; delivery of goods or
materials too large or too heavy to be carried by non - motorized means; 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 4.1.1: 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 #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 26
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 to all vehicles except trucks too
large to utilize East Betty Ford Way (for exiting the Park).
Objective 3.3: Utilize the Parking /Transit Sub -area as the primary means for satisfying
the Park's parking and transit needs. G-^RA- eRtrate "oh;^„Ia.r a^+i"i+„ Wi +hiR the
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 Pa sdaily park -use within the
Parking /Transit Sub -Area and the ,moo Af utilize the Vail Village Parking
Structure to satisfy peak parking demands of the Park.
Objective 3.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 3.3.1: Town Staff, with coordination from Park stakeholders,
shall prepare a Parking and Transit Management Plan, to include, but not
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 27
be limited to the use and access of parking lots, fee structures, transit
operations, etc.
Action Step 3.3.2: Evaluate the feasibility of expanding the In -Town bus
route beyond Golden Peak to provide service along Vail Valley Drive.
Action Step 3.3.3: Implement an improved wayfinding sign program
directing pedestrians from the Village Parking Structure and Slifer Square
in Vail Village.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 28
Goal #4:
Provide a safe, enjoyable and efficient pedestrian circulation system teeth within
Ford Park and between Ford Park and Vail Village.
Objective 4.1: Provide clear and effective directional and informational signs to and
within Ford Park.
Objective 4.1 Action Steps:
Action Step 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 4.2: IFRpFeve pedesstrian r„„+ois to PAM Dort Encourage and promote park
users to access the Park via pedestrian routes from Vail Village and the Vail
Transportation Center.
Policy Statement 1: The five existing pedestrian access points to the Park from
Vail Village and Golden Peak should be maintained and be- FlPaRaged enhanced
to maximize their effectiveness in providing access to the Park.
Policy Statement 1: Encourage leaseholders in Ford Park to utilize their
marketing efforts to promote walking, biking and the use of Town buses as an
alternative to driving to the Park.
Objective 4.2 Action Steps:
Action Step 4.2.1: Implement ;n,nr^" °m @Rts enhancements to the Gore
Creek Trail that will improve safety, grading, surfacing, and lighting.
Action Step 4.2.2: Evaluate opportunities for additional seating areas,
public art and other features to enhance the walking experience along the
Vail Village Connector (within the Gore Creek Sub -area) and where
appropriate provide rest/sitting areas along all pedestrian routes to the
Park.
Action Step 4.2.3: Establish gateways or portals (signage, monuments,
landscape elements, etc.) at the main entries to the Park (Frontage Road,
Gore Creek Trail, Manor Vail, Slifer Plaza, Vail Valley Drive and the
Parking /Transit Sub - area).
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 29
Objective 4.3: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park.
Policy Statement 1: New developments or other improvements in the Park shall
not be perpRitte d t diminish the quality of the pedestrian circulation system and
when appropriate shall include provisions to improve pedestrian circulation.
Objective 4.3 Action Steps:
Action Step 4.3.1: IpRpFeve Upgrade the portion of Betty Ford Way within
the Lower Commons Sub -area to create a "feat, -re high quality pedestrian
corridor-"with improved surface materials, lighting, seating and
landscaping.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 30
Goal #5:
€+ns a Maintain compatible relationships are maintain between all venues and
all uses within Ford Park.
Objective 5.1: Manage the overall carrying capacity of the Park by
le°se -hel ' °r° ^^ their scheduling �f events in ArdeF to prevent overlapping or
simultaneous events that exceed the availability of community parking or other park
infrastructure.
Policy Statement 1: The Town of Vail through its designee shall coordinate with
leaseholders an 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 FepFeSeRtati"° Af representation
from the Vail Valley Foundation, the Betty Ford Alpine Garden and the Vail
Recreation District.
Objective 5.1 Action Steps:
Action Step 5.1.1: Expand the master schedule kept by the Town Clerk to
include all venues within the Park.
Action Step 5.1.2: Hold preseason event/activity coordination meetings
with all affected stakeholders.
Action Step 5.1.3: Hold semiannual (or as deemed necessary)
coordination and input meetings with the Town of Vail, leaseholder
representatives, and neighborhood and adjacent property owner
representatives.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 31
Objective 5.2: Provide sufficient separation, berms and landscape buffers between
facilities and uses.MAWA;n and whpr° ^ iStiRg berm° °^
laR dSGape b6 iffor-6 bo+iyeselp fo.Gilitses -Apd-
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.
Policy Statement 2: Maintain and where necessary improve existing berms and
landscaping between facilities and uses.
Objective 5.2 Action Steps:
Action Step 5.2.1: Enhance existing landscape buffers between tennis
courts adjacent to the Active Recreation Sub -area and the Parking /Transit
Sub -area and evaluate the need to enhance landscape buffers between
other uses throughout the Park.
Objective 5.3: To foster a spirit of cooperation between all leaseholders within the Park
regarding their use of the Park and how to collectively use and manage the Park for the
benefit of all.
Policy Statement 1: Encourage the shared use of buildings and facilities.
Policy Statement 2: Decisions regarding proposals for new buildings or
improvements are made in the best interest of the Park and the Vail community,
not just in the interest of the leaseholder.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 32
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: F^rm °'iz° ^^°+ ShaFiRg aFFaRgeFlPeRts Equitably share the costs of park
management and operations with Park lease- holders f„r ^^°+s alsse -A -bated with +ho
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: Establish equitable cost sharing agreements for Park capital
improvement costs.Greate o rest shaFiRg o GRt fGr Gapital IrRpreyep ept Awes
Policy Statement 1: Ford Park leaseholders desiring to make capital
improvements within their respective lease areas shall be required to provide
funding for those improvements and for any modifications outside of the lease
area necessitated by such improvements.
Policy Statement 2: Services, functions, and programs provided by Ford Park
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 #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 33
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 #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 34
.01 IMITMWOM01 N 1111:7-11 N IM-111 M-11 01-1v
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 /1985
Early plans for Ford Park (the Vail Plan) anticipated recreation - oriented uses (and a
number of buildings) on the Upper Bench with passive open space areas and an
amphitheater on the Lower Bench. Initial development of the Park included athletic
fields, tennis courts and parking facilities on the Upper Bench. Decisions on locating
these uses on the Upper Bench were made based on the terrain (availability of flat land)
and accessibility to the Frontage Road. Passive open space and the development of an
amphitheater were initiated on the Lower Bench. These plans and the early
development of the Park reinforced this Upper Bench /Lower Bench distinction. Over
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 35
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 -area boundaries were v.gith W961ght and a4e.Rtien tedefined based on a
variety of considerations. That sand, They should not be considered hard, inflexible
parcel lines. It is reasonable to anticipate that when considering future improvements
for the Park some latitude with the location of a sub -area boundary may be
appropriate. Any consideration to modify a sub -area boundary shall be made in the
context of the 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 #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 36
• 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 planning 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 #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 37
I
a �
if
r"
f I
r -a - -r
F
i
✓ j
Y '
y x
ry
r n
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 38
Parking /Transit Sub -area
The Parking /Transit Sub -area provides on -site parking for the "
Park and includes a transit stop, a passenger car drop -off area and a central
trash /storage facility. Strategically located along the South Frontage Road and on the
periphery of other park facilities and uses, this sub -area plays a vital role in how the
Park functions by separating parking and vehicles from other areas of the Park.
The transit facility is a key component of the Park by facilitating direct bus service to the
Town's parking structures (which provide parking for peak demand days 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 th�—_making improvements to the athletic fields in 2013 (to be completed in 2014)
the Park had approximately 200 on -site parking spaces. The athletic field expansion
^ „” r° ^,,;r° the rpm ^"°' ^fdisplaced approximately 50 parking spaces at the west end of
the parking lot. These 50 spaces were re- established by re- designing other portions of
r °maiRiRg peFtie ^° ^f the parking lot, ^, ;.,+a,RiRg Will °"^,., f ^r +" °maintaining the
approximately 200 parking SpaGes +^ on -site parking spaces.
A "no net loss of parking" 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 #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 39
Parking /. Transit- -
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 m^^61m°^+ typ° park entry features at the two
pedestrian portals from the parking lot into the Park.
Installation of traffic control devices (gates or other means) at the east and west
ends of Betty Ford Way.
The potential improvements listed above are also described in the Illustrative Plan
section of this Plan.
The idea of constructing structured parking below the existing surface parking lot has
been discussed in the past. This could accomplish two objectives — increase the supply
of on -site parking (parking that could also address other town needs) and allow for
some alternative use on top of 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 p9teRtially if necessary initiate a43,amendments to the
Ford Park Master Plan.
Active Recreation Sub -area
This sub -area is the focal point of active recreation, team sports, tournaments and ea
essas+ap other special events atirk. The location of these uses (pr^„;rr„+„ to t4e
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 40
Crr,., +o..^ Dr,o.J o.,.J .,orLi.,.. , ^.J frr,r, -, +h^ r_r,r^ r-r ^ ^k r- ^rr;dAF4 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 the Active Recreation Sub -area initiated in 2012 aPA-(expected to be
completed in 2014) were extensive and included expansion and re- organization of the
athletic fields and - construction of a new restroom /storage building (at the West ^^ , f
fields) and a new concession /restroom building (at the east epd- ^f the field&). It is
anticipated that these improvements will address the active recreation needs of the
community for the foreseeable future. The only 'PAPAed;ate additional improvements
contemplated for this sub -area are:
• Design and installation of ^,^^6 i^, ^.,t t„^^ park 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
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 41
to potentially serve a future parking structure. No detailed design work on this
improvement has been done, but conceptually this roundabout could be located just
west of the athletic fields.
The existing Tennis Center is located between the Parking /Transit Sub -area and other
portions of the Park. East Betty Ford Way provides convenient and pleasant pedestrian
access to the Lower Bench of the Park along the southern end of the Tennis Center.
However, the tennis center presents constraints to establishing a convenient and
graceful pedestrian corridor between the parking /transit area and the IJPP@F 68FIGhrest
of the Park. If or when the relocation of one or more tennis courts is considered, study
should be given to how improved pedestrian flow and new uses could be established in
this area. By way of example, the removal of the two courts adjacent to the Frontage
Road and the Athletic Field concession building would not only allow for a much
improved "arrival sequence" for pedestrians, but could also provide land for new
facilities.
The Tennis Center building has been in existence for over 25 years and the design of
the building is inconsistent with the architectural character of buildings recently
constructed in the Park. 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 an gip"
alternative site. 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.
As with the parking lot area, Tthe idea of constructing structured parking below the
athletic fields has been discussed in the past. This- s^1Ild ,ease the 661pply of ^r, Site
parkiRg and alGG r Vmde GFeaee iR parkiRg ze FeesA-their tevA. R n.
ee spa
GGR646141Rg the te.ppis A -eRter "_r r" +thhe Si�r`fr°av°c A-f the str Intl ire %Nhile either of those
VeFy ^^ifiGaRt 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 peteRtially if
necessary initiate a-R-amendments to the Ford Park Master Plan.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 42
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
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 very minor encroachments from landscape improvements,
lighting, seating and other similar features associated with improvements planned for
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 43
Betty Ford Way, 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 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.
Lower "'
R
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 and; educational and participatory activities. Permanent art
installations have also been located in this area. The passive use and the limited
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 44
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, hewever,but if pursued, they
should be done in a way that minimizes impacts to other surrounding uses and facilities
and is sensitive to the natural landscape.
Future Improvements
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 seA -tie , of th7-s PlaRchapter.
Amphitheater Sub -area
An outdoor amphitheater was contemplated in original plans for Ford Park dating back
to 1974. Completed in 1987, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater has evolved into Vail's
most prominent venue for music, dance and other cultural events. The facility is
managed by the Vail Valley Foundation and is host to approximately 60 events each
summer. The amphitheater is considered one of the community's most important
cultural assets.
In 2013-2 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,
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 45
weddings or other events and could also be open for public access when not being
used for scheduled events.
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
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 46
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.
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 ^'FameteF GFitP -Fia f„r a Site f„r +ho +or
196101GIORg wascriterion for selecting a site for the educational center building was that it
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 47
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
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
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 48
Potential future improvements within the Alpine Garden Sub -area include:
• Development of an alpine garden educational center.
• Extension of the gardens along the northeast entry in order to create a buffer
from the adjoining athletic fields and improve the arrival to the Gardens.
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
vehicle access to the RFAG education center can be maRage' to prevent limited to only
those vehicles absolutely necessary (i.e. deliver of large items, service vehicles,
emergency vehicles), vehiA, dar +r;;:ffi,. to the . W h6 ildilRg and how 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 Pat, Fal pen space for the quiet enjoyment of nature. The corridor
also provides aka critical pedestrian link to Vail Village. The designation of this
corridor as a preservation zone is in direct response to a number of goals and
objectives from previous park planning efforts. ;;Pd -tThe 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 and heweve in keeping with the goals of preserving this area
no new buildings are to be constructed within the sub -area. Any other new uses or
improvements should be limited to those that will complement the natural character of
the creek corridor and will minimize impacts to this sensitive environment.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 49
Resolution No. 27 of 1987 designated the seven acres around the Nature Center as an
area "to be preserved as an example of the Gore Valley's natural history." The
resolution stipulated that "vehicular traffic is to be restricted and certain policies and
procedures for preservation and maintenance of the grounds and facilities" should be
enacted. While 'It is acknowledged that the Nature Center will hest a higher level „f
iuse aP4bring a certain level of activity to +h°^ eth er I ;94; ^° ^f this sub - area.; Nature
Center activity si -wee should be concentrated on the "upland" portions of the Nature
Center in order to minimize impacts the creek corridor. The ro19I1 , 0GR Gtip ,hoed that
alp. mmr- Ali..teRo r,f +ho 1Ad-16 o.,.J tip" ohA - --- I J h- e e Aa nte d
Improvements within the sub -area should be limited to low- impact improvements such
as soft surface walking paths, creek enhancements to improve fish habitat, fishing
access, re- vegetation and creek/stream bank restoration projects. In all cases such
improvements should be designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes
environmental impacts (i.e. avoidaAse e# wetland habitat and wetland, maintain existing
natural vegetation, use of "best management practices ", etc.). The underlying goal of
any new trail development and /or bridge crossing should be to improve access in order
to enhance awareness of this important natural environment.
Utilities and; 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.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 50
y
rMy,.
Fishing access to Gore Creek, while currently not an issue (i.e. excessive use from foot
traffic resulting in damage to riparian areas and vegetation), could become an issue in
the future. A creek access point was considered at the east end of the Nature Center
(using the bus turnaround on Vail Valley Drive as an unloading area) was discussed
during the 1997 Planning effort but was rejected as being contradictory to the intended
use of the Nature Center. A defined creek access ^^O^+ 06 ^^^°'PIPPe' point has been
discussed for a location east of Ford Park in the vicinity of the Pulis Bridge.
An Action Step suggested for this area (refer to Chapter 3 of this Plan) is to evaluate the
feasibility benefits of establishing a conservation easement for this area or to apply the
"Open Space" designation via the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. The
protection afforded by either of these steps would define more permanent limitations on
the use of this area and in doing so establish a degree of permanence in preserving this
creek corridor.
The existing condition of the Nature Center Building and the surrounding area has been
a point of discussion. Potential areas of improvement include restoring the architectural
character of the building, elimination or reduction of surface parking around the building,
extending water and sewer service to the building and implementing measures to -limit
vehicles from accessing the site. These potential improvements are further discussion
in Chapter 6 — Ford Park Illustrative Plan.
Future Improvements
Future improvements contemplated for this Sub -area include:
• Enhancement and restoration of vegetation along the creek corridor, creek bank
stabilization and fishing habitat enhancements.
• Enhancements to the walkway between Vail Village and the Park to include
improvements such as seating, art installations, etc.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 51
• Design and installation of park entry features at the three pedestrian portals to
the Park along the Gore Creek Corridor.
• Initiate steps to r °me-ve ^ the , A-f eXiStilRg narkiRg leGate d at improve
the physical condition of 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 °�,b- �;;Fea 1is
s ewh�;;t A-f ar, si.;; ;fself No major changes are contemplated to the existing
recreational facilities in this sub -area.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 52
ei
A
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 with the preferred location for
this building +s -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 an alternative
site. The potential &44,-location for this building is at the northwest corner of the
44sub -area.
noon! #n ho orlrlrr0000r! if.#hio IGGati„n 06 IP-d. Private covenant issues (with the
neighboring Northwoods Condominiums and with the Vail Village Seventh Filing) will
need to be addressed prior to constructing an education center on the soccer field site ".
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 53
Chapter 6 - FORD PARK ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
The Ford Park Illustrative Plan provides a general description of future improvements
contemplated for Ford Park. The Plan indicates the general location of the
improvements, a summary of the proposed improvements and parameters or criteria to
be considered in the design, development and operation of the improvement. The
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. This Plan includes numbers e4
symbels which identify future improvements to the Park. Narrative descriptions of these
improvements follow.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 54
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt, Bold,
Underline
U
9
AM
Draft #2-1-PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 55
Improvement #1 — Gore Creek Corridor Restoration
There are a number of areas within the Gore Creek corridor where erosion, over -use or
other factors have disturbed or otherwise adversely impacted existing vegetation. A
restoration program should be implemented to improve vegetation v.gher° ^°^°° ° °^,
along the creek corridor. Restoration will improve the visual quality of this area and
improve water quality by preventing erosion.
A detailed assessment of the creek corridor is necessary in order
to determine precisely where and to what extent restoration is needed. Following
completion of this assessment, a detailed landscape plan for the restoration of the
corridor should be prepared and implemented.
A parallel effort should be to evaluate the condition of the creek bank in order to identify
the potential need for stream bank stabilization iFRPFG" °m°^+° to protect the bank from
erosion. Another opportunity to consider for Gore Creek is how pools or other features
could be created in the creek to improve the quality of fishing. A detailed assessment of
the creek corridor is necessary in order to determine precisely where and to what extent
these improvements may be feasible. Following completion of this assessment a
detailed improvement plan for the creek corridor could be prepared.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective 1.3, Action Step 1.3.2.
Improvements #2 — Gore Creek Village Connector
The Gore Creek corridor between the 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). Enhancinge the walking experience along this this
connection to the "Village G9RR8^+ will tee - improve its effectiveness as an
alternative means of accessing the Park. The installation of seating areas, creek
overlooks and public art are examples of improvements that could be made to animate
this walkway.
All 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 #45, Objective 45.2, Action Step 45.2.2.
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 56
Improvement #3 — Entry Monumentsa#+ee at Park's pedestrian entries
Pedestrians arrive to Ford Park from one of seven existing entries as identified on the
Illustrative Plan. Refer te the - I',:as#r e-P'° 1ese s8. SIR 1 earns. 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.
Landscape features, signage, bollards, monuments, archways or other design features,
or some combination thereof, could be used to identify these locations. Landscape
enhancements to areas proximate to these entries may also be appropriate. A design
process is necessary to . lte.p,., +,"°determine design solutions for these
improvements. While specific solutions for these park entry improvements could vary
between locations, all should share a common design vocabulary. It will also be
important to locate these improvements in a way that compliments the adjacent
pedestrian corridor and does not compromise pedestrian circulation.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #45, Objective 44-5.2, Action Step 45.2.3.
Improvement #4 — Betty Ford Alpine Garden Educationa4 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 access management plan designed to minimize to the
greatest extent feasible the number and frequency of vehicles
accessing the education center. It is acknowledged that a service
vehicle or delivery vehicle may occasionally need to drive to the center.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 57
However, daily or frequent vehicle access by staff or patrons of the
center will not be permitted +„ ^ eRt yehiA- for +„ the h, ik
DPrP n'.;tr� +o h ,.. Acceptable emergency vehicles vv+�access to the
building and ideRtify identification of any site improvements necessary
to accommodate such access.
• Identify the anticipated parking demand from the building and
dPPAAPstrshowthalit will be addressed.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.3, Action Step 2.3.2.
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. These
site improvements would most efficiently be designed in conjunction with the evaluation
of the building.
Refer to Chapter 4, Goal #2, Objective 2.53, Action Step 2.5 -9.1- 2.4.3.
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 PLpublic Pialaza ". 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.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 58
Other elements of the Public Plaza include as 4G&Ri� tribute to the Ford Family, a small
stage within the courtyard, a new donor wall, enhancements to the concession building
and ticket windows, and new entry gates to the Amphitheater.
Parameters and criteria to be considered:
• Plaza design should be done to facilitate /not encumber truck turning movements
necessary to provide loading /delivery to the Amphitheater.
• Plaza design should be sensitive to and integrated with immediately adjacent
improvements at the Alpine Gardens.
• Trees removed to accommodate the Public Plaza should be re- located within the
Park and to the extent feasible be relocated proximate to the amphitheater.
• The space should be available for 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 Town's park design guidelines. F=^rd' Dork nom, .. GFiteF,a
• 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.
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 59
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, a-r-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 45.3, Action Step 45.3.1.
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 #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 60
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 61
Chapter 79-- PARK MANAGEMENT
Four organizations play a role in the management and operation of Gerald R. Ford
Park. The Town of Vail is the owner of the Park and manages the community park on
the Lower Bench, the stream tract, parking lot areas and pedestrian corridors. In
addition, the Town provides 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 Valleysrat+e+}Foundation manages and maintains the Ford
Amphitheater and immediate surrounding grounds. The amphitheater seats up to
2,500 people and is scheduled an average of 60 days during the summer
months.
The Betty Ford Alpine Gardens manages the
Betty Feed AlPiReGardens. The Gardens have developed in four phases that
began in 1987.
In its role as the overall park manager, the Town addresses a
variety of management and operational considerations. Often times this requires the
involvement of different town departments and town commissions and boards.
Ultimately the Town Council is asked to review and approve management practices. 44
"01+61°" y eVeFy Gase 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 — image- 6iseManagement 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 #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 62
Transportation – management of transit operations between the Park and the
Vail Transportation Center, including periodic implementation of a Golden Peak
bus route.
• AIPP projects —The review of art programs and installations in the Park.
Proposed new use or new building — The review of any new building or use in
the Park. This review may involve the Planning and Environmental Commission,
the Design Review Board and the Commission on Special Events. eve+,+ew-e#
Draft #2-1 PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 63
Chapter 80 - 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
Ford Park Management Plan Update, 2012
Draft #24 -PEC Review
2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan Page 64
Ad Name: 9524298A
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 9/6/2013 and
that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/6/2013 in
the issue of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
09/23/2013.
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 09/23/2013.
� 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 1110112015
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS-
SION
September 9, 2013 at 1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS /
PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visit:
45 minutes
1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council on a major amendment to Special Devel-
opment 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 Sebas-
tian) /Part of Lots M, N, and O, Block 5D, Vail Vil-
lage 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
2.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 Manage-
ment 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):
3.A request for the review of a variance from Sec-
tion 12 -6E -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code,
pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town
Code, to allow for an increase in dwelling units per
acre to facilitate the construction of two single -fam-
ily residences, located at 1183 and 1191 Casolar
Del Norte Drive /Lots 4 and 5, Casolar Vail, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130010)
Applicant: Todger Anderson, represented by Tom
Braun
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to October 14, 2013
MOTION: SECOND:VOTE:
4.Approval of August 26, 2012 minutes
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5.Information Update
6.Adjournment
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-
velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
The public is invited to attend the 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
(970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im-
paired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published September 6, 2013 in the Vail Daily.
(9524298)
Ad Name: 9481437A
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 8/23/2013 and
that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/23/2013 in
the issue of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
08/29/2013.
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 08/29/2013.
� 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 September 9, 2013 at
1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
There are no new items. Please see the Septem-
ber 9, 2013 agenda which will be published on
September 6 for items to be heard.
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 23, 2013, in the Vail Daily.
(9481437)