HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTEPHENS SUBDIVISION PARCEL D FAESSLER REALTY SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL LEGALrttu r JAN 1 5 iivrl
14 January, 1990
Dear VaiI Town Council Members,
I regret that f am not able to be in attendance on Tuesday evening, but
I will be attending a Legislative Reception in Denver fron 5:00 to 8:00
P,M. so doubt I will be able to make it to the Town Council meeting unless
1t turns out to be one of your longer ones,
I do want you to know, however, that I am absolutely opposed to a change
in zonlng on the Stephens parcel in Vail Intermountain Subdivision
as proposed by Fessler Realty.
Intermountain is a 1ovely area, surpassed in beauty j.n this valley only
by the rock cliffs and waterfalls in East Vail. ft is speclal - and the
subject parcel is also special, How many creek frontage parcels are stil1
available in the area? It is right for a few quality homes not a high
density condominiun complex.
Our family has lived at 2952 Bellflower for more than 18 years; most of
those years vre were the only family on the street. A number of years ago
a gentleman built a nunber of duplex houses at the end of Bellflower and
rented them out. For a number of years no farnily would consider living
there. Only single people, huge dogs and junk cars lived there. Just re-
centl-y young couples have purchased the run down houses and have started
to brlng then back. We are thrilledl
For 18 years we have worried about our children and then our granchildren
getting near the street in front of our house because people living at the
end of our street drive too fast ln a residential area. As young couples
with children move ln up the street, that seems to be getting better.
Seventeen or eighteen years ago investors came in frorn outslde the valley,
built rental condominl-ums in Intermountain, rented them out and went back
to where they came from. More dogs and junk cars, Finally we are attracting
per:manent residents and property values are coming back.
We have been through annexation and de-annexation and annexation again.
Our need for parks, blke paths, etc. have been the last to be addressed
and now we are asked to stand back and take another swat? NO! We live in
Intermountain because it is a 1ow density residential subdivision; we re-
11ed on the zoning that is in place. The Town down-zoned when we were
annexed for the betterment of the area. lsnrg change that now, There are
areas much better suited and already being planned for high density housing
to supply enployee housing needs, Please donrt solve someone else' problem
by giv it to us,
January L2, 1990
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
P.O. Box 2101Vai1, CO 8l-558
Dear Kent,
I an writing as a concerned citizen and Intermountain horneowner.
The issues that surfaced relating to the proposed project for the
stevens subdivision parcel rDn have become emotional becauserremployee housingrt has been used in the same breath when
describing the buildings.
The fact remains that this should not be an ernotional issue.
The situation cal1s for rrspot zonj.ngtr a gorgeous creekside
Iocation (one of the last remaining in the town) and in-
creasing the density by 5008.
In as far as you took part in electing the planning conmission I
can only guess that you will fo1low their recommendation, which
hras unanirnous !
I urge you, however, to rnake it clear that the Town of Vail, its
citizens and elected boards and commissions wi.ll not be
bullied by various entities no rnatter how big or inportant they
are to our economy.
I recognize the sonnenaLp to be a valuabLe establishrnent in this
cornmunity and their desire to provide much needed housing is
adrnirable. There is however a reason why the town fathers
determined to zone various parcels the way they did and in this
case our lovely creekside ambiance is as inportant to
Internountain horneowners as the Sonnenalp hotei.ts creekside
location is to them.
Your vote to deny this proposal is of grave importance to all of
Intermountain, not to mention the remaining subdivisions in the
Town of Vail.
Sincerely,
GORd RANGE PROPERTIES, INC./
BETTER HOMES { EANONHS-J
ur
Anne D. iMtz
Sale$ Associate
AF-TCUEM
RICHARD AND KRISTEN THOMPSON
MEADOW CREEK CONDOMINIIJMS
VAIL, COLORADO
December 18, 1989
Kent Rose, llayorCity of Vail
RBD, Inc.
953 S. Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81657
Dear Mayor Rose:
I have read with interest the current employee housing situationin Intermountain. I arn all in favor of enployee housing but notat this location and not at this density with the variances that
these developera are asking for. Internountain has been a veryhigh quality place to live and we worked hard over the years to
improve the quality of the Internountain neighborhood.
I sinply feel that you and your council members need to addressthis problem as a whole and not in pieces. I an sure you knowbetter than l, but I can say that as one individual, I willpersonally pursue this with my own personal staff of lawyers, if
necessary, to proLect our guality of Life irr In'cermountain if anyof the variances are granted.
I sinply want to go on record with my position.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
R"q
Ricbard C.
cc: VaiI Planning and Environnental Conmission
Meadow Creek Homeowners Association
Decenber 29. L989
Planning and Environmental ConuissionValI, Colorado
Dear Conmission lrlenbers,
Recently I was lnf,orned that li!r. Sld Schultz and FaeeelerRealty have requested variances in the present zoning
regrulations to allov for construction of high. density
(HDI{F) houslng. I do feel that euployee housing is needed
and have no obJectionE to any development within thepresent zoning regiulatlons whLch ig zoned resl.dential
. cluster (RC).
In ny opinion, there le not adequate roon for HDMC housing
in the reguested area. Trafflc, noiEe and air pollution
would significantly Lncrea€ie. In ny oplnion, rezonj.ng to i
HDMC nould not be logS-cal.
flr'+/hr'*t
Ronald L. lturray
Internountaln
Property Ohtner
WWNCgq(nwrirti,na
H,'3
DErtr-Zro-r:r3 i,jED "i5:=:=i--.1i1gg._!_H. f .,- r.rrr<E F ;qt-tr.tE 7 -.az
DELTA PICTU-HE FRAiqE.CO: .
Manufaclurerr of Frames & Mouldlng
Deseruber 20 ' iffiB
Untt G-3
lleadowcreek Condos
Tc 'ilhAn !.t g!S.y ....|n^tfn.:
It hac bccn bleug'ht'.ta..ou:r .-...tte.ntl.onn..tha.t.'f'l't.e.rs. ts--- - -
a posslbltlty of a zonlng change la the IntErmountaln
Bre.a to allow multl-famlly dwelllngs.
lfo wlsh to be put on record agalnst this proposed re-
zoning. We speclflcally bought our Townhouse at Meadow
Creek because of lts eettuded and qulet locatlon. Tle hate
a large f,amlly wlth many Grandchlldrets that spend much
tlme in Vatl.- Il there were to be nore trafflc and
populatlon ln thls Erea, lt would not be Bs safe ln and
around the houses as lt ls now.
g,
6520 N.W. ?7 Court, Miami. Florida 3i116,6
FNB TULIR, TX
.l-i
TEL firr.80E-9!5-38b8 Lter;.Iv,89 If :U9 r,UZ
Deoenber 19, 1989
Kent R. Roger llaVorClty Connlsslon -
Zonlng Connlgslon
Vallr-Colorado 8165?
:
DEar Slrsr
Tle are ctrongly opposcd to zonc chantlrg, as lt wlll
inorease trEfflc ln our area and decrease the varue of, our
property Dnklng lt lecs destrabls to own propgrty ln }teEdow
Creek,
-"iw$a,"-ruaq J*/u
l{olland E. and l,lary TolesE-t Dleadow Creek C6ndouinlun
Jl4*. 5,t"n &onn
Ai-.
Fts c+ 7,.&,/- J lA(/-'- voz,
'7L) )rvt -'t
[//L./'fuzu
7t"/f
/+/-/"/*f
/'?rn ^t' +
fu$ {LL4/'
'.-'---
r\
"!fr 4*'41 '''7'oT
./.?-a--al
.r
58t PhilliP Lane
Llatchung, N. J. 07060
Decemben 4r l?A?
Town of Vai I Pl ann ing Commission
Vai I , Col onado 8165S
Dear Mesdames and Sinsr
This is to obiect Etnenuously to the constpuction of high
density housing pnoposed fon the propenty situated behind
Building C, Meadol Cneek Condominiums in lrlest Vail.
It is oun understanding that the plans stipulate f if t),
housing unitE with uncovered parking designeted fon employee
houEing to earve Sonnenalp. This plan is inappropniate and
deEtructive for the following reasone!
1. lt intnoduces a maj or eounce of noise and ainpollution to the pnesently quiet and stable
nesidential commun i ty.
2, Fif ty uncoveced parl( ing spots const i tute a v isual
bl ight in a presently attnactive neighbonhood.
3. The proposed accegs to the Fnopertyr between Buildings
C and D, is totally inadequate to handle rush houn
tra{{ic. ln addition, the naFrou, space will not
.penm
i t Eafe acceEE fon emengency equ i pmen t .
4, The placement o{ high density housing so cloEe
to 6ore Creek cneates /et anothen pol luting
in{ I uence on a signif icant Vail nesource.
5. The existing bus tnansportation is inadequete to
handl e the i nf I ux of new nee i den ts.
6, Oual ity o{ I if e and cornmunity stabil ity wil I be
adverse I y affec ted, {un then damag i ng al neadv
weakened pFoper ty ual ueE.
. . Toun of Vrll Plrnnlng Cqnmlselon, Page 2.t
If Sonnenalp noquines houEing for its Eervice emplo),'eear lt
is incumbent on 9onnenel p te provide that housing in a menneF
that does not damegr ax i st i n9 ne i ghbonhoods. lale acknowl e dge
the nccd for cnployet housing but feel that thc emploren must
Erel( out prop"nty that is already appnopriatelv zoned, pnrfrnrblr
within walking dirtance to the hotel . It is not ecccptablt
to rpoi I e qu iet rosident ial ne ighborhood.
&wEI;a,€.,,,^>g/"g(U-
Stephan ie L. Pineon
El I iot N. Pinson
Ownens, McadowCncek Unit C2
. Decernber 5, 1989
Planning and Environnental Conmission
Town of Vail
Municipal BuildingVail, colorado 81557
centlemen:
I arn the property onner of Unit E-5 ln Meadowcreek Condoninlun
Iocated at 2633 Kinnikinnick Road in VaiI. I am also a nernber of
the condoniniurn association board. I have been a property owner
in VaiI for the past flfteen years and have supported the Town of
vail through palment of real estate and sales taxesi but I cannot
support the pioposal for the Stevens Park Project in Intermountainto rezone the property to I'High Density l'{ultiple Fanilyrr. Thenstevensr property is contiguous to our condoniniun property.
f am certainly in favor of enployee housing, but this proposal
to rezone this property from Residential cluster to ttigh Density
l{ultipte Fanily would be highly detrimental to the property ormersof Meadowcreek Condominiuns. Some of the potential. problens that
I see that will be created are:
1. The easenent through our property to Klnnikinnick Roadls the oniy access to and from this project and could bea maJor fire hazard. In fact the easement ltself is
probably too narrow for a fire truck to pass through.2. itre parking would not conform to zoning reguirenents and
the nunrber of units requested would create maJor traffic
congestion on Kinnikinnick Road (this road is presently
a much traveled road that runs through the center of our
conplex).3. Alr. pollution as a resuLt of the tlpe of parking created.4. A day care center wLth the present housing conflgrurationof two bedroon apartments would mean that this center
would be a comrnercial enterprise in the niddle of aresidential condorniniun complex.
Although f agree that affordable rental housing is desperately
needed, the-site ptckea does not have the reguired zoninglis in agulet residential neighborhood with lirnited access to rbadwaysi
tiU not neet the parklng as zoning requiresi and certalnly is not
siruilar to the type of residential units Ln Meadowcreekl and for
these reasons I an opposed to this proposal for rezoning that will
dranatically change our quiet residential neighborhood and quality
of life.
Yours very truly,
2633 Kinnikinnick RoadVaiI, Colorado 81657
CITARD
Intamalional Busine$ Machin€s Corporatlon 3500 Blue Lake D tre
Birmlngham, Ahbama 352.1{l
December 5; 1989
Ms. Bobbie Salzman
2560 Ki-nnikinnick Rd.
Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Bobbie:
Thank you for informing me last night of the proposed rezoning of
the property adjacent to the Meadow Creek Condominiums. As I
understand it the proposal is to rezone the property from the
current 12 unit zoning to 50 units on this smafl parcef of land.
As the olrner of Meadow Creek D-3 for the past 6 years, f want to
voice my strong opposition to this rezoning. Crarnming thj-s many
rrnits into such a smaLl place will have a significantly negative
impact in a number of ways which will ]ower the quality of lifein our neighborhood.
This many additional units will dramatical.ly. increase the trafficj-n our area, resulting in a safety hazard. In addition, therewill be an increase in pollution which wi-lI mar the beauty of
Gore Creek. Having these units ph-rs a day care center will
result in a safety hazard for the chiLdren in the neighborhood.
OveraII I fee] that thj.s proposed rezoning will have a negativejrnpact on the qual.ity of life at Meadow Creek and vril1 result in
Iower property values for all of the owners who have invested in
this area.
Sincerely,
W" /,J,t'l
John G. Todd
3753 Shady Cove Drive
Birmingham, AL 352&3
December t 0, 1989
Dear Vail Plannlng & Env i ronments
Commi ss I on M'embers,
This letter ls being wrltten in order to express my strong
concern about the proposed Sonnena lp rezoni ng application for a
hi gh-density, mult i-fami ly proJect.
In l"lay, 1989, I purchased a unlt at Meadow Creek after
careful concideration. Part of my decision was based on the fact
that the area in Intermountain was zoned residentlal-cluster' not
high-density, multi-family. It is very upsettlng to now find that
it ls belng proposed to chahge the zone and our beautiful
ne i ghborhood.
Everyone is aware of the need for more housing. There are
alternate non-resldential areas that could hold such a hlgh-
density proJect a few ml les west.
Please don't ruln our area wlth a 50 unit proiect allowed
to be built on an arep deslgned to hold only 12 units.
Lori Ziegler
2753 Kinnlklnnlck B-4
P.O. Box 3173
Vaf l' Colorado 81658(303) 476-7032
THE SKIING GRANDMOTHERS
IOO27 CEOAR CREEK
Housroil, TExAs 77042
/1 -?- 97
UtuL fuo;^rr'.rr t4
M@3zZ, &,
^ + -27s.344-+tla- u
77.*u-e- A""Z- fu'4'
ilt"o "d.;.-:A.'
*7;' W' ",24
?r;,/ czaz</-/ 3
c&az{ 4 $**taLu*Zd- p;/.fu* H /aZ' 2a;r'czaz:xt'
J1:* zet- :24.tZZ ao"'Z *z-&'cz'/'-"/:*'
A/il- r'@zz*'-Lffi- Y ./t-z "o-).-----u
"/ /"4d 44/4--lfu* */ 4eZ4/44*.t-/a4 rfu Z*.r-*T,A;azzz,-/-/EJt*QYtr4'=J
Decemben 7, t9S9
Dear Vai 1, F lanning and E.nvircrrnreinta1 ComnriE"r,ionl
fl$ .r holleowrlET rrt 863,1 l( i rr rr i c.l.l :i tr i c ll for.blre p.rst eiHhtyea'r$r I ant very mtrch oFFoi't?cl 'bo 're-zotirili[| tlrat wor.rld aLl,or,l
tlre hotel Sotrnenalp to bLriId enployee housing of fifty
unit$.
Thei irnpact af fifty ttnits cc,r,rlcl ge.rner.*tei ;r:i nrlrch t'raf f ic as
tuo hntrdr.ed c.rrs no?e ller drr/ ill'l tlre fior-r'bh F'rontage Road,two htttrdrctd nro're people lrsing 'bher bns, ancl 'bh:r pctential fon
vatrdelism uotrld .rlso irrcrearle wi bh ,rieasollality of theEe
employee!i.
I pltnchased ny prope.rty in Iut.e,.r'nrcun'bain tie,.cansie o'f trhe
loc.rl owrle?r /i3clf -ltoln1{J res;itlent. low derrrrity anea that
In'bermoutrtain p'rovides, €1r1d clo no'l, wan'b that to chang1e in
olt? , a'tFa .
Respectivel.yn
Itobent l,l. ADes
,t q'
ROB€RT J. DYER. III
R. GREGORY STUTZ
CHARLES A. MILLER
PAUL G. URTZ
January 5' 1990
STUTZ, DYER & MILLER
Atlomoy3 at |-.aYv
825 Logan Stre€t
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tolephon€ (303) 861-1An
TEI€tax (303) 83G0115
225 Wall Street
Vail, Colorado 81657
Telophono (300) 47&5276
Telotax (303) 4766232
sr886/2
BY TELECOPY TO 479-2157
Office of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Parcel D Stephens Subdivision - Meadow Creek Condominiun
Assn. - Faessler,/Sonnenalp Rezoning
Dear Sirs:
This law firm represents l,teadow Creek Condorninium Association
regarding the application for rezoning and special development
district-of raessler Realty Apartments and day care center. The
lleadow Creek Condominiums is a property adjacent to the parcel
that is requesting the rezonins, ana this letter wilL set out the
position of the Association to the proposals.
It should be pointed out that the Association certainly _wishes to
support the piovision of adequate ernployee housing chifd care
seiiices in tne Vail area. These are vitally inportant to the
Town and its residents. Hovtever, development shoufd occur within
the existing zoning plan. Any proposed down-zoning or other
substantial-change in the zoning plan must be approached
cautiously and with due regard to the rights and concerns of all
adjacent property owners.
The major change being requested is to increase the number of
builda5le dwelling units from twelve to fifty. Residential
Cluster requirements are contained in Chapter 18.14' and High
Density Re;idential in is Chapter 18.16. This is a gig
increale in density, and not simply a variance. The effect will
be to change the entire charactei of tne vicinity. There will
also be a significant increase in the height of the buildings
(from 33 feet maximum to 48 feet maximum). Although it-is-not-
clear from the submissions of the applicant, there could also be
significant changes in the tandscaping and building -coverage of
the site. Eigh Density Residential reduces the landscaping
requirement fiom 6Ot to 308 of the total site. and permits !19uuitdings to occupy 55t of the total site area rather than 25t as
required by Residential Cluster zoning.
In addition, the developer is asking for a significant decrease
in the amount of covered parking EPaces to be required. The
\
Office of Community Development
Town of Vail
January 5, 1990
page 2
st886/2
theory is that the apartnent units will be used primarily for
employee housing' and that the employees will not have the need
for parking. The devel-oper has provided no evidence that this
theory is correct, and there is no assurance that all of the
units will in Eact be used for employee housing. If the units
are inhabited by two adults per unit, it is quite likely that
each will have separate vehicles, and the need for parking
greater than would otherwise be the case. By lowering the
covered parking requirement, the visual effect of the development
will be even more striking.
Finally, the proposed day care center is not a pernitted use in
either Residential CLuster or High Density Residential areas.
Thus, the developer has applied for a special developmentdistrict. Our question is why should a day care center be built
at this particular location? The 400 square foot units being
proposed will not allow any space for children' so the day care
center is for other developrnents rather than for this one. As
the use is not a pernitted one, the developer will be granted a
special privilege if the proposal is allowed. There has
certainly been no showing that exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances exist that require the day care center at this
location. There are many other possible locations for a day care
center in areas already appropriately zoned for such use.
The requested zoning change and the special development district
should both be denied. The character of the particular area
invoLved would be dramatically and irrevocably changed for the
worse by the proposals requested. The developer has not shown
that the site cannot be used in confornance with the existing
zoning, or that there is no other location for his proposed
employee housing or the day care center. The Planning and
Environmental Commission should deny both of the requests.
Very truLy yours,
/-/,*1 f ap^_
Charles A. MiIler
cc: ltteadow Creek Condoninium Association
tlt""-'-/ | 7'7 d
Joseph B. Blake
6225 Eabt 17th Avenue
DenYer, Colorado 8O22O
l,!r. Peter Patten
Connunlty Development Director
Town of VallVail, CO
Re: Sonnenalp Hotel Enployee Housing ProJect
Dear Peter:
I am a partner ln Col-Car IJtd. PartnerEhlp whlch owns the C-6condoninl.un in the !tC[ building at Meadov Creek (Stephens Sub-division Parcel D). It Is my understandJ-ng fron the infoma-tLon I have receLved from the Meadow Creek -Condominiun Assocla-tion, as well as through the discuEElon I had wlth you laat week,that the property lnmedlately behind the trCtr building hae beenpurchased by the Sonnenalp Hotel for the purpoEe of buildingenployge houeing and a day care center.
The purpose of tble letter is to reEpectfully regueat that theVail -Plannlng Connlssion disapprove €tre requeated zon!.ng changeto lligh DensJ.ty Multi Fanlly. I am very nuch aware tfrlt tfrevall Planning Conmission ana its staff have receLved a consLd-erable anount of personal written oppoeition to this proJect.I would llke to add our personal words of written oppositionbased on the following:
1. I recognlze that there is a certaln NIMBy nentallty withregard to all property ownerE when Lt comes to the queE-tlon of the locatlon of bulldlng employee housing ln Vall.Nonetheless, f think the vall planning Connlsslon needs todevelop a proposed pollcy with regard to the location ofenployee housing ln the VaIIey. DeveJ-oplng a conprehenElvepollcy on that guestion, lncluding such subJectB as notonly locatLon, but also how such houeJ.ng nlght be fLnancedto keep the rental coEts at an affordable price, would al-low all reeidents and taxpayers ln the Vall connunlty toconment upon such a conprehensl_ve program.
Ehe effort to develop enployee houslng should not be doneon a pieceneal baEis. Doing it pieceneal wltl result inthe Eituatlon you have today: lteados Creek/Inter.mountainproperty orJners vlolently reactlng to an enployee houslngproJect which is eo outrageous tn figfrt of-th- exlsting-low density zonlng ln the area -- and the only apparentbenefl.t ls to the owner of the Sonnenal-p Hotel . obvlous-lyr.you have a problen where people have purchased proper-ty in reliance on existlng zoning condltons reaeonably
proxlnate to that property -- and if you are goLng to up-Eet that apple cart, yourd better do it on a more conpre-hensive basis.
Thus, I would strongly urge the staff to reconnend to theplannlng conmission that before this project is approved,the overall question of enployee housing needE to be ad-dressed so that rre can have coneeneua in the Valley onthat questJ-on, rather than thls sort of vltrlolic relctLon.
2. Clearly, the requested zonlng change is way out of lineinsofar aB current densities- in the area are concerned.As you know, this property is currently zoned RC for thedevelopment of elght unltE. This project proposes 50unitg -- an.absurd lnpact on the preexlltlng-lteidow Cceek/Inter:mountain conmunity. you sinply canrt equeeze thatnurnber of units lnto that confined a property area forwhatever laudable purpoEe. Again, I belleve this proposalls benefltting the enployerr/owner of the Sonnenalp Hotelproject to the clear detilnent of the Meadow Creek residents.
3. As if to add inEult to lnjury, thls proposal also requeststhe creation of a_ day care center. Again, this is clearlya nLx of uses whlch iE Lnconslstent wttn shat existE at -
I*leadon Creek today, and what should exist with regard tothat arears future down the Line. There Ls no curient re-guirenent fron within the Meadow Creek/Interuountain horne-olrners today for any sort of day care center. Thisproposal would generate a completely unreaEonable nunberof new enployee houeing units, and then turn around andgenerate a need for a day care center! Clearly, there hasto be nore thoughtful , rational planning in V;il than topernit such an absurd result.
rn concrusion, r reatly believe that it iE incunbent on theplanning conmission to take the high road and clearly set fortha long-range program for enployee houslng in ValI and itE envl_-rons._ Let everyone who has an interest -- and who nay be ad-versely affected -- hlve the opportunity, up and down the Valley,to.help fashlon a pollcy with whlch eveiyone can rlve wlth Eoneprlde and confort.
Mr. Peter Patten
Page 2
Joseph B. Blake January 5, 1990
$Fa c*4/ lrtaUga aF'ftA*ttn r., tSoee!y^ L,u
ITle=
&t"rtd"/ t2.26,w
To: Town of Vai1, Planning Commisssion
Comments and questi ons regardi ng theparcel "D", Stephens subdivision in Vail
change.
proposed hi-density apartments on
Intermountain, requiring a zoning
At this time a petition is before the planning staff to change parcel "0"
from Residential cluster, allowing 8 dwellings on this property, to a
Hi-density multi-family zoning, over'l aid by a special development djstrict,
meaning further deviations beyond hi-density - in fact "anything goes",
request. The application js submitted by Faessler Realty, on behalf of the
Sonnenalp Hotel , asking for permission to build 50 apartments, a day care
center and open parking for 77 vehicles. Johannes Faessler owns Faessler
Realty and the Hotel . At thjs time I question his possession of a deed to
Parcel "0".
The purpose of the existing zoning - quoting directiy from Ord #18.16.010 is----"to maintain the desirable resident'ial oual ities of the district"--etc.
The present zoning does not make provisions for commercial enterprises such
as a day care center. The general purpose of zoning laws requires that
regulations are made in accordance rvith a. comprehensive master p1an,
designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, to
promote ttreleneiit we1 fare, to prevent the overcrowding of land, to avoidundueconcentrationofpopu1atioffingandp1anningis
made with reasonab'le consideration among other things, to the character ofthe district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with aview to conserving the value of Iands and buildings. Re-regulation under.-:-.the guise of re-zoning, which results in diminishing of property values must
necessarily fail. Courts in the interest of justice and equity maypertinently inquire into the va) idity of re-zoning. To permit unbrideled
development (special development district) of land in accordance withspecial interests of an individual owner is bound to be reflected in the
depreciated value of surrounding properties. Legis'l ation in the form of"spot" zon'ing, so that the zone of one particular property is changed, is
not favored (by the courts).
Based on the existing zoning, now over 10 years old, my neighbors and I have
invested into their homes and should not be put into a position to see them
rendered less enjoyable, their privacy and quiet infringed upon. Just
because the Sonnenalp hotel , needing housing for their employees want to jam
as much housing onto a min'imum of land to reduce their costs. They can
have employee housing within the existing zoning.
There is no hi-density zoning in Intermountain anywhere. The property under
discussion here is totally surrounded by "residential cluster" zoning, The
only other zoning in Intermountain is 2 family primary and secondary zoning.
Thus this project would be entirely out of context with the rest of the
subdivision and would be spot zoning of the worst kind.
The application makes reference t&the Bighorn Lodge and tries to draw some
comparisons. The Bighorn Lodge was a motel , :long ago, situated on the then
highway, now Frontage Road. This is quite different from Parcel t'Drr in
Intermountain. The comparison is not valid.
.tt
The proposed project fai I s to meet themulti-family designation and even fails to
exampl e:
l+!4+.is to be 35? and 752 (respectivety) within the building and h.iddentrom publtc v'iev',. The proposed parking spaces are mostly uncoveied and noneare hi dden from publ i c vi ew.
No parking shall be located in any front set back area (Ord. 1B.z0.l40)There are numerous parking spaces ptanned.in the front set-back area, rightunder the windows of neighboring buildings.
Set-back from Gore Creek (#18.59.300): shall be fifty feet. The porposedproject i s consi derably Iess .
The flood. plane boundary shown on the site plan is not complied with on theground. (l.lhy?)
fact that there is only one
turnaround for the bi g fTre
due to the proposed chi'l dren
2701 Snowberry DriveVail Intermountafn
476-2636
An environmental impact report was not submitted; I realize that theplanning sta.ff waived this requirement, because a report was submitted someyears ago. However,. the t-hen report was based on 4 dirplex buildings on thissite. .Ih. present applicatidn is for a much nigh;i densit-y prus ;commercia'l entity. A new environmental impact report i-s now in order.
A traffic study was promised. I hope we will have an opportunity to reviewsame in detail.
So far.no real explanation of the operation of the children,s center hasDeen suDmrtted. It appears that the center for 30 children is intended forpartial use-by residents of the 5 or so families in the z oeoroom apartments
1l9',.lglt]gfjy by employees from other comnunities dropping off theircnrroren on the way to work and pick-up on the way home. (mdre tlraffic!)
l]t-,T".,above is just to show that this site is simply not suitabte for an1-qensrty apartment complex and day care center, was never intended forsuch use, is not zoned for such useind therefore should not be rezoned forsuch use now. Hi-density apartments and a day care center just do notbelong in a guiet residential ireighborhood.
I piead with the planning officiats to protect us from such an incursion.
requi rements of I ow dens i ty
meet hi-density zoning. For
The fire department is concerned about theaccess. i nto the property and i nadequateengine(s). This is of particular concerncenter. We do not need a tragedy.
Furthermore, the application is flawed:
Erwin Bachracfi
t
I
C
(r
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&f:
Planning and Environmental Cornmission
Cornrnunity Developrnent Department
January 8, 1990
A request to rezone Parcel D of the Steven,s Subdivision,from Residential Cluster to Special Development District,with an underlying High Density Multiple Family zonedistrict.Applicant: Faessler Realty
Description of the Request
This rezoning request has been proposed in order to al1ow for the
development of a 48 unit rnulti-family/enployee housing project.A 3,000 square foot day care center which was originallyproposed, has been deleted frorn the project.
The l-.99 acre parcel is located immediately north of buildings A,B, C and D, of the Meadow Creek Condorniniums, and just south ofcore creek. Access to the parcel is proposed via an existing 4Ot
access easement, connecting the southeast corner of the propertywith Kinnickinnick Road, (between buildings C and D of the Meadow
Creek Condominiums) .
Phase f of the project calls for the construction of the easternbuilding, which would include 25 one-bedroom units and two two-
bedroom units. Phase II would include 18 one-bedroom units andthree two-bedroom units, located in the western building.
The one-bedroom units are proposed to be approximately 400 squarefeet in size and the two-bedroom units are proposed to range insj-ze frorn 660-800 square feet. Tenant storage facilities areproposed at the ground floor Level , adjacent to the coveredparking, and some additional storage is proposed on the second andthird floors. Laundry facilities are proposed in the basernent of
each building.
Section L8.40.0L0 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code describes thepurpose of Special Development Districts, and reads as foLlows:trThe purpose of the special" development district is toencourage flexj-biLity and creativity in the development ofIand in order to promote its most appropriate usei to inprovethe design character and quality of new developrnent withinthe town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provisionof streets and utilitiesi to preserve the natural and scenicfeatures of open space areas,- and to further the overallgoals of the cornrnunity as stated in the Vail Comprehensive
I.
-t-
t
I
P1an. An approved development plan for a special developmentdistrict, in conjunction r4rith a property's underlying zonedistrict, shall establish the requirements for guiding
developrnent and uses of property incLuded in the special
developrnent district. rl
The Town Code also states that any uses permitted in the Special
Development District shall be linited to those permitted,
conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zonedistrict.
fn order to meet these reguirements of the Special DevelopmentDistrict chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone thisproperty from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Faurily,
and has simultaneously applied for a Special Developrnent Districtoverlay. This memorandum will address both the rezoning to HighDensity Multiple Farnily as well as the Special DeveloprnentDistrict application.
If. Zoninq Analysis
A summary of the proposed development is as follows:
\
(
A. Lot AreaTotal:
Floodplain:
40? Slope:
Net Buildable
86,580
L8, 828
2,716
Area; 65,036
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
Proposed Floor AreaResidential, Phase I:
Residential, Phase If:Total:
LL.237 square feet
9,363 square feet
20,600 square feet
c.
D.
E.
Phase I
Phase II - max l-mum
- max].mum
ridge height: 45'ridge height: 37 '
E'
Proposed Site Coveraqe
L2,7L2 square feet or L4.7 Z
Proposed Parkinq
2L Covered Spaces or 352
39 Surface Spaces or 652 (25? will be compact car spaces)60 Total spaces
Adiacent Land UsesNorth: core Creek and RC zoned property north of the
West:
Creek.
Undeveloped portion of Intermountain Swim andTennis Club Condominiums.
South/East: Meadow Creek Condominiums, Building A-8,
zoned RC.
-2-
( rrr. Zoninq comparisons
RC HDMF SDD - PROPOSED
l-. PERMITTED USES -Single-family -Same as RC -Multiple-family
2. SETBACKS
residential
dwellings.
-Two-farnilyresidential
dwellings.
-Multiple-fanilyresidential dwellings.
(no more than 4 unitsrzbldg.)
Front:20'Sides: L5'Rear: l-5 '
zone with the residentialaddition of
lodges.
Front: 20' Frontz 2OlSides.20' Sides: L5'Rear: 2Ot Rear: L5 '
3. HEfGHT Flat Roof: 30, Flat Roof: 45' Flat Roof: N/ASloping Roof: 33' Sloping Roof: 48' Sloping'Roof: 45'
4. DENSITY Allowable Allowable ProposedD.U.'s: 8.9 D.U.'s: 37.3 D.U.'s: 48
(GRFA: L6,259 sf GRFA: 39,o22 sf GRFA: 20,600 sf
5. SITE COVERAGE 252:21,t645 sf 558 = 47,619 sf t4.72 = L2t7L2 sf
6. LANDSCAPING 608 : 5l-,948 sf 30? = 25,974 sf 558 = 47,6L9 sf
7. PARKING -L Space/D.U. -75? shall be -35? covered.shall be covered. covered. -25? conpact car
-25? conpact car -25? conpact car spaces.spaces. spaces.
-75 total spaces -75 total spaces -60 total spacesreguired for this required for required for thisproject. this project. project.
IV. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluatinq This Proposal
There are two sets of criteria that rnust be used when evaluatingthis proposal . The first set of criteria to be utilized will bethe three criteria involved in the evaluation of a request for a
zone change. The second set of criteria to be used will be thenine developrnent standards set forth in the Special DeveloprnentDistrict chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follo\4rs:
-3-
A.
(
1.Suitability of proposed zoninq.
The existing RC zoning allows for a naximum of Bdwelling units on the site. The staff recognizes theenvironmental constraints imposed upon this site withthe presence of core Creek, and its associatedfloodplain, along the north boundary. We do believethat with proper site planning, the 2 acre parcel could
accommodate some additional density without compromiseto the environrnent or have a negative impact upon the
adj acent neighborhood.
However, the staff believes that the request for 48dwelling units would exceed the carrying capacity ofthis site. AIso, the projected peak hour traffic volumeon South Frontage Road, west of the interchang:e, isestirnated to increase by ll .22 as a result of theadditional 48 dwelling units. Although at first gflancethis percentage may appear to indicate a significantincrease in traffic, the actual irnpact of the increaseshould be reviewed according to the "Highway Capacity
Manualrr and the level of service. page 5, Table 1-, ofTDA's traffic irnpact assessment shows the level ofservice at South Frontage Road and Charnonix road. Thisanalysis, however, includes the originally proposed daycare facility. It is impossible for the staff todetermine irnpacts upon the levels of service for justthe apartment complex with this information. Staffwould recommend that the traffic irnpact assessment be
amended to reflect the actual proposal which is beforethe PEC (ie. 48 dwelling units).
Is the amendrnent presentinq a convenient, workable
"iPurobi ectives.
Staff believes that with the deletion of the day carefacility from this proposal, that the proposedresidential use would be in harmony with the existinguseE-fn ttre area. Intermountain i3 strictty aresidential neighborhood and the proposed uses for thisparcel would not be inconsistent with existing
development.
(
2.
Evaluation of Zone C}:.anqe Request from Residentiat. Cluster to
district:
-4-
(3. Dges the rezoninq provide for the qrowth of an orderlv,viable conrnunitv.
-edges
that ernployee housing is in veryshort supply in Vail and that such housing is a crucialelement in VaiI,s continuing to be a viable resortcornnunity. We believe that the employee housing conceptproposed here is a sound concept and that it wouldgenerally be a positive contribution to the community asa whole. However, even though we agree with theconcept, we still naintain that the proposed density
would exceed this siters carrying capacity.
Desiqn Standards in Evaluatinq Special- Development District
Proposals:
t.ibilitv and sensitiv tv to the ediateenvrront, ne rhood and ad acent roDerErelatve to architectural des scale bulk, buildin
heiqht buffer zones. identit character visual
ncegr ty and orient,ation.
The staff generally feels that the proposedarchitectural style would be in keeping with thecharacter of the inrnediate area. 'fn fact, thearchitectural style is very similar to that of theadjacent Meadow Creek Condominiums. We are concernedwith the proposed ridge height of the Phase I building,which is 45 feet. We feel that 45 ft. is excessive forthis site and would be out of character for this area.
Surrounding properties have approximate ridge heights of
2A - 32 feet.
The staff is nost concerned with the proposed GRFA forthe project. We believe that the current GRFA which isallowable under the RC zone district should benaint,ained. The proposaL calls for 4r34L square feetover that amount. We feel that by reducing the overall
GRFA, as well as the proposed density, the scale of thebuilding (ie. nass and bulk) could also be reduced.
B.
1
-5-
(Uses, activitv and density which provide a cornpatible,efficient and workable relationship with surroundinq
In reviewing this type of housing request, the staff has
taken the position that sone incentive should beprovided for the developrnent of employee housing (see
Section C of this memo) . The applicant is proposing
ernployee housing and has proposed restricting the unitsrrfor the life of the buildingsrr. However, we feel thatthe restriction placed upon such employee units should
be more long terrn and should be consistent with previous
Town approvals (ie. the life of Tiffany Lortrenthal + 20
years) .
Regarding the issue of density, the staff is wilting to
work with the applicant on this development standard as
an incentive to providing ernployee housing. Theapplicant has maintained that 48 dwelling units are
required to make this project feasible. As stated
above in the zone change criteria, the staff cannot
support a 500? increase in density over existing zoning
on this site.
compliance with parkinq and loadinq requirements asoutlined in Chapter 18.52.
The proposal cal1s for a total of 60 parking spaces, 352of which will be covered. The Town zoning code requires
a total of 75 parking spaces, of which 75? shall be
covered.
Based upon past experience with parking for ernployee
housing, the staff strongly believes that the parking
requirements in the code need to be met. We also feelthat the proposed 35? covered parking is inadequate and
would present an eyesore to the adjacent residents. See
attached ttEmployee Housing Project'r statistics.
Conformity with applicable elernents of the Vail
comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Desiqn
Plans.
The applicable sections of the Land Use PIan are
discussed in Section C of the Zone Change Criteria.
(
-6-
s. Jdentifigition an qeoloqic
Eazafds th+t _?f fegt. tl.re propertv on which the specialoevejopment district is proposed.
6.
There are no geologic hazards which have been identifiedon this site. The building has been removed from the100 year floodplain.
Site.plan, buildinq desiqn and location and open spaceprovisigns desiqned to produce a functional developrnentreqponsivg_and sensitive to natural featurss, veqetationand overall aesthetic quality of the communitv.
The proposed layout of the structures have been modifiedso that they no longer encroach into the 50 foot creeksetback. A1l- of the large evergreen trees on-site willbe preserved. The site coverage nurnbers are r^/ell belowthe allowed maximun, and the landscaping percentage isalso acceptable. A stronger landscape buffer isnecessary along the south side of the project facing
Meadow Creek Condominiurns. Design solutions should beproposed to screen more parking. The height of the eastbuilding should be decreased to insure the project isconpatible with surrounding structures.
A qirculation svstern desiqned for both vehicles andpgdes!,ri+ns addressinq on and off-site trafficcirculation.
-"a".""t *rculation is adequate, and it appears thatthe proposed access frorn Kinnickinnick Road can beconstructed to Town standards. A copy of the Trafficand Parking Assessrnent (by TDA Colorado) is attached.
1
8.Fulctional a{rd.aesthetic landscapinq and open space inorder tg optir.nize and preserve natural features,recreat j-on, views and functions.
Staff believes that the proposed landscape plan shouldhave additional planting and berming along the southproperty line to screen parked cars. We also feel thatpedestrian access along the creek would be an amenityfor the project,s residents as well as the neighborhoodresidents. We would propose that an easement, dedicatedto the Town, be provided along the length of theproperty, adjacent and parallel to core Creek. This
easement could be utilized as a pedestrian walkwayto the proposed Steven,s Park site to the west.
-7-
(Phasinq plan or.subdivision plan that will maintain aworkabl-e, functional and efficient relationshipthroughout the developnent of the special developmentdistrict.
(
As discussed in Section I, Description of the Request.
C. Land Use Plan:
The Land Use PLan should be utilized as a guideline in anyrequest for a zone change. This property has been identifj-edin the Land Use Plan as suitable for rMedium DensitvResidentialtt use. This category includes housing wi:icn woul-dtypically be designed as attached units with common wal1s.Densities in this category would range frorn 3 to l-4 dwellingunits per buildable acre.
The following goa1s, frorn the Land Use P1an, should be usedas policy guidelines in the review of this proposal:
GOAL STATEMENT 5.3:
Affordable employee housing should be rnade available throughprivate efforts, assisted by linited incentives, provided bythe Town of Vail , with appropriate restrictions.
GOAL STATEMENT 5.5:
The existing employee housing base shouLd be preserved andupgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
GOAL STATEMENT 5.4:
Residential growth should keep pace
demands for a fu11 range of housing
GOAL STATEMENT 5.].:
with the market pl-ace
types.
Additional residential growth should continue to occurprimarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in
ne\,'r areas where high hazards do not exist.
We feel that the proposal goes well beyond the rtlimited
incentj-vesrt referred to in 5.3 and the Medium Density Residentialprovisions of 3-L4 units/acre. Thus, we find the proposal not incornpliance with the Land Use Master Plan.
-8-
(
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staff recommendation is for denial. While we are generally
supportive of the overall concept of enployee housing on thissite, we believe that the applicant's requests for additionaldensity, additional GRFA, increases in building height, andreductions in required parking spaces would be in confLict withthe purpose section of SpeciaL Developrnent Districts.
More conpromise needs to occur on the project particularly in the
areas of number of units and GRFA. Reductions in these areas will
al1ow for developnent that is conpatible with surroundingprojects. Staff also believes that it is important to use the
Land Use Plan as a guide in rezoning. In this case, the Land UsePlan call-s for incentives to encourage employee housing. Staff
couLd support limited incentives and would like to continue to
work with the ovrner to develop a compromise solution.
-9-
IJ()()<-{{x
U,1tJ
::Y
:< Ltl
<o
(olr)
-z65'6F,2 *.i
=|i ; ;3gE5l' z s+Ii
. o-l V zg'a-.
Hl * xF:s
al (/) 6iboFr t *--?v . rggF
t <LJ -E oto
O r,Jq?
o
r{
. .r{
0,
C.'lr
,0oE
J, i
//./ t trJ// F-,l I
Y;' ffitt Ft/ -Jl"
-r1I: t-
I
\\\
\r\
,{
.. )itr(\
\\\
"' l\t.U\\
I
:\
\$
\i
I
rr I\\{
l
{\
I
(
|r)
lr)
c)
FI
Ci
n(\I
FI
o
ro
oo
ro
ofil
N
o|cl
oFI!o\|!rr6
rl .Fl
a.a
!o+Jr-{ oooO'noocthha
@rt
NF
a't$
(,)N
Frt
|ll.{$(\ctN
crC)rfodoro\i\2grrortNt-l d
FO.\oorF
r{
00!||rlOt tl Olar cl
@@u)
o.0Nd F{ trt
otrorooroa{
rnor-oNr\
o000
oOllUru|0,6'Ua O O.rl .'{ l.t t1 r]ElE C.}T{IrECh..l C A l.lOF{ ..{ OJl .{ J1 EF.U +J El..{ > .r{ .A
E{ \, A ,o
o\xzc/)oHEl O
fi'4o
'{Aqlaoca
oEooxo
frl
IE
(,\20HBIMOHfi|{H4tu2O{OD
oZ?nH fr1XC)x44AAul
o
E{UdFl hbfto(9xA
(r\z (,t&lH F{(o HoD 24OD
I.lfrl (,l){E{OHd3Efrl
u)
tslfi
C)r(
H(J
EI
B&ft
0o
r-,1o
(
(
TDA
COLO|IADOE'qnNc.
Tronsportotlgn
Coffiullonte
l6t5 tormd 31.
Suna 6@
Do'rvet, CO 80202
(J03) 02s't10,
BRRCLRY TOlJERS VENTURE O
"'- NO '3038936553 - Jan 05 ,90 LI't2t P .aZ
ilanuary 4, L990
sldney schultz
sidney Schultz - Rrchltoct rnc.
141, East Meadov Drlvevail, CO. 81657
Re: Faessler Apartnent and Day Care Conter Trafflc Inpact
Assessuent.
Dear Sldney,.
As agraed, vre hav6 revleued the proposal for deveJ.oping 50
apart:nent unlts and a day care center off Luplne Street ln theInteruountain area. As wE understand the proposal , the apartnentswiII be used prinarily by euployeeg of Sonnenalp Hotel propertiegin vail Vlllage and the day care facllity wLll be used exclusivelyby Sonnenalp enployees. We f,urtber undeaBtand a nunber af
Sonnenal.p enployeaE currcntly llve ln the Intennountain arBa. The
31400 squarB foot day caae center will have 3 to 4 ernployees.
on the basie of, this lnfornatlon ve have prepared this aesessment
of, potential traffJ.c lropact asgoclated with the FaesEler Apartmetrt
and Day Care center protrloaal..
Exlsting coD,dltLotle
The Faegg1er Realty'trrroJect would,be developed Ln a residentLalarea that IE essentially at the t{€sterly end of developnent ln the
Gore Creek ValLey. gouth Frontage Road connects the Intenu,ountalnarea wl,th caEcado, Llonehead and Vall Vlll,ages. Ehe l{est Vail
InterchanEe vlth I-?o ls about 1rz2 nile wEst of the project. Nortb
FrontaEe Road and South tr"rontagE Road oonnect vla thB wegt Vallx-70 dianond lntarchange. Tbe next connectlon for local fronta,treroad moveroents occurs a.LmoEt three nil,es farther east at the llainVai.l. Interchange.
Bcuth Froatage _ RoaC ls a two lane rural road eerring aE acollector-diEtrlbutor for roglonal trlBs to and fron I-70 bnd foraccese to abuttlng parcels. Between the tfest and Main VaiIintersectionu, gouth Frontage Road le undar the nalntenance andaccess JurJ.sdlctlon of the Colorad,o State Hlghway Depafrbent.
rraffic volunes on south,Ftontage Road are uuch higher eaEt of theWest vaiL lnterchange aa uuch of the Interstate novernents ar€oriented to the conuerolal aaea6 of Cagcade and tJlonshead vlllages.Volurnes on south Frontage -Road i:r the vlclnity of the projecf lsestlaated to be about 21500 vehlcles per day. Thls ii bised on1986 evening peak hour counts at the south riontage Road/chanonlx
Road lntersection by Centannlal Englneertng.
BRRCLFY TOuERs UENTURE O ttt No.3038936553 O.t"n 05,90 LL:22 P.o3
I\ Mr. Sidney schultz
ilanuary 4, 1990
Page 2
9a11y vorurne f,luctuates annualry ba6ed on levels of occupancy inrntermountaln. rt ls estrnated that about sot of, the -awerilng
unlts are orvner-occupled? 2ot used by seconcl hone purchasers anithe remaLnlng 30t are rong terar or seasonar renters.- There are noaonnerolal 6horg term or overnlght lodging unlts ln rntennountaln.occupancy levelg wguld llkely b€ hl.ghest durlng christnas week,gprlng Break, and gunrner hotlcay perlbds when sedond hone user andseasonar enp).o1aent us6 add to the year round popuration. t{.: nouldestrnate dauy tralf,lc voluue on south Frontage Road ln ttrerntgrnountain area could reach 3r0oo vehLales per day durlng a peaktlne such as Spring Break rreek.
The rntermountain area ls served welL by puDrio t=aasit. Tolvnbuses on the West Val-I Eouth Route run aU-day fron 6:20 A.M. toL2.45 A.!1. The route connects xntemountaln with the threevlllages. Translers !o other town routes are nade at the vallTransportatlon center ln vaiL village. The rrl,leadov. creek, bus stopls a short walk f,ron the proFosed proJect slte.
ProJect lraff:lc
1lhe propesed proJect har tvro baslc Eources of addltional trafflcgeneration:
1. The 50 apartment unlts2. The 31400 square f9ot Day care center
At fulI occupancy 9t6 would expect the predoulnantry one-bedroornapartments
^
to gener.atS _an average of about glx vehlare tr,lps perper unit, or a total o!.300 Ldditlonal vehlole trips pe'r a-e,v,day per unlt, or a total 0!.300 additlonal veh101e trips pe'r aiv,ThiB generatlon rate Ls derrved fron nunerous studles in iountainresort comnunl,ties and le conparabre to the rate pubr!,shed by thernstltute of Traneportatlon Engineers Ln the 199? p-ubllcatlon nrrlp
Gen€ratLon" for |tlpw Rlse Apaitnentsn.
The sane pubricatlon suggests Day care centers average 67 vehicrecrlps per ctay per 11000 sguate feet of cross Floor Area. For theproposed 3,4oo Bqluare fooL center thle wourd aquate to 2zB vehicle
lrlps. p-e.r d^ay _generared by the day care center.- slnply addlng thetwo lndivlduar trlp generation nunbers wourd over-stltE thd netaddltlonal traffi.c gehoratLon aE Eons of the reslclentlal trlpswould be orLented to tho Day car€ center. gurthemore, each chiiadropped and subnequentry -plcked up f,ron a day care centerrepresents .tgllr dalry vehlcle trips -- enterl.ng aha leaving theelte each repreaent a- rtvehlcle tr$n.
BRRCLRY TOI.dERS VENTURE O
"t- l,'I0.5038936553
Vehlcle Trips/Dall
Jan 05,90 I1t22 P.0A
(
Mr. Sidney Sahultu
January 4, 1990
Page 3
AEsuming flve sonnenalp households living Ln rnt,erruountain use theDay care c€nter each day we ffould expect south Frontaqe Road tripgeneratlon would be otherwiee reduced by Zo trips per day (b
houeeholds x 4 daily day care.vehicle trlps per household). - fdeproposed saven two-bedroom unitE lncruded in- the 5o-unit cornprexcould account for another half-dozen chirdren using the dav Larecenter. 'rhege on-sLte uaers gould reduce the dally volumE by aslmilar zo vehlcle trlpE trler day.
Hence, the net effect of, the Day Care Center would be to add lggvehisle trips to South Frontage Road aB follows:
Trlp cqnerato.-4
Ftree-otandlng Oay Care Center (ITE)Exlsting Intelsountain Sonnenalp. Household TrlpeOn-Slte proposed Household Trips
= New Vehicte trtp6 on South Frontage Road
Added to this would be the new non-day oare trlps generated by theapartrnent dwell-ers. This would equal 280 vehlcle tripe (300 - 20on-site day care). Total net trlp generation trould then be 468vehlcle trlps on €outh Frontage Road.
Day CarB Center e L88 Vehicle trips per day50 Apafr,nent unlts = 2gll Vehicle Trips per dayTotal- 468 Vehlcle TrLpa per day
Ttrls addition would be about a 19t lncrease over the estlnatedexistlng average daily volurne of 2r5oo vehicleE on south FrontageRoad Irest of, the lnterchange.
epproxlnately tot, ?t !? trJ.ps, ca-1-be ex_pected to occur durlng thePM peak hour. Typlcauy, about d08 wlrr be inbound and 40t -h,ilr
be outbound from the-proJeot during -the evenlng peak, Ehese tripsare then distributed to the gurroundlng roadwayd using prevairlirgtrafflc dlstrlbution patterng. rigur-e 1 dtgprays nir'peak nouiinterseotLon volumes wlth and vrithout the Faeselel frojett.
228-zo
-20
(188
(
BRRCLRY TOIJERS VENTURE
i.,,,
33+
1\
TEL No .5038936553
NORTH
\r+g
=sg'6
Jan 05 ,90 11 :25 P . tt5
Mr. $ldney Schult,aifanuary 4, 1990
Page 4
Chano,ni.LS.oaS
(I l0 Undorpass)
lleglix Road
(I 70 lJnderpass)
\t?r133
146 Z0 59sI lv20
+
\t t1188
es/
59+11
S. Frontage RoadI-70
S. Frontage Rd.
\t.tg
.r- 11
t'5
(
BACXGRO'N{D HITII PROJECT
Fl6ure I
P.l{. Peek l{our Traffle Volurnes
IVith 6 Wlthout Faessler projerr
1990
Erlp Disttl.butlor
Q?rlv vehlcre trips generated by the Faessler deveropment willdisperse over the luriounainE rca-dway nerworlc. Alr veiitcres wiiipae: through the 4-way ctop eign at the south FrontacreRoad,/charonlx Road interslctj.on-. BEJed on 1983 traffie couniJ-iithe lntersection,- exlating trlps fron the rntermountaln areadlsperse at thts Lntersectlbn ag-followe;
Vehicle TripsTo,/From _ .yig & of rotal
234
30t
30t
15tTotal IOO+
Eaat
EagtNorthr/East UnderpaeeWset Undertrlass
la?ssleT Apar-th€^nt _?!d Day Care Center devalopment trips, heavilyorlented. to Valr vllrage, are exPected to dlenonstrat-e'a stroniorlentation to the east ai ao currLnt rntenuountain-i6t"rr"irl-'-"
IEpactg
A level of se:nrice conputer analysls of the four-way etop alenint ersectlon was per f ord'ed ln accoiaince wttii-pi" J"aui,is a"-"-".IiEiLn the-r9es alguviy cageclty urausl, rransFortiEion R."".rch BoarcSpecial Report t209.
BRRCLRY TOLJERS VENTURE
O r* N0.303893655J
TABLE TP.M. Paak llour I€veI of Service OperatLonat South Frontage Road & ClramonLx Road
(West VaiL fnterchanqe)for I99O Eetinated Trafflc Velumee
Jan 05,90 IIl24 P.06
ProJcct {fl !'aess).er Revised
-lXgj_es!_ ceonetrv (1)
Mr. Sj.dnEy Schultz
January 4, 1990
Page 5
r.evel, of eervice le an lndlcatlon of, duratton of delay wlth levelof, eervice (LO.S) rrAtr being the higbest level. It repreients littleof ne hotori:,:b delay. _ IJevel of serrvice [E.f slgnlfye long delaysand no reEerare capacity f,or that partlcular approach- to tLeIntersection. At leve1 of, servlce C average traffic delay can beexpected and the approach could handle another zo0 to 3oO vehiclesln the pealc hour before reachlng capacity. Upon reaching level ofservlce D the capac!.ty r€serve ls reduced to 1Oo to 195 vebicles
and long delays can.bs expected. I,os D ls comrnonly used as rdeaign
capaclty', for rrrbanized areaE. Table I sumrnarizeJthe IOS analysisresuLts for the unslgnallzed 4-way-stop intersectlon of S. Frontage
Road and Chanonlx Road during a PM pealc hour. It showE the leitturns from S. Front,age Road to operate at a very hlgh LOS A underthe X990 baclcground traffic conditlone. Rlght and left turns fron
Chanonix Road ara LoS A and C, recpectively. Ehe through movenents
across S. Frontage are both LOS C.
(
BackgroundTrafflcTurnLn(' -!{eyclq$l)!
Left Turn froln S. Frontageto Chanonix Rd, A
left Turn from S. Frontageto Streamside .A
Left Turn from chamonix Rd.to s. frontage c
Lett Turn f,rom streansldeto S. Frontage C
Rlght Turn frorn chanonl.x Rtl.to S. FrofrLage I\
Through f,rom chanonlx Rd.to gtreanslde C DD
SOURCE: TDA, BaFed on rrHlghvray Capacity Manualil, 1985,Analysis f,or atop elgn controlled lntersection.
I. Revlsions lnclude restriplng, nl.nor wldening.
...ERRCLRY TO|]IERS VENTURE
-f\
o TEL No .3018936:;51 O run 05,90 ltt24 P.ol
(
Mr. Sidney Sr:hui-l:a
January 4, ].tgro
Page 6
With tlre atitlltlon of ttre Faesrilor ProJect vehicle trlps uhe t'osat the s. Frontar.re/Chanonir: intersection rEmains the sarne excentthe left turn nnri through movements gIS chanonLx Road which drop
from Los c to D. trhe snall lncreaee ln eastbound volumes on s.
Frontage Road reduce8 the amount of tlne aval}able forconfllctlng trafflc flot{s to cross s. frontage Road. llowever,Ievel of scr.;icr: for Internountain tripE doe.s not change f,rorn theexisti.nq condition wltb the addltlon of, Fae.sELer Projeet. Iheexlstirrg geometr:y of the ,$. Frontage/Chamonlx lntereectlon ha6traffic lanes atrllred to lncl.ude oncr conbined laft, thru, andright turn lane aE, each of the four approachee. However, the
expanelve lncergeotlon crrrrently operatcs as having a Beparateright turn lane on tlre norttr, Eouth and €ast approaches.
Restriping of the intersection to Lnclude aeparate lef,t turn
lanes on the north and we6t approaches, rather than rlght turn,
would better faeilitate traffic flow. Analysis of this revise<l
geometry Ehows :i.rnproved l..os for the gtreamgide approach legs rvithl:his lllnor luprcver(lene.
ConclusLon
Addltiqnal vetrlcle trlpE generated by the Faessler Apartmenu and
Day care Project wlll not have a eigniflcant irnpact on traffic
operatlons at tlre I.{eEt Vall lnterahange. The expected 47 peak
hour vehlcle trips generated by the developrnent will further
disperse beyonrl the fotrr-way stop intErsection adjacent to tltr:
dianrond interchange. If the Day care center were to he
elihlnated from the proposal the temalning 48 apartnenb unlts
could be expectad to generate about 20 to 30 peak hour trips --the lower value re1:resentlng some Sonnenalp ernployees reslditrg l.n
the apartmenb heing shuttled to and from work via a SonnenaLp
courtesy van. llot all enployeeE troul.d u6e the shuttle due, ltrpart, to off-riite day care travel requlr€ments. llhe 20additional tripa would conetltute a 1.3t lncrease ln the nu$rer
of, vehlcles c,ni:rrring the four-way Charnonlx/s. Frontage Roadlntersection during the PM peak hour. This change would not bereadily perceiverl.
I trust this adaquately coverE the traf,flc related issueg
regarding the Faessler Devolopment proJect. Please call ne ifyou have any ciuestLong.
Sincerely
TDA COI.,OUIDO INC.
David D. Ireally,Princlpal
t
(
TO:
FROTI:
DATE:
42 west meadow drlYe
Yall, colorado 8't657
(303) 476-2200
* * * i * l{ E }.{ o RA N D U 1.1 * * * * *
l.like l.lollica, Colrrnunity Develo-nnent
l,lichael liccee, Fire ilarshal//
January 4t 1990
Fesslerrs Employee l{ousing Project
****t***+*
flre deparlmenl
The entire project will be plan checked and constructed under
the 'l 968 Uniform Building and Fire Cocles.
The entire project r'ri11 be equippecl trith fire sprinklers.
The entire project wiII have an approved fire detection
system.
Fire truck access r,ri11 be in accordance vrith Article 10,
Section 10.20 of the Fire Coder which reguires sufficient
space to turn a fire trucl< around. These turn arounds vrill
be reguired to be maintained, rnarked, signed and secured.
Turn around points are required vrhen the access road is in
excess of 150 feet from the public street.
Fire access roads wil I be a mininum of 20 feet vride and will
be reguired to be rnaintained free and clear of snow, parked,
vehi.cles , etc. .
Acleguate sno\{ renoval and snor'r storage shall be provided.
A water main shalt pass through the proj ect in such a manner
as to be looped and connected to the neighborhood distribution
system at tvro points. Fire hydrants are reguired to be
instalfed at designated locations.
I have net r.rith Sid Schultz and lrte came to the follot'ring
understanding and agreements regarding the project. These items
constitute conditions of approval by the Fire Department.
(
1.
)
?
t
t..
(\ I4EMO TO MTKE I4OLI.ICAVail Flre Departnent
Page 2
8. The design, use and operation of the day care center willconform to the National rlre protection Association LtfeSafety Code reguirernents and meet State llcenslngreguirements, whether licensed or not.
9. No wmd bnrrning flrepraces will be installed in any portionof the proJ ect.
10. Trash dumpsters shall be located a mi.nimum of 5 feet from anvcombustible structure as per the Fire Code.
(
L.
e
To: Town Council
From: Mike Mollica
Date: .tanuary l-2 , L990
RE: Faessler Realty
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their January8, 1990 public hearing reviewed the Faessler employee housingproject, proposed in Internountain. The PEC, by votes of 7'O'
unanimously recorunended denial of both the zone change request,
frorn Residential Cl-uster to High Density Multiple Family, and the
Special Development District overlay. The PEc made the following
findings with regards to the rnotions:
f.) Zone Change - Findings per Section 4,A of the staff
memorandurn, dated January 8, 1990.
2l sDD - Fi-ndings per Section 4,8 of the staff memorandum,
dated January 8, L990. It was noted that only one of
the nine design criteria !'ras met by the applicant.
I'lI it|UTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 16, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:Kent Rose, Mayor
Lynn Fri tzl en
Jim Gi bson
Merv Lap in
Robert LeV ine
Peggy 0sterfoss
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town AttorneY
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The first item was presentation of plaques of appreciation to the former
Councilmembers. Mayor Rose recognized each Councilmember of the last Council no
1<rnger serving, Eric Affe'l dt, John Slevin, and GaiI Wahr'l ich-Lowenthal , and
presented them each with a plaque honoring their service to the Town. Mike Cacioppo
was not present to receive hjs plaque. Eric, John, and Gajl thanked everyone for
their support, and wished the new Council good Iuck.
The second order of business was approval of the minutes of the December 26 and ?9,
1989 special meetings. There was no discussion by Councjl or the publjc. Merv
Lapin made a motion to approve the rninutes, which was seconded by Peggy 0sterfoss'
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
An Aquatic Center presentation by the Vail Metropolitan Recreation Distni ct was
next. Tjm Garton gave a brief review and update to Council and the public regarding
the proposed aquatic center. He reviewed the goals of the task force, and gave
chronologica1 background up to the present. Jim Morter, of Morter Arch'i tects, the
architect for the project, presented a slide show of the plans and discussed costs.
Tim and Jim then answered questions of Council and the public.
The fourth order of business was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1990, first reading, a
request for rezoning from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family with a
Special Development District for Parcel D, Stephens Subdivision. (Applicant:
Faessler Realty) Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Mike Mollica
gave an overview of the proposal , identified the location of the property, and
explained the zoning comparisons and criteri a used in evaluating the proposal . He
then explained why the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff recommended
denial . Sidney Schultz, architect for the project, gave a brief presentation
discussing height, density, zon'ing, and parking. Johannes Faessler spoke as to why
he felt the project should be approved. Mayor Rose responded to Mr. Faessler's
concerns. There was much discussion by CounciI at this point regarding the parking
and number of people impacting the site. Greg Stutz, representing the Meadow Creek
Condominium Association, stated they were not against employee housing, they were
against the rezoning request, and gave reasons why they were against it. Sue Dugan,
a member of the Vail Board of Realtors but not representing them, noted how the
stjgma of employee housing could affect the neighborhood. Patty Franke presented a
petjtion against the rezoning, and gave it to Mayor Rose. There was discussion
between CounciI and staff regarding sending the project back to the Planning anc
Environmental Commissjon instead of voting on it. Johannes felt there was no point
'i n going back to the PEC or working with the neighborhood without getting clear
djrectjon from the Council. Sidney gave additional remarks in support of the
project, to which Greg Stutz responded. Jjm Gibson made a motion to deny the
ordinance with the finding that since there has been no change in the neighborhood
conditions, or character of the area, a request for a change in the original zoning
should not be made. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. Eric Affeldt noted the Council
was looking at the broader issue of employee housing for the va1 1ey, and it was
critical that the employee housing study address what the prob'l ems are, and where to
locate housing. Peter Patten asked that the motion be amended to include the
findings in the staff memorandum of January 8, 1990. Jim amended the motjon and
Councilwas held on Tuesday, January 16' 1990,
of the Vail Municipal Building.
AE
Merv seconded. Peter Franke objected to the employee housing in the neighborhood
since it would be only for Faessler's employees. Peggy 0sterfoss suggested Johannes
use the Land Use Plan and input from the neighborhood to amend his plans. Diana
Donovan asked if Council could attend the PEC work session next time the project
comes up. Joe Eanhart explained the relatjonship between the Meadow Creek
Condominiums and this particular neighborhood. A vote was then taken and the motion
passed unanimously 6-0.
Item number five on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 1, Seri es of 1990, first reading,
regarding the Doubletree Special Development Distri ct No. 14. The full title was
read by Mayor Rose. Peter Patten gave background information regarding the
Doubletree project, reviewed revisions to the SDD, and then reviewed the SDD
cri teria and changes to the previously approved SDD requirements. He stated there
were no changes in development standards from the previously approved development
standards, and the staff recommendation was for approval . Peter also commented the
conditions of approval were unchanged from the ori ginal SDD. Peter Jamar,
representing Katzoff Resorts of Va'i 1, gave background information and reasoning for
approval of the project. Lynn Fri tzlen commented she was happy to see the addition
of guest services added to the hotel . Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve the
ordinance as written, which Rob LeVine seconded. Lynn amended the motion to include
the findings in the staff memorandum dated January 16, 1990, which Rob seconded. A
vote was taken and the motjon passed unanimously 6-0.
The sjxth item for consjderation was Resolution No- 2, Seri es of 1990, a reso'l ution
approving the Vail Village Master Plan. Peter Patten gave a brief presentatjon on
why there was a Master Plan, and reviewed the chronological background up to the
present. Tom Braun explained how the Plan would be used in the future. Peter then
covered, jn the staff memorandum dated January 10, 1.990, the changes to the Plan the
Council had requested. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution with the
changes made, which Peggy 0sterfoss seconded. Lynn Fritzlen commented on her
reservations of the Plan, to which Rob LeVine responded. Jim Gibson felt Council
should implement the Plan as a living document which could change if necessary.
Larry Lichliter, of Vail Associates, stated he was philosophically in agreement with
most of the document, but asked for another 30 days to review the fjnal document,
and have CounciI receive professional arguments with specific problems. After some
discussion by Council, Diana Donovan remarked the document had not changed since
November except for "mays," "shalIs," etc. and the PEC needed it for
decision-making. She continued that it made the PEC's work much easier and gave
reasoning why it should be passed now. Peter Jamar also requested that the plan not
be approved to allow for additional review time. Peggy Osterfoss stated she was in
favor of passjng it now, and Peter Patten agreed. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 4-2, with Lynn Fri tzlen and Rob LeVine opposed.
Action on the Michael Barber contract for the Village Transportation Center
expansion was next on the agenda. Larry Eskwith began with discussing the two types
of insurance available for Mjchael Barber to carry. He asked Counci'l which they
preferred, the regular insurance or project insurance, and explained the djfferences
.i n coverage and cost. After much discussion by Council and staff regarding
insurance, the actual architect contract, and owner's representation, Lynn Fritzlen
made a motion approving the contract contingent upon talking with the architect
regarding the Town hiring an owner's representative versus Michael Barber providing
an owner's representative from their own staff. After some discussion, the motion
was withdrawn. Rob LeVine made a motion to accept the contract with the architect
providing a full-time, seven days a week owner's representative for the Town if in a
reasonable time the Town cannot find an acceptable representative or cannot afford
one. Lynn Fritzlen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 6-0.
The eighth item was action on Town Attorney and Town Manager compensation. Mayon
Rose stated the Council had three employees, the Town Attorney, Town Manager, and
Municipal Judge. He added they were holding the Municipal Judge's compensation the
same as previous years, but extending his hours from 20 to 24 a week. Mayor Rose
also noted the Town Manager's and Town Attorney's evaluations came out as above
standard toward outstanding. He noted the last Council's recommendatjons were to
look at bonuses instead of pay increases, and recommended a $4,000 bonus (6%) for
the Town Manager and $3,000 (5%) for the Town Attorney. After some discussion by
Council, Jim Gibson made a motion to eliminate the bonuses and grant the Town
Manager a pay increase of four percent and the Town Attorney a pay jncrease of five
percent, and follow the recommendation of the last Council for increasing the hours
from 20 to 24 for the Municipa1 Judge. Rob LeVine seconded the motion. After some
discussion by Council and staff, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with
Merv Lapin opposed.
-2-
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
Respectful 1y submi tted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
I
1.
2.
VAIL TOI.IN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1990
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
Presentation of Plaques to Formel
Approval of Minutes of December 2
Meeti ngs
Counc'i lmembers
6 and 29, 1989 Special
7:30
7:40
7:45
Mike Mollica
9: 15
Peter Patten
9:45
Peter Patten
10:00
Pat Dodson
3.irst reading, a request
ter to High Density
Multip'le Family with a Specia'l D
Parcel D, Stephens Subdivision I
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny 0rdinance
@irstreading.
Background Rationale: The PEC, at their January 8, 1990
ffiimously reconmended denial (vote of 7-0)
of the request for a zone change to HDMF, and also
unanimously recommended denial of the SDD request (vote of
7-0).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation is for denia'l of
ffi the enclosed memo.
4. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990, first reading, regarding
the Doubl etree SDD 14
Actjon Requested of Council : Ap$rove/modify/deny 0rdinance
No. 1, Serjes of 1990, on first neading.
Background Rationale: The Doubl4tree Hote'l , SDD 14' has
@rry Katzoff , owner of several resort spa
hote'l s in the U.S. He wishes to construct the addition to
the hotel as prev'i ously approved, but change the uses to
accommodate the spa. See enclosed memo.
Staff Recommendation: Both PEO and staff recommend approval
ffiseries of 1990, on first reading.
5. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1990 1 a reso'l ution approving the
Vai I Vi 'l 'lage Master Pl an
. Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Resolution
No. 2, Seri es of 1.990.
Background Rationale: The Village Plan has evolved over the
ffitive particiiation from staff , the PEC,
the Council, and the public. Thg PEC recommended approval
of the Plan by a 6-0 vote. The dccompanying meno outlines
'two minor changes requested by the Counci'l at the January 9
lJork Session. Approval of this Reso'l ution will formally
adopt the Plan as a tool to be uied by the staff, PEC'
Council, and pub'l ic as the Village devd'lops over the next
decade.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2, Series ofFs_o.-
6. Aquatic Center Final Presentatioh by the Vai'l Metropo'l itan
Recreation District
Action Requested of Council: Hear the presentation on the
project. No formal action is requested.
10 130 7. Action on the Michael Barber contract for the Village
Larry Eskwith Transportation Center expansion
Stan Berryman
Action Requested of Council: Discuss the contract and ask
questions as desired.
Background Rationale: Staff has been negotiating with
Michael Barber to execute a contract fon architectural and
engineering services to develop construction plans and
specifications for the Village Parking Structure expansion
and renovation. Construction management serv'i ces are
included in the contract.
10:45 8. Action on Town Attorney and Town Manager Compensation
Kent Rose
1l:05 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
11:15 9. Adjournment
-2-
lnwn
75 louth tronlage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(3(B) 4792138
(3(B) 479-2139
To: fntermountain Residents
From: Connunity Developrnent
Date: December 1-3, fggg
RE: Faessler Realty ProjectResidential Cluster, to HighSpecial Developnent District
olflce of communlly developmenl
Department
- A request for a rezoning fron
Density Multiple Family, with a
for Parcel D, Stevens Subdivision.
The intention of this letter is to notify you that the abovenaned project has been scheduled for review by the Planning andEnvironmental Cornrnission on January B, L990. The public hearingwill be held in the Town of VaiI Municipal Buitding, in theCouncil chambers, and the hearing will begin at 3:OO PM.
This is the only notice you will receive. Should theapplication be further tabled to a later date, an announcementwill be made at the January 8th meeting. We appreciate yourinput regarding this proposal and hope that you stay involved.
(
.I
lo
Jurd i th Ccrrgisn hleber-
?6:i7 I'linnicki nnicl: Rl:ad
l"leador,.r Cr- e$ l: #4
Vai I , CoL nrado 81657
Decernber 6 , 19el?
F l anni ng Commission
Touln of Vai I
Vai 1 , Col orado 81657
Dear f,omrni ssi or-l l'lu.mbergl
I fiave been advi sed hy l"ls. Fobti i lierl t:
manages thei l'leadow Creell Condanrinir..tm A
that the Flanning Commiggion is congid
reaoning l and ad jar::ent tn onr propelrty
purpose o{ cunEtr-r..rct i. nrg ermp I oyee lroursi
Sonnenal.p Organi?aticln, I am beinq ad
the densi ty a.f hoursi ng wi I I i:e si gn i { i
i ncreased. I am not awaFe n.f the appr
procedLtres fer insuring a planned and
development. Siqlni.fir:antIy in{:r€}asiriq
in tlrat area wi l L have a{.lerc t orr parrki
capaci ty and property val urers, as NeI 1
envi ronrnental i gglreg.
I do not Ni sfr tt: be perrt m{ a prmb i. empart of a,n ansrwc?r'. I re,aline employee
is needed {or our va,l leyi hutt u on the
I cannot surpport increasing density pa
i rt thi g nei ghborhr:od wi thor-tt apprclpri a
congi derati ons o.f al 1 the i mnacts.
I str-ongl y crppose any qr-ri cf; ch;rnge i n
and I arn very eaqer tc bercr:me mor-c? i n+
{ acts go that I can par-t i c i pate i n mal;
i ndeoerndent and i nf ormpd derc i gi on .
I an arsl:i ng tvlsi. Sa.l Lrrnan to represent
at yoLrr next meetirrq in that I urill no
avai l abl e to attend.
I have I i ved i n Meardt:w Creti.rl: r;i nue 19{3
enjoy€d my re*i.dence* and I am very con
any ctranges in increaging ttrer desi'L,y w
appropri ate consideratictn of all the i
I rsourl d appreci aLe trei ng advi se,d as ta
trecome, rncre i n{ormed concerni nq thi.,s i
S:i nce-,rel y,
fjur- s;ctn
cc! Bobbi Sal t: man
356Cr Hinnicl: innick Ftoad, #FF
k*rP
an, who
sociaticn,
ring
for the
g 'f crr' {:he
i gecl that
antly
pr i ate
ens3ible
the clensi ty
9. bt-tg
6 othFr
lrt rather
h(]Lrl3i ng
'Lhelr hand ,ticurlarly
e
oning
rmed on the
ng an
y :i rrterest
be
n have
$r'n sid srhoLrt
thourt
gL{eF.
ht:w I can
$Lte,
illlrL \ ti.;er=,-
,W
Dec. II ,1989
2554 tarkspur IaneVail, Co. Bf65B Kv*4,1r
Dear Planning Mernber r
Ae longtlne reeidente of Internountain, we are concernedapgut the proposcd enployee housing for the Sonnenalp Hotel.This proJect solveo one Cmployer's-private houeing needs. Atthe eane tlne it is accordlng- to th- plan the lowest inconeplgJect in-Vail for lts proposed eize and cost of living. Wou1dthis be allowed to be built -in East Vail or along the golf courge?
Traffic ie a constant problem in Intermountaln and on theSouth Frontage Road. 0n our street alone there are ll children,L0 of whoo are under eight-year-old. Mothers and fathers must
now- "patrol' where their children can safely ride or walk. Motherswith young children nust dodge cars that abuse the speedlimit of 15rp!: trtlth the addition of a new park in Interrountain, more peoplewill be frequenting the roads. I; the town of Vail priparea io -
place a sidewalk to the park on Kinnicknick to the park? Withthe propoee{ {ay care' whlch will be used by ALL tha Sonnenalpi. emloyeesand the addition of say 100 nore residents,-what is this goingto do to our already bad traffic problem?
. .Theee-pr_opopep units have the potential of becoming an eyeaoreto the nelghborhoA.fn Avon, the Christie Lodge units, wEich aieprefab tralkn style , are at leaet 6OO squdre feet. Theseunits , which 80 percent will be 4OO squaie feet, violate bothheight and density reetrictions. Why Jhould these varianceebe waved to create an eyeBorb?
Ae single fanily homeownerB we are also concerned aboutproperty devaluation. One reason we bought our house in Intermountainwas because of the stabllity of the residents and the currentrevitallzation in the neigh-borhood. As longterm 'residents of rnter-nountaln, we view our neighborhood as a solid family community.The propoeed project wourd be made up of a transiiory pop uiation.The proJect also puts the neighborhood at an increaie- forcrlne.
For these reaeone, we urge the connoission not to approvelthe proposed project.
Sincerely,AIl4^d^re'#1"'JJu*s
'Jackle and-Tom Higgins
I i ll-.-{Xrnr Tkfff,^
\",
ft_lzt
Gnaxr, BpnNlno, Lvolrs &
ATTORNEYS AT LA\^/
5I5 KIMBARK STFI EET
POST OFFTCE BOX 97€
LONOMONT, COLORADO
Ga'pprs
WALLACE H. GRA NT
OAN IEL E B ER NARD
RICHARD N. LYONS, II
J EFFREY J. KAH N
H. WILLIAM SIMS, JR.
JOHN W. GAODIS
THOMAg J. OVERTON
SUZAN D. FRITCH EL
BRETT J. LAM B ERT
LONGMONT 1303) 776-9900
DENVER MErRO (303) s7 r-5506
TELECOPTER (303) 772-6 t05
\,
ELb
Kr-t*/ t/' t?'t7
OENVEF OFFICE
I8O I YORK STREET
DENVEFT, COLORAOO aoaoe
(3031 399-ll2e
December 8, 1989
Va'i I Pl ann'i ng Cormi ss'i on
City of Va'i]
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Proposal For Employee Housing At Intermountain
Dear Planning Commission:
I am the owner of Unit E-5, Meadow Creek Condominiums. llle strongly obiect to
the location of employee housing to the west of the Meadow Creek Condominjums.
The who'l e Intermountain Area is somewhat overcrowded already. The narrow
space between Interstate 70 and the mountainside needs as much open space as
remains. Any further apartments or other large structures wi'll have a
tnemendously negative effect on the aesthetics of the area. Any future
construction in the area should be I imited to s'i ngle family detached
resi dences.
I appreciate your consideration of this letter.
JJK: pkf
JJK\ADI,I IN.+L.VPC
,itt,:;iiiii.
&itiffii7 l testern Gas
W MarketingJ3 USA Ltd.
77
Ra4rr^;/ 12. z6'tr1
Suite 2230. LB 127
Plaza of rh€ Am€ricas
Dall6s, T6x6s 75201
(214t 954-1744
December 19, 1989
Rondall V. Phillips
P.0. Box 1322
Vail, C0 81658
Dear l4r. Phillips:
I have recently Iearned that the Sonnenalp Hotel has purchased the
property irmediately behind the "C" building at Meadow Creek jn West
Vail and have applied to rezone the property from RC to HDMF (High
Density Mu1ti Family) with a Special Development overlay, and plan to
build 50 units in two phases.
I strongly object to such rezoningl
I purchased my unit, Cl in Meadow Creek approximately 5 years ago both
for the qua1 ity of life in Intermountain and the investment potential .
This proposed rezoning will have serious negative impacts on both these
items. As you know the val1ey in Intermountain is very narrow and a
high density project will dramatically increase the pollution in this
sector of the val1ey. In add'ition, there are no adequate parking
faci'l ities for the existing owners let alone for the new project. The
increased traffic and noise from a transient population will have a
significant impact on both the property value and the rental income
from existing units.
When I originally invested in the Vail valley, one of the prime reasons
was because of the supposed premier qua'l ity management of Vail. To
change zonings in a residential community such as has been proposed is
damag'ing to both the image of Vail and to the investment cljmate for
the va11ey. It smacks of switch and bait tactics. I purchased the
property based on the sumounding zoning being maintained and I would
view any such change negatively, environmentally, legally and ethical-'ly.
I would like to be kept informed on all matters relating to this
procedure and I want the existing RC zoning for the Stephens
Subdivision Parcel D maintained.
Yours truly^,
6Z h.h^*^,
David G. Hanson
cc: Bruce Martindale/Godwin, Carlton & Maxwell
Craig Denton/Christopher, Denton & Sheahan [ )4,u
zwrc, NoBLE. O.O.S.. P.C.
EOWARO E. ZWIG. O.O.S.
DAVID A. NOBLE. D.D.S.
PERIOE ONTICS
SuITT 80t - D:CAYUR NOrfH PiOFESSIONAL BUILDING
75! @ltlMERCE ORIVE
OECATUh. GEORGIA 3@SO
R"ltel t'i'?o
TELEPHONE
374-1245
Decenber 21, L989
I'lr. Kent Rose, l'iayor
P.0. Box 2L20
Vail, Co. 81658
Dear IIr. Rose,
As a honeowner irr l,leadorareek I nust object to the proposed
zoning drange of the tuo acres adjacent to Stephens Park. I
donft feeL the proposed enployee housing rmits as proposed by
the Sonnenlap lbtel would benefit Intermountain. The proposed
developnent rrcuLd cause iacreased traffic, polution and noisein a Low to nredir.m density zoned area. We would f.ike to keep
our retirement hornesite in the area as the planning and zoning
corunission originall.y sited the area.
thank you for your consideration.
Copies: Plarming and Evirormental Colnnission;Town Corurcil ltlembers.
P.O. Box 2?6?
Vallr Colorado
81658
Decernber 6' 1989
Deparhnent of Comunlty Development
Vall Town Govennnent
75 South Frontage Road West
Vallr Colorado 8L657
Iadles and Gentlenreni
f have been a prcperty owner ln Tntermounaaln
reactLon to the proposed reaonlng of th
ras that lt ls totally lnappnoprlete for our nelghborhood.
Intennounteln property own €rst, 1nc1udlng nyseLf, have been conotait}y
upgredlng thetr propertles. I feel that we would all llke to soo our
cornnunfti upgradld rather than domgraded. It ls a fact that employee
houslng indTor low lncone houelng rdll create a trensient popul'etlon.
TrangLent populatlons ere knorm to breed crlne.
Houslng ts a problen ln our valley, there ls rea1ly no good place f6'r
hlgh denslty nrruLtl-fanrlly aonlng, and we certainly donrt want lt tn our
nelghborhood. Growth hal been far too ranpant es -tt Ls. _Why should we
further pol.lute and populate the narrowest part of the val'ley?
If any type of bulldlng on thls parcel be conslder€d at a111 the nunber
of units- ih ould be llnlted to resldential-cluster zone guldellnes. Arrther-
more, the btrlldlnge should be 1lm1ted to two storles, underground perklng
shouid either be mandatory or there shouLd be no parklng at aL1 to enoourage
btrs ridersh lp. The trafflc lmpllcatlons fortb.e development are horrendoust
wlth hundreds of addltlonal trlps a day belng generated tn the nelghborhood.
I hope you wlll uncondittoneJ.l-y deny the request for rezonlng of thla parcel.
Sincerelyt
fugr,fufi-t*fu)
Ellzebeth Kuehn
Rfc'oJAN - 5 1990
Mr. & DIrs. Paul R- Bartos
561 MorenoAvenue
LosAngeles, Ca 90049
2r3/39+t078
303/476-2269
January 3, 1990
Mr. Rondall y. pfuiltips, Town Manager
P.O. Box 1322
Vail, Co 81668
Deartrfr. Phillips:
We are distressed to learn Stephens Subdivieion, Parcel D has been purchased by the
Sonnenalp Hotel for the purpose of building 60 high density multi-family units. The parcel
is curently zoned for eight unite , consistent with the rest of the Intermountain
Community.
When we purchased our condominium in Meadow Creek, we specifically aeked and were
assured that no high density housing, no schools or day care centers, and no commercial
development would take place.
We support the concept of carefully plnnnsfl employee houeing and day care centers in
areas already zoned for such use. T'he Intermountain community ie a low density
reeidential area, and we strongly feel that it should be kept that way,
Kinds regards,
>+ b)u,*^&',bsQ-*4
tludy\fianen Bartos Paul R Bartos
Meadowcreek J4
Rosrnr M. Krxonu
2785 EALD MOUNTAIN ROAO . VAIL. COIORAIIO 81557
January
,w
l|En
4, 1990
Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
Box 100Vail, Colorado 81658
I would like to add my voice to the rising chorus of concerned
and outraged property owners opposing the development proposed
by Faessler Realty of Stevens Park in Intermountain.
I own Condominium Unit B-3, Meadow Creek Condominiums. Myunit will look directly into the back, the parking area, ofthe proposed development which I find offensive.
Particularly disagreeable to me is a letter from Kristan Pritz
dated October 19, 1989 wherein she states that the staff
recommends a rezone of the property to HDMF from Medium
R#TaenTT;l Zone, as it is designated in the Land Use Plan forthe area. Further, the staff recommends use of a Special
Development District designati6;-To-f;Eiease the density andtype of use. Since there is no HDMF zoning in IntermountainSubdivision, I find this recommendation for higher densityzoning not at al-l- in the interest of the neighborhood, and
something the staff should should not be recommending. Outward
appearances would certainly suggest an attempt to appease thepolitically prominent Faessler family and an effort to
accommodate Planning and Environmental Commission member SidneySchultz, who j-s the architect for the project. Having SidneySchultz design the project and present it to the Planning and
Environmental Commission, of which he is a member, should be
avoided.
I am under the impression that the staff and the Planning and
Environmental Commission have a duty to protect neighborhoodsfrom this sort of rape and pitlage type development. I thinkthat is the reason these bodies are created, It appears thatthe staff is in the Faessler corner on this. A recommendationfor rezoning of this kind by the staff I find particularly
inappropriate for this area.
RMK/meb ,
Ww
."4,*'
up.6, cordiaIIy,,'/dm^:((ia/
Rta.;--( t2'?'77
6 Decsnber 1989
Pfaruxing & Envirormental Cqrmission
Tor'n of Vail
!tunicipal Building
Vaj-I, Colo. 8]657
RE: Rezoring - Stevens Park Project - Intenountain
Gehtlqen:
This letten is to protest any rezoning of the pnoposed Stevens Park
roject ln Intermountain to "Hi-gh Density Multiple Family'' zcning.
I am aware that the develcpers plan to use this prcposed project fon
enployee housing.
While I personally welcrcnre any and all attenpts to prwide ftPlo!€e
Hqrsing in Vail, I strcngly lxotest this area for tte follo,ving reasons:
I. Tte pnoposed installatiqr of a day care center fon only far tr,o
bedrocnr r:nits pen ptnse is a farce. People who will live in a fq:r
hudred sqtnre foot unit do not have children....particularly in a ore
bedroctl apartrent. Ftrcing enrployees wtro have chifdred to live in a
400 s.f. nnit is sirnilar to migrant vlorkers guarters, certainly not in
keeping with the irnage of t|le Toun of Vail.
2. The day care center wiLl rnost certainly be used try outside perstrls
wtp do not live in the atrnrtrent hrildings. Despite what the developers
tell you, otten anrployees or enployees living in Edruards ard otten out-Iying
areas will be encouraged to irse this facility. Ttre area is certainly not
zoned for cqnrercial use and ttre allcnnring of a day care facility will be
cganencial.
3. TLre fire departrent wilt rpt have sufficient rocrn in the errent of
a fire to brjJtg their eguigrent in to senvic'e ttris new faciliLy-
4. Ttre street (Kinnilinnid<) should not be hrrdened with fifty additional
cars Or mqre. Currently, v,e tpve pgor traffic rounding ttre road leadirg
cn to tte bridge frqn unit E of l{eadc'vt Creek cordo, and adding fifty c
npre cars to this area entering the South FYontage road will create a
trazard to traffic.
\
rzlzb
sAli li0lt$IntfEn0il lioMP[]tY, illi_
sor otD souTli omE H6flw Yntul . RoR|oA3]lg6rlElEPlloc G67S
P.O. SX 660175/ lrl lfl 3l5a
5. By eliminating the need for covered parking, this area r,aill
lod< like a lovr rent housing district. If you do allow this rezuring,
1ou must centainly insist on correred parking (a minimlun of one perunit).
6. Alttrough ycu may have sqre assurances fran Sonnenalp that theywill openate a van, what cqlld happen 1f an employee leaves the
epfo1lrtent of Sonnenalp or if Sonnenalp happens to go out of busiress.
We wiII be teft with an unthinkable parking situatiqr.
7. Ttte maxinnm height restrictiqrs strqrld not be arerded so as to
create a visual obstructiqr to the other units west of ttds area.
8. The air pollutiur created hry ttr"is proposed carplex is carpletely
unacceptable to me ard to all of the tenants and ormens surror:ndingthis cunplex.
What you are ceating here is a rrenace ard an eyesore. Ttre Town ofVail centainly does not need. to have enrployee hcnrsing in this area,paticularly ilhen tlrere is so mrrch urrused strnce rnnttr Of Ir70 that
can be utilized.
I trust 1lou will take al"I of this into considenaticnr and deny this
$ti li0ltslnulillllil l![MP[]tY, ilc.
sol O{O SO(JTH DAE Hc}ifl Y/ Mlllrl. RORIOA g]166 r lEl€PHq\E €47.ff
P.O. AOx 5€0'175 / Mulll 3315C
Vail, Colo. 81657
rl
DON C. PEETE and ASSOCIATES, lNC.
Mortgage Bankers and Financial Consultants f-r-l t,t1
RepresentinS Major Life Insurance Conrpanies
w. t. IMBREE, MAt (1902-1987)
DON C. PEETE. MAl. President
KENT L. WOOTTN, RM, SRA
EDWARD L. STEVENS
JACK W. ROBTSON
WII.LIAM W. MANTZ
December l3r 1989
7301 Mission Road, Suite 209
Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66208-3@5
913-831 -2115
Vail Planning and Environmental CommissionVailr Colorado 81557
Re: Intermountain Employee Housing Project
Dear Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission:
f vtas surprised and shocked to read in the December 81 1989
"Vail Trail" that a plan is proposed to change the zoning in
fntermountain to al.low for a high density housing project ostensi-
b1y to provide Low cost housing for people employed in the Vail
Va11ey.
First, 1et me sayr low cost housing is not, a problem limited
to Vailr but every city in the United States and throughout the
world has a need for cheaper places t,o Liver and except for
government subsidj zed projectsr economics nust be the controlling
factor in deciding when and if a project is affordable for the
community, the developer and the tenants.
It is blatantly unfair to a person who buys a unit believing
the property will be protected by the current zoning in the neigh-
borhoodr and then find out, later the zoning can be changed down-
ward and the value of the property is adversely affected. If
this is the caser your zoning codes should be discarded and open
\\
tndividual Memberships: American lnstitute o! Rea, Estate Appraisers . Mo BaEe Bankers Association ol America\ I
Meuopolitan Kansas City Eoard of Realtors . lohnson Couny Eoard of Realtors -t lU Zb
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
December 13r 1989
Page 2
zoning allowed (like in Houston) so when a person buys a unit he
can bid a price that anticipates a lower qualit,y neighborhood in
the future.
There is plenty of land available in Lhe general area of
Vail to provide all the lov cost housing needed. The problem is
t,he land is not in quit,e as convenient location ag Vail Valley.
rf the first construction in a neighborhood is low cost housing,
then it is up to the buyer to decide if he wants to buy a unit
next to the project and the price can be set accordingly. How-
€v€Er if the neighborhood is established firstr then it is not
fair or economically sound to allow construction of a project,
whi.ch ultimately hurts the entire area.
The case against low cost housing in an esLablished neighbor-
hood is purely economics because:
1. Cheaply built units deteriorate more rapidly than well-
construct,ed buildings.
2. Low rent units generat,e low income which provides litlle
or no money to the orrner to maintain the property and get,
a return on his investment.
3. There are no ovner tenants so there is no pride of owner-
shipr so many tines t,he units both inside and out become
eyesores.
4. often t,here is very little discipline among the tenants
and many times they have little regard for the feelings
and the rights of their neighbors.
vail Planning and Environnental Commission
Decernber l31 1989
Page 3
5. High density in a residential neighborhood adversely
affects value because of t,he increased congestion. The
reason for the Lower density zoning in the first place
was because the planners recognized the adverse affect of
higher density use.
Vail is the prettiest lit.tle mountain town we have ever seen
and we fove to visit vail and st,ay in our unit in rnterlochen-
The planners have done a wonderful job in cont,rolling develoPment
both architectural.ly and economicallyr and as a resul't we have
seen values stay strong through the years. Please do not make
the mistake of starting a trend to make exceptions to the rules
that, have worked guccessfully for the last 25 years- Please help
keep Vail a st,rongr vibrant town where the owners and buyers knolt
we can depend upon the enforcement of zoning and all the other
laws that are currently on the books.
Thank you very much.
DCPlbb
P. S.
Peete
+ - rd+rrai*.r:..*..r;r,iir8ffutrrcr
S IGllA.TUNN PRII'IT NAivlIl AG l'li,llllJi)lr)'1, Al)r)tlli)ljij DATE
, LI:LP
t /ii,
' vrr' lfre undersigne{ incl.ivigYtl*1 ar:c highl'y oppor;erl Lo bhe rezon ing
:l-itiffi}f,i;i'xiili:^.''l'|'i'l'n3'u|l]"l}ii.'..ip"r
i.lr:rid;.r;l , Town o, viii'r"c*oio""trotr''ir;m rcsidr:rtti:r 1 -r:fustcr zone Lo
iiit,rt-c..nsfty multiple-family zone'
This r:ezoning worrld def initely aff cc l' or.rr qll'llil'i -of 1illc '
A f ew of the reasons we are opposeti to tlre rczolll ng:
traff ic congestionr- !r?lsi""t o""i1'"tt"v ' : -clrop' in real-estate pr:operty
v,rl.ue, noise arrO p6ttrrtion, u fo"il''ui""o'nirle.iLiotr crf the presetrt
71rriing, askinp; '"ti.'!""'i;i !t;t "ttin""ii par:kin1' -having buildings
hiRirer than wnar is allowbd irl reliouni'i"r .ltrrri' r'' .ltrd having a
cr)mmercial enterpti""^(Jtv-"""" ,""iLi'') ir' l'r'i.:,.'])';"'l'he road into tirc
ar-r_.,;r is not aoeqii"i"
- tJ aLco,.,rnahte "r"i'fl,,n"v
velr i nl c's' . The traf f j c
congesttion in ilti!-"iu"ia""tiot area-woutrl bb ptetronlsnal '
5, r',
7qt
'-? i
,. | '
,-- .' l, u-
ovtq('...1..:-..)
c5
?.,r_'
L^;(!q-lr: ,-l 3 -r
' ,' i| '"| "i[!:;
._ --"J\l- AG
12\-auLJ,"',
tJ )
,'rW#*;Rt,
I
.. J-t
Dcc >-
-/ ,' /, /"t | ,.r \ -, .l
_-r-{ -^- - l.-' s-.
,/n
iK -,k!..-Q-''. 1\l
t
./.
., li";ii;#'t;il i?i;;.;";;;;;i-; ii;; ii"3'"" "u'
i'+'?"1, ?r. Il"J. I!le tbe undersigned individual-sr are trighly opllgu:1 lo-lh:-luzoning
ii tnl-n"ngt 81 west-of the 5th Prlnclpal
trcr,idan. Town of V"ill-C-"ioiaao,I' irom iesldential -c1uster zone toiil' 1e"$;"r;;; ;i'v"iil"i;'"io'uao,'i i"o' iesldential -cLuster zone to
high-deirslty multlple-family zone.
'l'tris rEzonlng would deflnitely affect our quilltty of 1lfe'
A l'ew of the reaErons we are oppoeed to the rezoning:
t,rliff1c congestion' tranelent occupalcY, a.{"op, in reaL-estate property
vrlrre, nolse anO pifiuiil", " fack'oi conglrteration of the present
;,;;i;;r--;;t ine to-bu-u*"*p! from covered parkln61, having buildtnge
I ir,her than what 1s allowbd ln residential cluster. and having a
c(,rn,nercial enterp"i""-(J"V-care p;;;;;i-fn ttrfs. ar6a.The road tnto the
ilrra ls not adequ"t"- t" a"ccominchU': "t""gu"cy vetricles ' The traff lc
..ie""li;;"-r" itris reeraentlal area wouid be phenomenaf'
S I GNATIJREfl PRINT I{AMD AGE STREET A}DRESS DATE
' (/i,.J /)
)rt',
'.'t [ /ttj
:/757
',rl
J 't(, -/>
4
'i, t/!'/
.,,),),,
:- ..:---r'-'t -d;_*,-.:/r/t'<2'tt', t{/>.,.
\-
-v7
C>/'zu*,
i.tl lL.rr.:r..r
U
>a
r,r/1 i."/)1 ,=?'t') ///t)/4,11
. \'Je tlre undersigned indlvitlualsl are high.l y oJrJrosed to the rezotting
of i.jtephens subdlvislon Pgrygf--u 'also tnown'an'i'A Part of the N l
si th, Range e1 Wtlb-of the 5th Prlnclpal
rll"lii"i'-i;;; of'va1L, coioiado,t' from iesldentiaf -cluster zone to
trlgh-denslty multlple-family zone.
This rezonlng would deflnitely affect our qua1il;y of lIfe.
A j'ew of the-reasons we are oppoeed to the rezorrlng:
braifle congestion, translent-bccupancyr p,l"op. in real-estate property
;;i;;;-";iJE anO p6llutlon, a lack- of condlrieral;j.ott of ttre present
,oningr-""tfng to'be exernpi; from covere<t parklnll , having bulldings
Iti;h;;'than wfrat ls allow-ed ln residential clusl,er' al9 having.a.
"oiirn"r"i"1 enterprf"" (a"y-care,center) 1n ttris 4rea.The road lnto the
arna ts not adeqiate td abcomtncblc emer*ency ve1 ie1es. Ttre traffle
"otrg""tlon in thls resldentlal area would be ptrr:nomenal.
S].C}IATURE ?RINT NAME
/l
kl ro:
AGS STRIIET A])]JI1ESS
'6et 7t acl
DATE
rr.L r,.) r-) rcF-+-,. ,n-t b9
ig[4tnlaJr +cs, tq f,,i
t ,/ 8'l.,fO!
(o*l
rurJ
,roYl
t?, ,l
q $'l
19',l
:t ttlaCr'c<. /c', lf 11
!c- /O
,i(
1
D/L}t lt
t-'it N,p tc'rt 1
rr'l<.\l\'
a\
,y', i
((s/
1)Fd /a i7;i'i
t t'fjA'l
,rr''' ltt
y ir'l
.,.x\\" '
/tJ'
lr, /)^,rr,r,Li1 lct lLrrr rtc lL !tt' '26/'' " l"i'ttt|l'"'rirt[< tl0 l)(t''ll"l4E'l
Lv e tr' , 1'1 ?'J
I r1'.;'\
lq s'l
tlrnla t,' ,?1 t,, rrf ll
S\. th, Range e1 Wllt-of the 6th Princlpal
I4eridaii, Iown of Vall, Coloradorrrfrom residerrtial -cluster zone to
' Vre tlre undersigned indivlduals, are higtrly opl)()sed to ttre rezoning
of Sbentrens Subdliisiotr Parcel U l]so knowp'as- i'A Part of the N *
hlslr-denslty multlp1e-famlly zone.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME AGD STR.ljlHll Ai)l)lliisS DATE
'I'his rdzonlng would def inltely affect our qual il:v of llfe.
A few of the reaEons we are oppoeed to the rezotrjng:
tr.itf'I ic congestlon, translent occuprncJ r a droyr i n reeil-estate pr:operty
value, nolee and pollutlon, a l-ack of confJider:ill;j.orr of ttre presetrt
zonin!, aoking to be exernpt from coveretl parki.trg, havilg buildlngs
highei-than w[at ls allowed ln resldenLial c]usl,er'' alp havllg.a.
commerclal enterprlse (day-care,center) irr ttli$:rrea.lhe road lnto the
arca |s not adequate to abcominoctt{e emerf,ency vehi.el es. Ttre traff lc
congestlon ln this resldenttal area would be pltcltomenal".
LLLI.-,
,\g2l
(\'s-(o l,l,
t L.'),1'1P'
tz -?-r'j
c ( Srlc.cRe 2R
Tt {' 442'zlt+aa /6 L 7.r,,
rqq i:!+ |
"tetri -4-*
4,t*l'J"*, -r tg. hL/",/h -
/,-
. f,' tl t!,{e/ 4,y4,
le,t2 Ff
(2
G
j'l39DN,cVrNre ->r
.T, :: t!Ir:_r ;_.
SICNATIME
"-.--..'7
This rdzoning would defl;itely affect our qualil'v of life'
A few of the reasons we are oppoeed to ttre rezotrin6S:
trafflccongestlon'transtentoccup",,"y.aclrop.jnrea]-eetatepropertyvalrier nolae and p61lutlon, " r""il'ii"concrraorirl;i on of the present
zorlrrg, aoklnpl totii-"*"rft r"or'"ouote,i park i tt1i, havitrg buildlrtgs
ht,rlrer than what rs alrowbd in res ia"ntiti cl usl;e'r. attd havln* a
comrnerclal enterprlse (day-ctt" p"ti";i^;; nr-i1..1rea'The road-into the
area is not adeqirate to ""corino*ile "tu"gen"y vehicles. The traff ic
congestlon ln ttris'-resldential area wouid bb pltt:nomenal-'
1-l
IRINT I.IAME AGJi SI]REIJT AI)I)iIIiISS DATE
'.:
("tI/...t Fi-..
Cc,trl i e,
'nlPt
tft /.1 i
RrVIt'cc,-
5HAIZI *tq?, (;, Froltf&tte')
bcE5E
,i\t t-1:r.11
/t a-L Lt L*LL
lnet d (44,
/iP
,:,6 ),
I((:
-/.('l
,;, '
'(g,6,ts i- ltltclfl
=*
tt
/a-D$)
86A
{'/
rz/ irf,ry
it?( 1
'x(d,l
65'j
r>htly,
l+
Z{d tlttr 7/,Ufui;(/a '1/
:r-l
. lre the undersigned individuarl-sr are trigtrJy oI)l)o$e(l to the rezorring
of' ljLerrhens Subdtvision Parcel ) also knowri as- i'A }'rrrt of the N I
Sh th , Range 81 Wo.'r L o f the 6 th Princ lpal
Irterldan, fown of Vail, Coloradortr from resiclenti-al -chrcter zone to
hlgh-denslty multlple-famlly zone.
llhis rdzonlng would def lnitely aff ect our qu:r1 il;y of 1ife.
A few of the reasrons we are oppoeed to the rezorring:
trafflc congestlon, translent oceupancy. n drop in reaL-estate property
vai,ue, noiae and po1lutlon, a Lack of condidet':l1; i.t.ltt of the present
zoning, asking to be exempt from covered park i trl': , tt;rvirrg bulLdiltgs
higher than what ls alfowed ln residential clusl,er', artd havlng_a.
eommercial enterprise (day-care ,center) 1n this area.The road into the
area ls not adequate to accominctrte emerflen(:y vetr ieles. Tlte traff lc
eongestlon ln thie resldentlal area would be phnnomenal-.
PRINT NAMII AGJ'sTltlitllll A | )lJluilsl;DATE
L{, t(h'ap!W'AlVlih
e(
f€el r
\1i, / \| \1-','
/e;o
(-/ '.
| '-) |
__.1
. t/,/)
/,'{0 'liz ,, /i' tt
( .,Li'r
| ('/._t /L- /l
r]LL
Scv qo le{1
[-'
?,;
',r" tll
138&-
)-u 1,.'i t t
;q
JX-aJ'u1)
, vte tlre unriersigned indivi<i ualsl rrre hi61h1.y opl)osed to Lhe rezotting
of .i l,enhens Subdiilslon ParccL Ll illso kni,wri'as- i'A l)art of the N lll..th,llange91wl'tL-oftlre5thPr1nc1pa1tq"rjiiaii, Town of-Vai1, Coloratlorrrfrom rcsltlerttjal -cluster zone to
lr j 1'h-dens lty multlple-fam1ly zone .
'l'lris r€zonlng would def lnitely aff'ect our qual il;y of 11fe.
A f ew of the reasons we are oppoeed to ttle rezottittpl:
braflflc congestlon, translenb oceupancyr a clroP in real-estate property
val ue, nolse and pollutlon, a lack of concJtder:al; ion of the presetrt
zgnlng, asklng to- be exempt from covered park ltrll , having buildltrg,s
higlrei- than what is allowed in resident,ial clusl;er, a!9 having.a.
commercial enterprlse (day-care ,center) tn tlis area.The road into the
alea ls not adequate to abcomincht'e emergent:y vetr ie1es. ftre traff ic
congestlon ln thie resldentlal area woultl be pht:nomenal.
S IGiIATURE ?RINT NAME AGO sTRli)rf At)DltF'lss DATE
, -)()s-
lt
(',,tr.rI
(-/.,;
tl
Q) ./?/ ".t'
/,;;
.) \r'/
,'!
i if : ,
/.1 j -lll,/; l
(-/ ,) /
'?)_l| .x t-.Ii:iz..LJt 6
z tu:Tl 6
<' f, >'VA'L (Q
Ir)
]L
lDoA ri if; :31.,')t ),>l"fl.n:larp P6J t^A,
Vre t[e undersigned inrllvlduals1 are hiSh]y t-rpJrosed to the rezotting
of Stenhens Subdlvlslon ParceL D aLso t<nowri'as'i'A -L';rrt of the N l
it th, Range 81 Wosh-of the 6th Prlnelpal
ii,.i'il"ilr-Town of'Vail, 0oioradorrr irom iesldenttal -cluster zone to
tr iplr-denelty multlple-famlly zone.
Thls r€zoning would deflnitely affect our qualit;y of Llfe.
A few of the-reaEong we ale oppoeed to the rezonjnS:
trirffic congestlon, translent occupancy. a drop in real-estate property
"atue, nolsE and p61lutlon, a lack of concllder:al; iorr of the present
""r,iii:, asttng to'be exernpf, lrom covered park i-trft, havtng buildlttgs
t igt"i'than wfrat is allowed in resldential c.lusl;er'' olg_h1111e":1.^
"or."r"lal enterpii"" (O.y-eare penter) in tiris; area.The road irrfo the
ar"^ |s not adequate to alcominchlc emernency vehieles. ftte trafflc
congestlon ln thle resldentlaL area would be Pltt:nomenaf.
$ 1(i NATURE
I
?RINT I'IAME AGE STITlI}TT AI)IJtIIISS DATE
7 x')I
rq8?
,'9lal
q77A,rw lhlkt
2t')L,.c<s "i3
,&
\l;e tlre undersigned lncilvldua1a-1 are highl.y op;rose.d !o !h?, rezoning
"r i;;";ii;"J"i""tiiii+s" '*;;;;i-'t ;i;; ["1,"n'""' i'^ P'rt. or- ]!re-r. *
;U th, Range 91 wllt-of the 6th Princlpal
ilirlddi. Town of 'V"if , Coioradorrr irom iestclential -cluster zone toi4er, lf own of Vail r Co
h lgh-dens lty multlple-famlly zorte.
Tiris r€zonlng would deflnitely affect our qualit;y of fife.
A few of the-reaaons we are oppoeed to the rezortlng:-tr,tiifc-congestion, translent-oceupalcJ. a.{top. in reaf-estate property
value, nolse ana-p6ffutlon, a lack-of condlderat;i.on of the present
;;;i;;,-';s[ing- io-te exernpi, from coverert parkt'y1, havlng bulldlngs
;t;;;;'ttran-wffat ls allowi:d in residential clust;er', alq naving.a,
commerclal enterp;i";-(j;t:"tt"-,"."ni"") in this. area'The road into the
;;;; is not adeqi.rate to ";"orir.ph[e emergency ve5 j.e]es. The traff 1c
"oirg""if;n ln thie restdentlal area would be plttrtrontenal .
SIGNATURE ?RINT I'IAME AGJI STltlilliT
;.1
l,6..:.' ' ';=J'j-t L- ' '^ :' .' ;/
A I)])IiJi)SS DATE
7
To THE T0!.lN 0F VAIL PLANNING C0MMISSI0NI
AFTER REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PLANS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY YOUR DEPARTMENT I A}{ VERY CONCERNED
TIIAT THE cHANcEs rN i6rlirlc BEING coNSloeRED enn NoT IN rnn nsir INTEREST oF INTERMoUNTAIN
nisrunnrs AND THE TowN oF vArL'
0FHAJoRcoNcERNToMEARETHECIIANGESINTIIEALLoWABLEHEIGHToFTHEPRoPoSEDBUILDING.
48 FEET OF HEIGIIT "OUiIMAKE
TITIS STNUCiUNN iTNT{O OUT' OBVIOUSLY NOT CONFORMING WITII
THE EXISTING BUITDIN;;. TTTTS STRUCTURE.;iiUT'O_NN VISABLE FROM MOST PROPERTIES IN TIIE
INTERMOUNTAIN AREA Iii.WOUiN SEVERLY OTUiTiiTT iTTN VTNWS OF NEIG}IBORING PROPERTIES'
sEcoNDLY'CITANGESINTHEPARKINGREQUIREuENTSwoULDDETERIORATETHELANDSCAIIIGTHATwoULDHAVE
BEEN REQUTRED FOR e"suiiorNC OF Tnrs srin.- -io uNrrs woulD nuQurnu TuE PARKTNG PROPOSED
rF Nor MoRE, AND rF rnE rowN ALLotrs tii-NullsrR oF PARKING ;;ilil io sr nroucED rllERE DEFINETLY
WILLBEAMAJoRpnosI,EMWITHcARswrnc-ronLIMITEDNUMBERorpenrrrlcsPAcEs.'.wE}IILLFIND
THEM PARKTNC On rne-iinrii nro or.| p*tvetu-iinoprnrv' covERED PARKING rs ESSENTIAL'
TIIIRD,THETo!|NMASTERPLANsTATEsTHATTHISPRoPERTYsHoULDBEDEVELoPEDToA'NI]MBERoFUNITS
THAT IS ROUGTILY rrAr,i-ijr WHET IS BEING PTO.POiNO. ZONING T'EWi ENN ENACTED TO KEEP DEVELOPED
pRopERTy rN LrNE wrin wmr rS BEsr surrno-ron rner "oao"o*l
li-vgr' APPR6ACIIES BUILD OUT' IT
rs ESSENTTAL rru,r wn'-roir,ow zonrnc *nqui*rllnmi N.ro surlo rnesu PROPERTIES lllrH THE BEsr
INTEREST Or ALL PUOPr'i-iHIt WILL BE OT'Tii-iO- IIOD NOT GO BY TI{E WISHES OF THE DEVELOPER'
EMPLoYEEHoUSINGISoBvIoUSLYAMAJORcoNcERNToALLEMPL0YERSINBoTHVAILANDBEAVERCREEK'
pERt{Aps, !{E s*oulD sEE !{HAr "r"" ruo"ui-iiiiri rnr oru*0""i"6r-ruror'vrE HglllNG IN rEE EDWARDb
AREA, WHrcn rr r"r"-rn-r'ocl'reo to sn*vn-utn-nouirnc nnros or-rnnss Newlv CREATED JOBS' BEFORE
I.'EDETERIORATETITEQUALITYOFLIFETNTTTSINTERMOUNTAINNEIGEBORHOOD'
PRoPERTYVALUESI{ILLoBvIoUSLY'BEREDUCEDBYALLOWINGTI{E_REZONINGANDTIIEREFoREALLoWINGA
COMPI,EX OF TIIIS TYPE. MANY RESIDEN'S iiiN-TTiO_iO OMI WTTii"E-iUNSTANTIAL LOSS OF PROPERTY
VALUE ALREADV, Er,r,.OWiNG' igN NNZONTNC WiUiiO i;iTNTN'TT'T'V BE INSULT TO INJURY '
VERY CONCERNED'
\ ..--irrri"-f k;.J-.z--
DANIEL J. FREDERICK
V^;l Uq h"^,".(.
% 1n1, P"Mr'Q,w,,ln'il ,i"x*rr;;* oe'"+f
U r,4 , C), .( " tL5?
t2-11-8q
tl
'l*o
ORDINANCE NO. 2
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REZONING A PARCEL OT I"AND LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS PARCEL D, STEPHEN,S SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE
AMENDED PI,AT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 19, ].985 IN BOOK 409, AT PAGE
160, AS RECEPTION #305440, WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS
OFFICE FROM RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER TO HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY AND
ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 24 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHAPTER ].8.40 OF THE VAIL UUNTCIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS
IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter l-8.40 of the VaiI Municipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage
flexibility in the development of land; and
V|HEREAS, application has been rnade for Special Developrnent
District approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town
known as a parqel of land legally described as Parcel D, Stepehen's
Subdivision, according to an amended plat recorded with the Eagle
County Clerk and Recorders Office to be known as Special Development
District No. 24, commonly referred to as the Faessler Realty
Property; and
WHEREAS, application has further been rnade to rezone a parcel of
Iand J-ega1Iy described as Parcel D, Stephen's Subdivision, according
to an amended plat recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders
Office frorn Residential Cluster to High Density MultiPle Farnily in
order to allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for
Special Development District No. 24; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.L4o, the Planning and
Environmental Commission on January 8, 1990, held a public hearing on
the proposed zoning arnendment and the proposed SDD, and has subrnitted
its recornmendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section l-8.66.080 bave been
sent to the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town council has held a public hearing as required
by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
oF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section L.
The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning
amendment as set forth in Chapter l-8.65 of the Municipal Code of the
- l_-
-l
Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and a1l other requirements of
the Municipal Code of the Town relating to zoning amendrnents have
been fully satisfied.
Section 2.
The Town Council hereby rezones the property more particularly
described as Parcel D, Stephen's Subdivision, from Resj.dential
Cluster to Uigh Density lilultiple Farnily with a Special Developnent
District overlay.
Section 3.
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for
Special Developnent Districts in Chapter l-8.40 of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
Section 4.
The Town Council finds that the development plan for Specia)-
Development District No. 24 meets each of the standards set forth in
Section 18.4o.OBo of the Municipal- Code of the Town of Vail or
dernonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or
that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has
been achieved. In accordance with Section L8.40.040, the development
plan for Special Developrnent District No. 24 is approved and Special
Development District No. 24 is hereby approved for the property
described in Section 2 above. The development plan is cornprised of
those plans subnitted by Sidney Schultz - Architect AIA, and consists
of the following documents:
L. Architectural Plans designated as Sheet Alternate rrArr, and
sheets 1--9, dated December 2!, 1989'
2. Landscape Plan drawn by Dennis Anderson Associates, rnc,,
dated November l-8, L989, revised December 6, l-989.
Section 5.
The development standards for special Developrnent District No.
24 are approved by the Toltn counciL as part of the approved
development plan as follows:
A. Density Control
Total density shall not exceed 48 dwelling units and not
more than 20,600 sq.ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area
shall be permitted as indicated on the plans set forth in
Section 4 of this ordinance-
-2-
.L
B. Setbacks
Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth
in Section 4 of this ordinance.
c. Heiqht
nuilding heights shaLl be as indicated on the elevations
set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance.
D. Coveraqe
Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan set
forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
E. Landscapinq
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally
indicated on the prelirninary landscape plan set forth in Section 4 of
this ordinance.
F. Parkinq
Parking dernands of this development shall be as indicated
on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
e. Enployee Housinq Restriction
A11 dwelting units shall be restricted pursuant to Section
18.l-3.080 (8,10) of the vail ttlunicipal Code.
Section 6.
Following are conditions of approval for Special Development
Dist,rict No. 24:
1. The uses allowed under Special Development District No. 24 with
the underlying High Density Multiple Family zoning shall be lirnited
to:
A. Multi-fanily residential dwellings.
Retail businesses are specifically not allowed as a use with
Special Development District No. 24.
2. Any landscaping, as indicated on the site plan set forth in
Section 4 of this ordinance, that dies within 2 years of installation
shall by replaced with a sinilar size and type material by the
property orttner.
Section 7.
Amendments to the approved developrnent plan may be granted
pursuant to Section 18.40.1-OO of the VaiI Municipal code.
-3-
,J
Section 8.
If any part, section' subsection' sentence, clause of Phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision
shaLl not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences' clauses or phrases by declared
inval id.
Section 9.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health'
of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 10.
declares that this
safety and welfare
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of
VaiI Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shal1 not affect
any right which has accrued, any duty inposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
-4-
.'\
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS
-
dAY Of
-,1990, and a public hearing shall be heLd on this ordinance on the
day of , f99O at 7:30 p.n. in tlre Council
Chanbers of the Vail Munlcipal Building, Vail , Colorado.
Ordered published in full this _ day of , 1990.
Kent R. Rose, llayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED
this _ day of , 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Toldn clerk
-5-
PresentifnrEre
Diana Donovan
Chuck Crist
Kathy Warren
Jim Shearer
Connie Knight
Dalton Williarns
Planning and Environmental Conrnission
January 8, 1990
Minutes
Staff
Peter PattenKristan Pri-tz
Mike Mollica
Shelly Mello
Anne Jansen
Betsy Rosolack
The Planning and Environurental Conmission neeting began at
approximately 1:00 p.n. following the Site Visits which began at
1L:00 a.m.. The neeting was called to order by Jim Vie1e,chairperson. First on the agenda were two work sessions which are
briefly described below:
Garden of the Gods Work Session:
Kristan Pritz opened tie rneeting with a Work Session on the Garden
of the Gods. She reviewed the entire proposal and then opened the
floor for public conment. First to reply was Pam Hopkins, an
architect with Snowdon, Hopkins, gave a brief background on how
the current project came about back j-n t986, basically saying that
since that time, the Lodge needed to update and change their
accommodations to fit the needs of the Vail comrnunity. In 1987-
88 the Lodge cane to the conclusion that sinple trBand-Aidrr
repairs would not be enough and thus this proposal emerged.
Overa11, the discussion touched on the following topics of most
concern to the staff should this project materialize:
View Corridor - staff was concerned that this would be
significantly interrupted.
Parking Problens - the new building would need to allow for
adequate parking underground. A1so, they would lose two
spaces fron Vail Val1ey Drive to Town of Vail right-of-way.
Sidewalks and Landscaping - Because Vail Valley Drive is a
main thoroughfare to other lodges and lifts, the rebuildingof the Garden of the Gods would have to work around the fact
that new sidewaLks would be going in on either side of the
road and special landscaping to make the area very attractive
would have to be considered.
Overall, the staff felt that the proposal was reasonable with
special attention given to the GRFA and density, sidewalks and
landscaping, and the issue of number of restriced units versus
ernployee units in the construction of the new Lodge.
Work Session of the Marriott Mark Resort:
The second Work Session was presented by Peter Patten which
covered the proposal of construction of 67 vacation ownership
condominiums adjacent to the existing Marriott. The general view
of this proposal- was negative considering the following factors:
1. The nehr addition would be too close to the bike path
2. The addition is going to be built on the ]ast available
qreenspace
3. The 5 ft. setback is not good long-term planning
The floor was opened for questions and cornrnents with Peter Jamar,
a land planning consultant for Vail, beginning. overall, Peter
stated the advantages the new addition would have such as how it
would strengthen the area between the Marriott and the Gondola,
the connection to the current West Day Lot for parking purposes,
the increase in popularity of tirne share property of which the new
addition would help pronote, and finally the extensive landscaping
and sidewalks which would take place not only to add to the beauty
of the surrounding area but to allow a connection for skiers to
other pedestrian walkways up to the Gondola.
Mr. John Sweeny of the Marriott basically reiterated Peter's
comments concerning the time share advantage and the fact that
presently the Marriott has an 858 occupancy level year round.
At this point, Tom and Cyndi Jacobson, residents 1j-ving on Forest
Road behind the Marriott expressed their opposition to the
proposal with the following points:
L. They feel it is a violation of why zoning was
established.
2. A 6+ story building is too large for that lot.
3. Past promises by Marriott were not kept when the firststructure was erected, such as berroing, landscaping,
attention to noise levels.
4, They could not support the purpose of the new addition.
Overall, the Jacobsons felt tbat the new addition would interfere
too much with the neighborhood on Forest Road, they felt the whole
area around their house is becorning too conmercialized. She
presented photos taken fron their backyard showing the affect the
Marrictt has had to their neighborhood.
Alice Parsons, another resi-dent of Forest Road expressed her
opinion that vA shoul-d trade the yard for parking structure and
move the urachinery to the I'iest Day Lot, thus alleviating traffic
through Forest Road.
The questions were then opened to the PEc mernbers with Diana
concerned with the setbacks, walkways around the pool, and overall
large nurnber of units being proposed. Connie Knight asked if the
nunber of units could be decreased and the affect this would have
and also wondered about the rush for completion. Chuck Crist
inquired as to whether the building could be moved to the north.
Peter Jamar responded that noving the building could be exploredbut it was not as easy as it seemed. Kathy l.larren felt theproject was too big for the site, while Diana added that thearchitecture of the area should be softened by a different type of
building, not a duplicate of what is there now. Jim Shearerstated that he hated to see so much greenspace taken away. Dalton
inquired about employee housing and Peter Jamar commented that the
only housing they would be concerned with was the increased
housekeeping staff.
overall, the atmosphere was one of indecision and there would be
additional need for research and discussion of the project in the
future. The rest of the roeeting covered the Public Hearing and
began at 3:35 p.n.
Item No. L Approval of minutes for December L8, L989 meeting.
Motion for approval of the minutes was made by
wi-th correction of Chuck Crist's name. seconded the
motion.
VOTE: 7-O infavor.
Item No. 2
Subdivision.
Applicant: Faessler Realty
Mike Mollica reviewed the proposal regarding the development of a
48 unit rnulti-family ernployee housing project. Mike reiterated
the fact that the proposed Day Care Center tas now deleted from
the project. Mike proceeded through the proposal noting that the
rnost critical part of the proposal was Part III, Zoning
Comparisons. Mike then introduced creg Hall of the Public Works
Department to expl-ain the irnpact this project would have on
adjacent roads. The findings were based on a TDA colorado report
sent to Sidney Schultz of Sidney Schultz Architect, Inc..Mike
stated the Fire Dept. had approved the proposal with the l-0
conditions included in the Fire Dept. memo, which was attached to
the staff menorandum. The applicant stated that they could meet
these conditions. Basically, creg responded that no najor inpact
would occur at the 4-stay and Chamonix. He also stated that
revised geometry was being done subsequent to the TDA report but
A reguest for rezoninq fron Residential Cluster to
Hiqh Densitv Multiple Farnilv with a Special
Development District for Parcel D, Stevens
had not yet been received. creg did state that approximately 30
additional cars would go through this intersection as a result of
the project.
Mike continued through the proposal reviewing the
applicant's request for ernployee housing restricting the
units rrfor the Life of the buildingsrr. Mike stated that this
was illegal and the property could not go back to RC zoning.
Mike cornpleted his review of the proposal by going over the
goals from the Land Use Plan that would be used as guidelines
for reviewing the proposal . He closed by saying that the
Land Use Plan should be used as a guide ONLY in rezoning. He
recommended denial , but stated that staff would be willing
to discuss the proposal in detail with the applicant
especially on the number of units, and GRFA.
The floor was then opened to the public for comments and
guestions. sid Schultz, representing Faessler Realty was the
first to speak. Listed are the main points of Sid's cornments
on behalf of Faessler RealtY:
--At the previous work session the neighbors cornplained that
thi-s was not meeting existing zoning.
--In reference to the Land Use PIan, this project could not
be done without having a significant GRFA increase.
--Medium density plus variances is his idea. He wants t,o
proceed like Bighorn Lodge with exception of a variance onparking. Bighorn Lodge has not used all their parking and
feels the sane waste of asphalt would be made on this
proj ect.
--Project is funded by private money only, thus no profit.
--Agrees to required berrning and landscaping necessary as
requested by the PEC.
--Feels that the Day care Center would be very suitable for
a residential area such as Steven's Subdivision.
--Regardless of the types of units, the nunber of people will
renrain basically the sarne.
--Feels that sharing accomrnodations will rnake for lowerquality housing.
--Wou1d like to see housing cornpleted by December of next
year.
Mr. Faessler then responded that ernployee housing between
Intermountain and East Vail was being addressed by this proposal
and that he understands all concerns of both the neighbors and
staff. Houever, as a business onner he feels this is a necessaryproject and that this is the only place where zoning such as this
could be allowed. DIr. Faessler also expressed that enployee
housing is irnportant but should not be provided by government, but
rather the private sector. He also stated the following:
--There is no money to be roade by this project. It is
necessary for Vail's future.
--Feels that it will benefit the Town and neighborhood.
--Doesn't feel it wiII destroy the beauty of the area.
--Feels that the employees are important to the comrnunity.
The employees make the business go and without them we are
nothing!
Greg Stutz, representing the Meadow Creek Condominium Association,
then stood to comment on Mr. Faessler's remarks. Items he
mentioned were:
--Feels that rrBrady Bunchrr houses would be the result without
a conpromise.
--He guestioned how the appJ-icant arri.ved at the number of
units (48).
--Feels it is a natter of profitability.
--Stated the willingness of the residents to cornpronise with
the Sonnenalp's best interests at hand.
Mr. Stutz then asked for a show of hands to display how many
Intermountain residents were present at the rneeting. He also
presented a petition containing l-35 signatures to the PEC for
their review. one of the urain items mentioned from the petition
was that of the inadeguacy of the road for emergtency vehicles.
Mr. Stutz continued with the following comments:
--We rnust look at existing zoning 1aws.
--Feels there is no reason for this density; the height is an
issue of great importance.
--He is concerned with the impact on property values. He
stated that the residents originally purchased their
property based on the zoning that was in place.
--on the issue of parking, he states that it would be
unsightly and that the Traffic Study is a joke.
overall, Mr Stutz urged the PEC to deny this proposal and that
they should communicate with the residents. He also said that Mr.
FaessLer has not made adequate steps to do so.
Sue Dugan, another resident of the subdivision expressed that
based on her realty experience, she feels that alot of realtors
could be sued as a result of this project being approved.
Another resident living down the road (did not identify hinself)pointed out that the study was done at an intersection over one
mile down the road and felt that it was not accurate.
cerry Anderson, a resident of the area, felt that the PEc was too
concerned with expediency. Being a 20 year resident he felt that
the housing and parking situation will always be a problem, so why
hurry this project along so guickly like Tinber Ridge. He noted
that all employees presently are living somewhere so why not take
a litt1e nore tirne on this project; like L-2 years.
Harry cray, a new resident to the area, said that he liked the
area just the way it is. He felt it is a good place to raise his
farnily the way the subdivision stands
Irwin Bachrach stated that in comparison to complexes such as
Bighorn, Timber Ridge, and Pitkin Creek, he feels this project is
invalid. And because the letters from the residents, including
his, were not reviewed prior to this rneeting, that no vote should
be taken on the proposal .
Sue Dugan again stood to add that she feels there is not adeguate
parking for the proposed project.
Peter Frankie, another resident of the subdivision, was concerned
with the traffic problem. He feels there is quite an irnpact and
thus the project should be denied.
And finally, Chuck ogilby stated that we should look at Aspen and
consider the increase of density all over the Valley and offer
incentives such as a real estate tax incentive or free building
permits for enployee housing projects. Overall, he feels the
developrnent of employee housing should be done al1 over Town andnot in one concentrated area.
Jirn Viele then asked the PEc for questions and comrnents startingwith Dalton Williams. Being a new member, Dalton lrad sorne general
zoning questions which were answered by other PEC mernbers.
Chuck Crist asked Mike Mollica where he arrived at the number ofparking spaces listed in the meno (75) and Mike replied that thisfigure was dependent on the number and the size of the units
proposed.
Diana Donovan listed the following comrnents:
--The lot has nrany unique features in respect to shape,
access, and location, but feels this proposal is not good
for this site.
--She feels that enployee housing should be spread throughout
the conmunity and not concentrated in one area.
--She agrees that the Traffic study is not complete for this
proj ect.
--The project only meets l out of the 9 criteria listed in
the memo.
--She suggested a Traffic study to address the irnpacts on the
neighborhood and the 4-way.
--She stated that Skip Gordon relayed to her that the bus
systern could not handle the new project even with the
shift changesi more buses would be needed.
--She guoted page 60 of the Land Use Plan stating that this
Plan should not be overruled.
--In reference to the proposal , she felt that parking should
be maximized and berned and that 20 ft. setbacks should be
required.
--She did not understand why there was no creek access. They
should make use of the stream, using it as an amenity.
--Diana al-so does not
proposed. Fee1s it
be a compromise.
agree on the nurnber of unitsis trslumtr h,.using.; thinks 28 units nay
Kathy warren then took her turn saying that she agreed with nost
everything mentioned by Diana. She added that she was concerned
with the neighborhood and that a lower height was needed and also
recommended more sensitivity in reference to the nurnber of unitsproposed. She said that attention should be made to GRFA in
deterrnining number of units.
Jim Shearer then commented that Greg Stutz's recommendation to
work out a compromise was good. He also feels a meeting betneen
Mr. Faessler and the residents is needed. Jirn felt the rnainpoint here is that residents see a need for employee housing and
it should not matter who lives there. Parking shoul-d be looked at
in order to make it attractive to the neighborhood.
Connie Knight feels Mr. Faessler has been self-serving and his
non-attenpt to communicate with the residents is not good. She
feels that less than 48 units may be acceptable.
Mr. Faessler interjected asking what the purpose of the PEc was
and if the Town Council was the place to be heard.
Jirn Viele explained that the PEC is a technical body only and not
a political body. He added that the housing situation is severe
and will continue. He is opposed to spot zoning and feels that
controls and incentives are needed in enployee housing. The 500?
density increase is not in concert with underlying'zoning. Zoning
should protect the neighborhood. We need ground rules as a
community for employee housing.
Carl Dietz commented that this area was zoned by the County years
ago at L2 units/acre.
Dalton asked how the deterrnination was made between the number of
units versus the number of people and Jin Viele responded that
there was no set nunber -- anything can be done, however, density,
GRFA, etc.. are all determining factors.
Mel Barnes, a resident of Meadow Creek agrees with Mr. Faessler
that there should be J. personr/unit with affordable rents, but to
scatter the buildings all over town.
Carl Dietz interjected saying that enployee housing seems to be
the issue when zoning should be. He added that employee housing
should not be used to change zoning all over Vail .
charles Barnhardt expressed that he did not want to see a
dormitory type of situation arise. He feels that he bought his
property based on the zoning and it should stay that way.
\
At this point sid schultz took over the conments and added that
the manager of the Meadow Creek Association $tas called to work on
this situation and he has yet to receive a reply. The Condominiurn
Association Manager, who was present, answered by saying that the
attorney representing the Association instructed hirn not to
respond.
Sid continued by listing verbally his overall feelings to the
proposal:
--He feels the project will be safe as far as fire problerns
--Multiple bedrooras will cause problems
--Property values would not be affected
--Traffic Study was done on an intersectj-on where people
would be most affected
--Feels that putting housing down valley would not solve the
housing problen in Vail years from now
Mr. Faessler made some closing comments saying:
--Incentives are necessary
--Many thanks to the PEC
--Wants a nice neighborhood
--Wants a vote to move to the Town Council
Diana responded that no compromises were being offeired by Mr.
Faessler at this tine and that this proposal could not be decided
in one meeting. She requested a table so a compromise could be
nade with the neighborhood. Mr. Faessler again asked for a vote
and did not wish to table the request.
Diana moEreneq lgr denial on lhe request for a zone chanqe based
esponses:
l-. Not suitable for hiqh densitv multiple familv2. ffi3. VIoIatG;-E Land use Plan under requirements for
rezonlnq
The motion was seconded by Kathy warren.
Density increase of 5008
Parkinq
Not sure on this oneo.K. on this
stronqer landscape buffer needed. Parkinq needq to be
screened and better use of stream needs to be addressed
SEOp Srctn neeoeo
Planting and berming necessarv
Diana alE;p motioned for denial based on the Special Development
7
fn reference to the SDD, Diana motioned as abovg and it was
seconded bv Chuck Crist based on same reasons listed above with
voTE: 7 - o in favor of denial of the SDD.
A reguest for a maior amendrnent to the Doubletree
Hotel, Special Developnent District No. l-4, 250
South Frontaqe Road, to chanqe uses: reduce the
number of accommodation units and to add a spa
tacrl-].Ey.Applicant: Jerrv Katzoff
ften No.3
Peter Patten presented the proposal and g'ave a history of sDD #14.
He covered the rnajor elernents of the proposal listed in the rnemo
with the most inportant being the reduction of 30 accommodation
units/transient residential units. Peter also showed drawings of
new lower level of parking and Progressed thru all leve1s as well
as the relocale of sorne of the condominium units.
Peter noted that under the HDMF zone district, it allows for
lodges and within that, accessory use. Thus, a spa has been
approved as an accessory use to a lodge. overalI, he recommended
approval of the proposal and Jim VieLe opened the guestioning to
the public.
Peter Jamar, representing Jerry Katzoff, extrlressed his
appreciation to be able to handle the project since L984.
Connie Knight asked if the reduction in units applied to existing
rooms and Peter Janar indicated that no existing units would be
elininated. The reduction is only on new construction. At this
point, packets were passed out to the PEC menbers which showed
drafts of the proposed building to be done on the Hotel and how
and where it wouLd fit in.
Chuck Crist asked about the comparison of revenue flow between the
spa and the 30 acconmodation units which would be lost and Peter
Janar answered that the revenue would be rnore with the spa.
Kathy warren inguired about a satellite dish and its placement
before this project takes place and was assured by Peter that this
would be done. chuck also comnended the procedures of the
applicant as being well done and good for the VaiI community.
With the conditions stated under Section ordinance No. 7.
econded bv Chuckana mot oned for a roval and
VOTE: 7-O infavor.
Item No. 4
Structure located on Block 5D, Vail Villaqe First
FiIinc.Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten reviewed the proposal and displayed drawings showing
the proposed structure at conpletion.
PIZZATTME!!!!YEAH!!!!!!!!
The main concern of this proposal was the stairways. Peter noted
that much discussion was done on this to improve the ability of
the skier/pedestrian to reach stairways. He feels the stairs are
inportant in facilitating this flow.
The neeting was then opened to discussion by the PEC with Chuck
Crist opening the comments. Chuck questioned the use of the
5,ooosf of unfj.nished space and the pocket plazas. He also wanted
to confirrn placement of the crosswalk. At this tinie,
representatives of Barber Architects were there to clarify these
questions. They stated the possibifity of totems as discussed
with the DRB. Barber Architects continued discussion with the PEc
over where the crosswalk should be and where the entries would be
located on E. Meadow Drive and how it cornplies to the Building
Code Regulations.
Dalton Williarns suggested the use of the Highway Dept. right-of-
way near the A-way. He suggested the building of a ramp to deter
traffic from the 4-way going west.
stan Berrlman of the Public works Dept. was present and commented
that L.5 rnillion dollars would be required and retaining walls
would be necessary. There is a need for adeguate signage so as
not to cause a build-up in the entry of the parking structure if
it is full. Stan expressed that he wanted to get ne!'t counts on
traffic and that none had been taken since L986. Stan said that
the bonds for the project had been sold totaling 8.2 nillion
dollars.
A representative of Barber Architects stated that the budget has
not been expanded to include the changes that have been nade by
Council, DRB, etc.. (ie. Renovation of Transportation Center and
Widening of E. Meadow Drive).
A recruest for a conditional use pernit in ordef to
construct an addition to the Vail Village Parking
stan noted that the Ski Museum could go elsewhere, however, Diana
expressed she would like to see the Ski Museurn.
The subject of pick-up and drop-off space was discussed and Barber
explained that a 5 rninute parking (short tertn) area is a1lowed.
The subject of snow removal and drainage on the nain stairs and
top 1evel ramp was also addressed by Stan Berrynan. The idea of
manual snow removal was stated to be cheaper and the use of heated
rernoval was not effective due to the water frorn melted snow only
being displaced somewhere else thus causing further problerns and
possible damage due to refreezing. He also added that these
systems tended to short themselves out after about a two year
period of time. Barber added that they accelerate the age of the
concrete too, thus beconing quite costly.
other possible problens were also discussed such as the number of
cars on averagre, movement of trees, and the need for adequate
sidewalks. At this point, Peter Patten suggested that there
should be a prioritization of all of these issues in the motion,
labeling them rradd onsrr.
Dj-ana recommended that all add-ons be included, ttrat they are all
necessary or no go!
7-Oinfavor.
It was also clarified by Jin Viele and Kristan Pritz that the
proposal would be reviewed if any of the alternatj-ves or add-ons
were taken out of the project at a later date.
The meetingi was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. after reminders given
about Town council session on January 9th to cover the WMP and
the Town Council/PEC ldork session on Enployee Housing on January
16th.
There was also an appointnent of Diana Donovan to the DRB for the
monthes of January, February, and March with Kathy warren as the
substitute.
That is all!!
Kathy Warren made a motion per the staff memo. includinq the whole
packacre as presented and it was seconded by 'rin Sheiarer.
BRRCLRY TOIJERS
TDA
COLORADOnrNc,
Ironsportotion
Consvltqntg
16;'t, lodru St
6un 600
Dsm,s, CO 80202
(.!03) 82!Frl07
VENTURE TEL No .3038956553
,fanuarY 15, 1990
Jan 16,90 16:54 P.05
.. .. ,l ).t, l,' {i
SidneY SchulLz
Eldnsy gchultz -
1{1 East }l€adow
ValI, CO. 81657
Thc proPosal now
sltuated between
on the basisof potential
proposal .
Archltect Inc.
Drlve
Ri: Faecgler Apartnent and Day care center Trafflc Inpact
AEEes6ment.
Dear SidneY,
We have revised our ilanuary 1tF^ report to refLect elinrination of
a day care cent.-;;";;;t'or trre-ii"p"t"a lg:::]"t dcveropment''
A8 we undcrBtand the propoeat' 'tnJ apartmente wlll be used
prlmartly by "tprov""" of- SonnenJip g"1t'"1 propertles in vail
Village.
conglctg of 48 one-and two lredroqm apartnent unit';
core creelc and xiniicrinlc Roact' sie Flgure 1'
of thls lnforrnation we have preparecl thls assessnerrt:
traffla lmpaot .J!"oiitta wrtn the Faeesler Ernployee
Exlrtlng Conllltlone
The Faeesler Realty project. rrould be develtoped' ln a resldentlal
area thar ts essenrtarly at tne wJEfe-rli-;;a ?:-d:y"I9PP"*-.1:.:T:
Gore creek vallei;--sJu[,rr rrontage-noad-connects the rntertnounca rn
area wlth carcade, Llonehead 1r1{ Gll vlrragee" tlre t{est vaj:r
rnrerchange wttn'i126'-ii- aLour r/; ^'ifJ"ilt-"i the proiect' Nor"Llt
Frontage Roaa anJ' ioutn Frontaie ii;; ;;;ect yii thl west vair
I-70 diarnoncl interchange. rne. nexi:-connection for local frontage
road rnovements oiliis--irmoEt ttrree--rnires rartner east at the Main
Vall Intarchange.
gouth lroatagc Rotd 1g a tbto lane rural qold eerving as a
colleotor-dLstributor for regiot'of-l-ifp-]" and-from r-7o and for
acceBs to abutulng parcels' -ilt*""it the ry?st and Main vall
Lntcrsrctlons, d"ii[n'Frontage R;;;"i;"ttta"t tf," naintenance and
aco.Es Juriedictr*-;f itre ciroruou stot" Highway Depart'ent'
Trafflc vorume6 on south Frontage Road are nuoh. higher east of tbe
nest vatl Interqhange.ag nu"tt Li--in. fnter-state nov€ments are
oriented to the conrne-rctal areaE Jf cili""a. and Llonshead villages'
vorun' on sourh Frontage Road-i; il;-;tcrnitv of the project ie
estlmatrd to be about e,sog verricr6e-pei agV'- .. Thf" lg bagecl on
1986 ov.nrng peaf-rr-our cbunt" at'lne S6uln fiontage Road/Chamonix
i;il i;I;;;;"ii;; lv crntrnnlat Enslneorlns'
BRRCLRY TOIJERS
O ,un 16 ,90 16 :54 P ' tl4
VENTURE TEL I'lo '30389t.6555
/ l-'"ls
I
?l;l
1.1Iil
'lil:.I
a
Figurc 1
SITE LOCATION
TAFSSLEN DEVELOPIIENT
YctL, Cblotaao
_ FTDr'
i nnRclnv rolJERS vENTURE TEL |.10.3038936553 Or"n 16,90 16:55 p.uI
Mr. Sidney Schul-ta
itanuary 15, 1990
Page 2
Dally volume fluctuates amuaLly baeed on level-E of occupancy inInternountaln. It Ls estinatad that about 50t of tlte dwellingunlts are owner-ocaupled. zot uaed by esconit lrohe Purchasere and
tho renalnlng 30t are long tern or aeaeonal renters. There ar€ no
commerclal short tarm or overnlght Iodglng unlts in Intcrmountain.
ocoupanoy Levele would lllcely be hlghcat durlng chrlstmae Week,gprlng Break, anit sunmer hollday perlods when gecond hqme user and
seagonal employnent use add to the year round populatlon. We r.tould
eatirnate clally trafflo volu$e on South Frontage Road ln the
InternountaLn area could reach 3r000 vehlcles per day during a peak
tine euoh ae sprlng Break weak.
Xlnnloklnllc Rotd
Klnnlcklnllc Road is a two-Iane local loop access road servlng
l-nternountain residentLal prop€rtl€s, connectlng to South Frontage
Road at two tee lntereeotl.qn locatl,ons. of the 2.5oo daily
vehlolee uslng South rrontag€ Road an .eetlmated 1,,500 use thoeaeterly connectLon and thC rematnlng 1'o0o vehicles use tlre
westerly intersectl-on. Bnaed on the proposed Faessler Developnentslte planr vlrtually all proJect tratflo wlII use Klnnicklnlk at
thc east intersection.
Eouth lrontrg. Ror6,/t.rt vatt Int.robrnga
The exlstlng e-way etop lnterscctlon lE ln very close proxlmity tothe eactbound I-7o on and off rantp tcrnlnals and to Gorc Cr€ek.
HencGf there ls very llttle roon for vehlcles to store and lflaneuver
(vnav.) when travalllng between Eouth Frontage Road and the I-70
on and off rampe. The predoilinant rnoverrent at the lntersection as
ahown in Flgure 2 lr the gouth-to-east lef,t turn and the
correspondlng west-to-nofth rlght turn. Each of these legs of the
lntereection funotJ.on as a two-lane approach, I'e. the souttrbound
left turn l-s separate fron the shared atralght through,/rlght turnIane and the wcatbound rlght turn lane ls separate fron the
adJacent left/throu<;h lane. A total- of 1,512 vetriqlea paes throughthe l-ntereeatlon ln the P.lit. peak hour. In acoordance wlth the
1985 I'H1ghway Capaolty Manualrt, ttrl.e porcentage volume split and
lane conf,iguratlon would r.flect a level of service C operatlngcondltion. This would 3ugga6t rrav€ragerr delays for P.M. peakprrlocl rnotorists.
Capaolty wouldl be reaqhed when the total volurne enterlng the
lntereaetlon reaohes about 2r500 vehlcl€B in the p€ak hour per themanual. At capaclty tong delaya would be expected and lengthyqueuee of vehloleE would entend bask fron the interaectlon,partlcularly for tha two naJor novenEnts dlscussed above.
BflRCLHY TObIERS UENTURE EL No .3038956553 an 16,90 16:56 P.06
!lr. Eldncy sohultz
ifanuary 15, 1990
PaEr 3
Thc htcrnountaln area Lc erntsd wall by puDllo tr$sLt. Tonn
busee on th€ Wilt Vall gouth Routt mn all day lf,ou 6:20 A.U, toL2r45 A.!d' The routc sonnrctr lht€rtrountaln rlth tho thrrevlllagea. Tranefcrr to othrr town routes arr nadr at thr VailTranrportatlon Csntcr tn Vai,l Vlllaga. Ttrs nMradow Creokrr bus 6top
La a chort ualk tron thr proposed proJect Eltr.
Prcj.ot SraflLo
on ratc Ie drrlved frou nunarous
o
T
a,
reeort comunltlrr lnd Lr oonparable to thr ratrInrtltuto of llraneportatlon Englneera ln the tggZ
Ganaratlgnfi for rrlrow RLor Apartlrnte*.
publlrhrd by th.publlcatton iltrrl.p
Approxinat.ly lot, or 38 tripa, oan b€ ex;rected to occur durlng thr
PM peak hour. ryptcallyr about 60t trlll be lnbound and 40f wlll
be outbound lrou thr proJect durlng thc evenlng peak. |t'1il€8. tripearr thsn dlrtrlbuted to tlre surroundlng roadwaye uclng prcvalllngtrafflc dietrlbutlon patternc. Flgure 2 dlaplays Ptt peak hourLntrrsection volumr wltb and wlthout the Facgoler Projsct,
Chrryonlx .Ro*9(I 70 Unalorprtr)
_Chanonlx ltoed
(l 70 Unilcruarr)
20
+:jn T "'l
toRIH ,,.158
4)
EsJt7*la
395
\ S. Frontrqc Rd,
tzlsnj
13')l1
+5t
- €6\t ?rl88
EACTCtoUlU'
t39
. €6\l?ll88
rlm PnoJBc'r
. Flgurc Z
P.il. Pcr* Hour.Trefflc Vdluilcr
trlth 0 lfithout Fr|rllor proJeqt
r990
t-rnn
BRRCLRY TOLJERS VENTURE
East
East
Vehlcle TriprTolFEom ,, Via
TEL No .3038936553
Orun 16,90 16156 p.o7
l[r. Sidney Schultz
ifanuary L5, 1990
Page 4
[rlp DlBtrlbutiqn
Dally vehicl-e trJ.pe gencrated by the FaesEler developrnent wlll
dieperae over the eurrounciirrg roadway network. AII vehlcles willpaFE through the 4-rray stop slgn at the gouth Frontage
Road/chanonlx Road l,ntersectlon, Based on 1983 traffic counts at
the intersection, axiating trlps f,rom tlre Intennountain area
dieperee at thlr lntersection as followEt
North/Ealt UndorpalrsWest Under:Dtss
s. Frontage Roacl
r-7 0
8 of Total
25t
30t
30s
1stToLal 1o0t
Facasler development trJ.ps, heavLl.y ori"ented to ValI VLllage, are
expectcd to dcmonatrate a strong orlentation to the east as docurrsnt Int.rmountaln motorlsta.
Futurr fratfio Volunoa
Future development ln the Etudy area wlll add traffic to therrBaokgroundrr r:ond,itlon chown ln-nigure z. Thfrre ie very llttle
data for trachi.ng recent shangas ln traffic volunes for roadwaysln thls vicLnlt:y. ,The Town of ValI, in updating the 5-Year Trtnsit
Developnent Plan, auggeets overell. cotnmunlty growth averaging 2*per y€ar for the next 5-years. For the A-$ay intereection, 24
growth wouLd add 3o vehlales to the poak hour lntersectlon vol,une.At this growth rate, the lntersectlon would Exceed the level of
servLoe c volune by 1996. By 2000 growth would bring the peak hourtotal to 11830 vehiclee and anothcr 15 years would be needed to
reach capaclty, 2,500 vehlcler per hour, if a constant 28 per year
growth rate ie asEumed.
Inpasto
The propoeed 48-unlt Faeesler AparLnGnt proJect would add alrcub 30
peak hour vchLoleg to the 4-way etop intereectlon at south frontage
Road at the weot VaIl lnterchange. 'rhis addltion ln itself wouldnot result in a change in lavel of servlae ol the intareectLonwhich would rernaln at level of eerrice c, l.e. ttavaragerr peak
perlorl delays. Congeetlon at the West ValI lnterchange ls not Eo
rnuoh a problern of volune as lt La one of, Eubgtandard geonetry.
t "'
BRRCLRY TOIJIRS VENTUF.E TEL l',lo.3018936553
o l.rn 16 ,90 16 :57 P .Oil
Mr, gldney gchtrlt'z
January 15, 1990
Page 5
Through and turnj"rrg vehicles have ltttle aeparation between ranp
and frontage road Locatlons to lnteract in dtstinct, eeparate rnerge
and weave movetnerrts. Faessler development traffic (or any othor
fntermountaln trips) wlll not arld directly to tlre dominant P.M,peak dirrctlonal volumea turns to and fron Charaonix Road
orlented to the gE€t. Fr.rture growth ln l;hege partlcular movenents,not deveLopnent ln tlre Inter.uountain area, will be the key
deterninant of congestlon at thls interEectlon, Improved operatlonat the four-way etop lnteraectl-on, if left in ltc current
configurati-on, could be aohieved through a conbination ofr
1. An intennedlate I-?0 interchangg betlteen the Weet Vail
and I'tain Val-I lacations, andr/or
2. An jnterrnediate grade separated connectlon between North
and snuth FrontagB Roacl eq that local rnovements betweenthe two would not have to entirely funnel through thc two
interchange locatlona aB they do today.
The proJectst 28t! daily vehicle trlpe will lncreage trafflc onKlnniqkinik noad at the propoeal ascese locatlon by at 1.9t. The
resultant volume of about 11800 vehl-olee per day Ls well b6low the
capacity of a two-lane reeldential road. For 6afe operatlon, the
propoeed acccss drlve ehould be Eltuated to enFure aclequate sight
dl-etanca 1g available along K.tnnlclcinik Road. For 25 mph operatlonthls would suggeet 250 feet of aight dlstanae in both directlons
along the Road.
Concluslon
Addittonal velrlcle trlps generated by the Faessler Apartnent andwill not have a slgnlfloant lnpact on trafflo operatl.onB qt the
west vail interchange. The expeated 3o peak hour vehlcle trlps
generated by tha development ulll further dlrperse beyond the four-
way stop lntarseotlon adjaoent to the dlanond Lnterchange.
I trust thls adequately covers thethe Faeseler Developnent proJect.
questions.
Sj ncerely
TD]A COIORIDO INC.
Davl.d D, IJeahy, p.E.
Prlncipal
traf,flc related iesuee regardlng
Pleaee call ne if you have anY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&f:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
January 8, 1990
A request to rezone Parcel D of the Stevenrs Subdivision,from Residential Cl-uster to Special Development District,with an underlying High Density Multiple Fanily zonedistrict.Applicant: Faessler Realty
I. Description of the Recruest
This rezoning request has been proposed in order to allow for thedevelopment of a 48 unit nulti-fanilyrzernployee housing project.A 3rO0O square foot day care center which was originallyproposed, has been deLeted from the project.
,t
., M The l-.99 acre parcel is located immediately north of buildings A,
t t_J,lrV B, C and D, of the Meadow Creek Condorniniums, and just south of
l\Yf Gore Creek. Access to the parcel is proposed via an existing 40,
' ,2, -./ access easement, connecting the southeast corner of the property
lq with Kinnickinnick Road, (between buildings C and D of the Meadow/' Creek Condominiums).
Phase I of thebuilding, whichb"{g9"U_,ttrils.
project calls for the construction of the eastern
would include ?5 pfrg-ledroom units and two lrrso-Phase II would anatFree two-bedroom units, |,ocated in the-@
The one-bedroom units are proposed to be approxirnately 4Oo sguarefeet in size and the two-bedroorn units are proposed to range insize from 660-800 square feet. Tenant storage facilities areproposed at the ground floor level , adjacent to the coveredparking, and some additional storage is proposed on the second andthird floors. Laundry facilities are proposed in the basernent ofeach building.
Section 18.40.0L0 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code describes thepurpose of Special- Development Districts, and reads as follows:ItThe purpose of the specj.al developrnent district is toencourage flexibility and creativity in the development ofland in order to promote its most appropriate usei to irnprovethe design character and quality of new development withinthe town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provisionof streets and utilitiesi to preserve the natural and scenicfeatures of open space areas i and to further the overallgoals of the cornmunity as stated in the Vail Cornprehensive
* '!,ttlp* f'
*"ffi't
Plan. An approved devel-opnent plan for a special. developmentdistri-ct, in conjunction with a property's underlying zonedistrict, shall establish the reguirements for guiding
development and uses of property included in the special
developmenL district. tt
The Town Code also states that any uses perrnitted in the Special
Development District shall be lirnited to those permitted,
conditional and accessory uses in the property,s underlying zonedistrict.
fn order to meet these requirements of the Special DevelopmentDistrict chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone thisproperty from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family,
and has simultaneously applied for a Special Development Districtoverlay. This mernorandum will address both the rezoning to HighDensity Multiple Family as well as the Special DevelopmentDistrict application.
Zoninq Analvsis
A summary of the proposed development is as follows:
II.
A. Lot Area
Total:
Floodplain:
40? Slope:
Net Buil-dable
86,580 square feet
l-8,828 square feet
2,7L6 square feetArea: 651036 square feet
F,Proposed Fl-oor Area
Residential , Phase I:
Residential , Phase II:
TotaL:
Proposed Buildinq Heiqhts
Phase I - maximum ridge height. 45,
Phase II - naximum ridge height: 37'
Proposed Site Coveraqe
12,71,2 square feet or L4.7 Z
Proposed Parkinq
21 Covered Spaces or 35?
39 Surface Spaces ot 652 (25? will be compact car spaces)60 Total Spaces
Adiacent Land UsesNorth: core Creek and RC zoned property north of the
West:
Creek.
Undeveloped portion of Interrnountain Swirn andTennis Club Condominiums.
lI ,237 square feet9,363 square feet
20,600 square feet
n
E.
South/East: Meadow Creek Condominiums, Building A-E,zoned RC.
1-
III. Zoninq Conparisons
SDD - PROPOSED
-
RC
n5
-Fl
HDMF
/'('pl*
1.PERMITTED USES
2.SETBACKS
HEIGHT
DENSITY
SITE COVERAGE
I,ANDSCAPTNG
PARKING
-Slngle-familyresidential
dwellings.
-Two-fanilyresidential
Front:20,Sides:15,Rear: 15t
25* = 2Lr645 st,
608 = 511948 sf
-1 Space/D.U.shall be covered.
-25* conpact car
spaces.
.)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
PE
9ecE.
in This
ple
-Same as RC
zone with theaddition of
Iodcres.-No.b.t ^.,;t//4,/
Front: 20'Sides:20'Rear: 20'
FIat Roof. 45',
Sloping Roof: 48'
Allowable
D.U. 's: 37.3
GRFA: 39,022 sf
55* = 47,6L9 sf
3O* = 251974 sf
Front:20'Sides: 15'Rear: 15,
14.7* = L2,'7L2 sf
55t = 47,6L9 sf
u. e\t car
spaces.
IV. Criteria To sed Eva
e first set of criteria to be utilized w111 becriteria involved in the evaluation of a request for azone change. The second set of criteria to be used will be thenine development standards set forth in the Special DevelopmentDistrict chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows:
- j -
A. Evaluation of Zone Ctranqe Reque f to
district:
Suitabil-itv of proposed zoninq.
lhe existina RC zonino a] lows for a maxj.mum of 8
rhe GEEIE--ed6snfZ6s rheenvironmental constraints irnposed upon this site withthe presence of Gore Creek, and its associatedfloodplain, along the north boundary. We do believethat with proper site planning, ttre 2 acre parcel couldaccommodate sone additional density without conproniseto the environment or have a negative inrpact upon theadj acent neighborhood.
However, the staff believes that the request for 48dwelling units would exceed the carrying capacity ofthis site. AIso, the projected. peak hour tiaffil volumeon South Frontage Road, west of the interchange, isestimated to increase by 1-t.2Z as a result of theadditional 48 dwelling units. Although at first glancethis percentage may appear to indicate a significintincrease in traffic, the actual irnpact of the increaseshouLd be reviewed according to the ilHighway Capacity
Manualrr and the level of service. page 5, Table 1, ofTDA's traffic irnpact assessment shows the level ofservice at South Frontage Road and Charnonix road. Thisanalysis, however, includes the originally proposed daycare facility. It is impossible for the staff todetermine impacts upon the levels of service for justthe apartment complex with this information. Staffwould recomrnend that the Lraffic irnpact assessment be
amended to reflect the actual proposal which is beforethe PEC (ie. 48 dwelling units) .
1.
z-
I-eaJ,.'lt , f nra. -,-.- /",--.J
, . ^Jt^Lul/dr
Is the amendrnentrelatonship with
obi ect
workableth rnun
Staff believes that with the deletion of the day carefacility_from this proposal , that the proposedresidential use would be in harmony wiln Lfre existingffiTEilEa. rntermountain i's ;a.i"ait ; ---
residential neighborhood and the proposed uses for thisparcel would not be inconsistent with existi.nq
development.
n land uses consi-sten€
-4-
B.
3. Dges the rezoninq provide for the qrowth of an orderlv,viable connunity.
t"" =a*t *lcnowledges that enployee housing is in veryshort supply in Vail and that such housing is a crucialelenent in Vail,s continuinq to be a viable resort
comnunl
The staff senera
n lacE,
ery ar to that of theadjacent Meadow Creek Condonin edwith the_>
_>
staff is mo
proj ect.
alLof tbe
1rrt-M
this area.
The
the
District
-5-
2.Uses, activitv and density which provide a compatible,efficient and wol:kable relationship with surroundinq
In reviewing this type of housing request, the staff has
taken the position that sone incentive should beprovided for the development of employee housing (see
Section C of this merno). The applicant is proposing
ernployee housing and has proposed restricting the unitsrrfor the life of the buildingsrr. However, we feel thatthe restriction placed upon such ernployee units should
be more long tern and should be consistent with previous
Tohrn approvals (ie. the life of Tiffany Lowenthal + 20
years) .
Regarding the issue of density, the staff is willing to
work with the applicant on this development standard as
an incentive to providing employee housing. Theapplicant has naintained that 48 dwelling units are
required to make this project feasible. As stated
above in the zone change criteria, the staff cannot
support a 500? increase in density over existing zoning
on this si-fe.- --=--
compliance with parkinq and loading requirernents asoutlined in Chapter l-8.52.
The proposal calls for a total of 60 parking spaces | 35e"
of which wllL be covered. The Town zoning code requiresa total af 75 parking spaces, of which 75? shall be
covered.
Based upon past experience with parking for employee
housing, the staff strongly believes that the parking
requirements in the code need to be met. We also feel
that _the proposed 35? covgre9_parklng is inadgquqte and
would present an eyesore to the aelJEC€nE-esidents. See
or.:'t ./-d --->
Conforrnity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive PIan, Town policies and Urban Desiqn
Plans.
The applicable sections of the Land Use PIan are
discussed in Section C of the Zone Chanqe Criteria.
A
- 1'.,
5.Identification and mitiqation of natural and,/or qeoloqic
hazards that affect the propertv on which the special
development district is proposed.
There are no geologic hazards which have been identifiedon this site. The building has been renoved fron the
1-00 year floodplain.
6.Site plan Idin desi and location andvisions des to roduce a functionalresponsive and sens ve to natural features vand overall aesthet c quality of the commun ty.
so that the
setback.
llF:*' l-owec max]-mun, a
well belowetsalEo acEE le. A stronqer 1
necess
Meadow Creek Condeinir+itrns--Design solutions shouldproposed to screen nore parking. The height of thebuilding should be decreased to insure the projectconpatible with surrounding structures.
7.A circulation svstem desi for both vehiclesestri-ans address on and off-site traffrculatio
EA /n'/en f
nt '*t 'l *
*#"/'
be
eastis
F^ 4'or- S t€,and it appears that
rom Kinnic y oilthe Trafficand Parking Assessnent (by TDA Colorado) is attached.
ctional and aesthetid landscailnaturalrecreatioons.
8.
Staff believes that, the
have additional plantingline to screen
resident
proposed landscape
and berming along
plan shouldthe south
at
well as the neicrhborhood
. This
Lkway
The proposed layout of the structures have been modified
to the
-?-
Phasinq plan or.subdivision plan that wiLL naintain aworkabl-e, functional and effi.cient relationshin
As discussed in Section I, Description of the Request.
C. Land Use Pl-an:
The Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideli-ne in anyrequest for a zone change. This property has been identifiedin the Land Use Plan as suitable for rrMediurn DensityResidentialrr use. This category includes housing whi_ch wouldtypical.ly be designed as attached units with cornmon walls.Densities in this category would range from 3 to L4 dwellingunits per buildable acre.
The following goals, frorn the Land Use P1an, should be usedas policy guidelines in the review of this proposal:
GOAL STATEMENT 5.3:
lffq5da_ble_emplolzee lrousing should bq_nqdg aveilqhle th-roughprivate efforts, BEE-1E!ed_by limited incentives, provided bythe Town of Vail, with appropriaEe-festEi-ctions.
GOAL STATEMENT 5.5:
The existing enployee housing base should be preserved. andupsraded. 4qdftrelgl_emlloyg: t_,_qy1ns nee{F should- be
accomrnodated at varled sites throug-hout-t6e conrnunity.
GOAL STATEMENT 5.4:
Residential growth should keep pace
dernands for a fuIl range of housing
GOAL STATEMENT 5.]-:
with the market place
Eypes.
Additional residential growth should continue to occurprinarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in
new areas where high hazards do not exist.
|ll:y*, we feel that the proposal goes wetr beyond the !'Iimited- incentivesrr referred to in 5.3 and the Mediun Density Residentialprovisions of 3-L4 units/acre. Thus, we find the proposal not incompliance with the Land Use Master Pl-an.
throughout the development of the special developnentdistrict.
-s
V. STAFF RECOI,TMENDATION
Ttre staff recomnendation is for denial .While we aresupportive of the overall tof lovee housinsite, we believe that
generally
on this
Iaqr c&f.
More cornpromise needs to occur on the project particularly in theareas of number of units and GRFA. Reductions in these areas willal.low for development that is cornpatible with surroundingprojects. _Staff al-so believes that it is irnporteurl_to__uee__Ehe
Larrd -'ise Fjan e, the-EEici Use
mployee housing. Staffcould support linited incentives and would like to continue towork with the owner to develop a compromise solution.
O tf tV-'t Z ",.+te; - *.Jt .fle m a"t/^f T.^ SbD ,ff^',/,
0 of m^&
@ lEC
g--t
l \-',, filll
lill,:ffirfi*fir
!'il .":j;''tJt )
(;-$\1.5 {i
\Wir l\$l 3 '
,/{W
tvn'
-t\ -
(v)
ro
o\o
oo
ro
o
GI
@T
o
FIAotct36
.F{
.'l .Fl
aA
ho+JF{ c)oolll .noo('l{hA
N
a\
tYt
.l( -
(\|t
Fl
ro
N
FOcoqr
OsfOl !t(nN
ttEoo&o
tsl
ta
ll
tl
tl
il
tl
llIl
ti
ll
tl
tl
tl
tl
tl
tl
tl
rl
lrl .{ f.l$N3(vt N
(')NN
F{1.
r{ Fl c{
(rt otfO,{(no\zor rosf cilFl .{
coCo|o
or@n|r-{ i{ (rl
o\Z O frlH Hftt,l HoD 24OD
!q
root\oNr.
o@ori
uzaDHEIvc)&4
'{ftAU)
(a
E{UdFthFrg'o(,ft
tu
01ro|noltoNFl .'{
frlFl(l)'>r E{OH
'JZP{DE
tst
oOXErooo
'|J^ O Orl .rt hX FltrE: UKrctgH-"{ CA hOFI .d OJl F,l J1 EEr6 +J O.'{ > ..{ 4
E{ '-. A ql
tt)
frlilUd
E{
C)f'tF)ox&
o
Or
F.l
Fl
r-.1o
(
(
TDA
COLORADOG7ir5Nc,
lronsportollgn
Consullonts
l6t5 toflma. 3t.
Sone dS
0c^vof. QO 60202
(303) 025. t107
'' snnclnv TotiERS vENTURE O ,r|- N0.3038936555 Jan 05 ,g0 LLt2L P.O2
ifanuary 4, l99O
Sldney schultz
Sidney SchuLtz - Archltcct rnc.
1,41 East t{eadov DrlveVail, Co. 81657
Re: FaeEslcr Aparfilent and Day Care Center Trafflc Impact
Assessuent.
Dear 9lCney,.
As agraed, ne hav6 ravlesed the proposal for developing 50apartment unlts and a day care center of,f Luplne street ln theInternountain area. As lr€ underetand the proposal , the apartnentswlll be used prinarily by enployeee of, sonnenalp Hotel propertiesln vail Vlllage and the day care facllity nl.II be ueed exclusivell'by Sonnenal,p eoploye€s. l{e furth,er underEtand a nunber of
Sonnenalp etilploy€eE currontly ltve ln tha Intebnountaln area. The
31400 squarB foot aay caae center will, have 3 to 4 enplot€esr
on the basis of thls lnfonution ve have prepared thiE aeaessm€nt
of, potential traff,lc fuqlact agsoctated with ghe FaeEsler Apartment
and Day Care Center propoaal..
Exlsting coDdltLotls
The traessler Realty'3rroJect would be developed in a residentlalarea that is essontially at the westerly end of, development ln the
Gore Creek VaLIBy. gouth Frontage Road connects the Intermountalnarea wlth ca€cade, I.lonEhead and Val.l Vlllages. trhe l{est Vail
InterchanEe wlth I-?0 ls about L/2 nLIe west of the project,. North
Frontage Road and South Frontage Road connect vta the West ValLI-70 dlanond lntercbange. Tb€ next connectlon for local frontageraad movenents occurs almoet three niLeE farther East at the MainVail Interchange.
gouth frontage Road ls a tve lane rurel road Ee:ar1ng aE acollector-distrlbutor for reglonal trlps to and fron I-20 -and foraccess to abuttlng parcels. Betw€€n ttre West and Main VatIintersections, south Frontage Road Ls und6r the nalntenance andaccess Jurisdlctlon of Ure Colorado $tate Hlghway Departnent.
Trafflc volunes on South,Frontage Road are uuch higlrer eagt of th€West Vail lnterchanEe aa uuch ,of the Interstate movenents arrorl,ented to the connercial areas of Caacade and Lionshead vtllages.
Volumee on south Frontage Road-ln tbe vlcinity of, the project lsestlnated to be about 21500 vehlcleg per day. trh1s l; biEed on
tr986 evening peak hour counte at the goqth Fiontage noad/chanonlx
Road intersection by Centennlal Engineerlng.
.gtiRcLnv ro[JERs vENTURE Ot+ N0.J0389J655J Or.n 05,90 1t,22 P.03
Mr. sldney schultz
ilanuary 4, L99O
Page 2
Qalry volume fructuates annually ba6ed on revels of occupancy inrnt€rmountaln. rt iE estlmat€d that about Eot of, the -awerthg
unlte are owner-occupied, zot used by second hone purchasers andthc remalnlnq 3ot are rong tertn or geasonal renters.- There are noconneralar 6hort tern or overnight lodglng unitE ln rntEnnountaln.occupancy reveJ.s wourd rtkely be blghest durlng christnas week,Sprlng Break, and sururer hollAay perlbas when seCond home uEer andseasonal enplolment use add to the year round populatlon. W|r $rould€stl,nate dally traf,f,lc volurne on South FtontaEe Road ln therntEr$ountaln area could reach 3rooo vehl-cles per day during a peaktlne such as Spring Br€ak ueek.
The rntermountain area iE eerrred welr b! publio trangit. Tolvnbuses on the West Vail South Route run aII -day fron 6t2O A.M. tor2r45 A.M. The route connectg rnterilountaln with the threevirJ.ages. Tranalers to other town routes are made at the vailTransportatlon center ln vail Village. lttre 'lleadow creek' bus stopIs a short walk from the proposed proJect site.
DroJeet lDraffLc
The propoeed proJect hae two be6lc ciources of additional traffLcgeneration:
1. The 50 apartment unltE2. The 31400 Equare f9ot Day care center
At full occupancy $e would expect the predonlnantry one-bedroornapartments,to generate an average of about gj.x vehlcle trlps perdey per unit, or a total 0f 300 additlonaL vehlsre trips pe'r aiv.ThlB Een€ratlon rata j.E derlved f,ron nuoerous studiee in inountiinresort corununLtiee and ls couparable to the rate pubrished by thernstLtute of Transportatlon Engrneers in the rsez p-uurrcation nrrtp
Generatl-ontr fof |tlow Rige Apartnentstr.
trhe Eame purrllcatlon EuEgeat8 Day care centerE average 67 vehlcretrlps per day per 1,oo0 aguate feet of Gross gloor Aiea. for theproposed 3,400 sguare fnot center thlE wouLd aquate to 228 vehicle
lrlps. p-e.r
^d-ay
generated by th.e day Care Center. Slnply addlng thetwo indivlduar trip generatlon nu:nbere r,rould overltite thd netadditional traffic generatLon ae son€ ol the reeLctential trlpswourd be orienteal to the Day care center. Furtherrnore, each chiiadropped and subeequently plcked up fron a day care centerrepresents fgur dally vehicle trtps -- entering ahd l€aving theelfe each reprecent a nvehicle trtpn. -
BRRCLRY TObJERS VENTURE TEL No .3038936553 Jan 05,90 II:22 P.04
Mr. Sidney Schultz
,fanuary 4, 1990
Page 3
Assuming f,Lve sonnenalp households riving in rnter:mountain use the
Day care c€nter each clay $e would expect south FrontagE Road trlpgeneratJ.on would be othenriee reducBd by 20 trlps -per day (5
households x 4 datly day care.vehicle trlps per household). - rdeproposed seven two-bedroom units lnaluded in- the SO-unit conprexcould account for another half-dozen children uEing the day iarecenter. 'lhese on-site uaers gould reduce the dally volunE by aslnilar 20 vehlcle trlpE trler day.
Hence, the net effect of, the Day Car€ Center would be to add lggvehicle trips to gouth Frontage Road aa follords:
Vehlcle trips/Day Trlp eeneratgl
Free-Etandlng Day Care Center (ITE)Exlsting Interrountain sonnenalp
Hougehold Trlpson-$lte Proposed Household Trips
228-zo
-20
1S8 E Netr Vehicle trtp6 on South Frontage Road
Added to this wourd be the new non-day care trtps generated by theapartnent dwellere, this would equal 280 vehiele trlps (3OO - ZOon-site day care). Totar net trlp generation would ttreir tre ceavehlcle trlps on South Frontage Road.
Day Care Center g 188 Vehicle tripe per daybo Apartr0.nt unlts - ZglI Vehiole Trlps per dayTotal 468 Vehlcle trips per day
Tlrls addition wourd be about a 19t lncrease over the estlnatedexisting average $aily vorrure of 2r5oo vehi.cleE on south FrontageRoad rrest of the lnterchange.
Approxlnately 1o*, ?r !? tr1ps, cal-be g1_ne-cte$ to occur during thePM peak hour. Typlcauy, about 608 rrlLr be inbound and 4ot -$rirl
be outbound fron the proJect during the evenlng peak. BheEe trrpsare then distributed to the surroundlng roadways usi-ng prevalrl-ngtraffic dlstrlbution patterng. . Flgure 1 dlgprays ptt -peak rrouiintersectl.on volumeg wlth ahd trlthout the Faesslei frojeict.
:
BRRCLRY TObJERS VENTURE
73J.
3:+1a
\I
TEL No .3038936553 Jan 05 ,90 11 :23 P .05
'Chanonix Road
(I 70 lJnderpass)
za 59s
+ \ s. Fronteee Rd.
\:+s
.{- tl
t'6
I rltZr, _
PINI PROJECT
45
t gf total
25t
30*
30t_tEtTotal 100t
!tr. Sldney Schultaifanuary 4, 1990
Page 4
Chanq,ni.'x. B,og$(I l0 Undorpaes)
?0
+
t
18
t
18
lioRlH39s 146\) +)\:qg SB -t
ts 39*
9'6 I ar'\s Ab'l t
Erlp Distrlbutto$
P?IIY vehicle trips generated by the Faessrer dleveropment wirrdisperse over the ?uriounalng rcaldway network. All vehictes wiiipasq through thE ^ 4-way stop sign at the South FrontageRoadr/chasonlx Read intersactlon. Baaed on 1993 traff,ic counts itthe lnterseetl.onr_ exlsting tr1p6 from the rntemountaln areadlsperse at thls lntersectlbn ag-followe:
Flgure I
P.!{. Peak Hour Traffic Volunes
Il'lth & tJithout Faessler Proie.,r
1990
vehicle Trlpsllo,/From -_ vig_
BACXGROIJ:.ID
East
Eagt'
Northr/EaBt
West
S. Frontage Roadr-70
Underpase
Underpass
Faessrer Aparta€-nt__?19 Day care center development trips, heaviryoriented to Valr vlrrage, ate €xpected to d'enonstrat-e a seroniorientation to the eaEt aa do currLnt trntomountain motorlsts. '
fDpacts
A level of genrice courputer analysls of the four-way etop clgninterseatl.on was perf,orned ln accoiaance wlth procedur6s aestrlbidln th€_1985 Elgb'way cn3ractty u.[ual, Transportition REsearch BoarclSpecial Report i?09.
.'ERRCLRY
TDTJERS VENTURE TEL No .3038936553
Background
Turnins Movem?IIE Trafflc
Left Turn from S. Frontageto Chanonix Rd, A
Left Turn fron S. Frontageto Streamside
Left Turn from Chamonix Rd.to S. Frontage
LefL Turn from streamsldeto S. Frontage
Rlght Turn frorn chamontx Rd.to S. Froirtage
Through from chanonlx Rd.to Streamslde
Mr, Sldney schultz
ifanuary 4, 1990
Page 5
r.,evel of eervlce Ie an lndlcation of aluratlon of deray wlth revelof cervice (r,o.9) trAn being the h!.gheet revel. rt reprelents littleor no hotori:;t dclay. . L,evel of servic€ r'E' slgnlfys long delaysand no tregerare capaclty f,or that partlcular- approach- to tieintersection. At rever of servlce c average traffft deray can beexpected and the approach could hancle another 200 to 300 vehicrEsln the pealc hour bef,ore reachlng_capacity. Upon reachlng level ofservlce D the capaoity reEerve le reduced to loo to 19g vehlcresand long delays can.be expected. I.os D Is corunonly used as 'rdesigncapaclty'r for rrrbanized areas. Table 1 surutarizes the IOS analyslsresults for the unslgnallzed -r.ray-stop interEectlon of s. FrontageRoad and Chancnlx Road durlng a Pll peak hour. It shows the leitturns from s. Frontage Road to operate at a very hlgh LOS A underthe :.990 baclcAtround traffic conditlons. Rlght ana :.bft turns from
Chamonix Road are I,OS A and C, rerpectively. The through movementeacross S. Frontage are both IJOS C,
TABI,E 1P.M. Peak Hour level of, Servico Operationat South FrontagB Road & Chanonlx Road.
(West vail lnterchange)for 1990 Estlnated Trafflc Volumes
ProJcct w/w/ Faessler RevigedProject ceonetrv (tl
Jan 05,90 IL124 P.06
A
A-
D
B
A
D
A
A
D
c
AI\
D
SOURCE: TDA, BaBed on trHlghway Capacity lfanualn, L995,Analysis f,or rtop elgn controlled lntersectlon.
1. Revisions lnclude restripJ.ng, nlnor wldening.
.' ERRCLR'/ TOIJERS VENTURE Itlo .301893655J 05 ,90 tL t24 P .07
Mr. SidneY S*t1u1'+t
January 4, l9gro
Page 6
Wlth the atlJl-tl-ou of tlre Faesr:Itrr SroJect vehicLe trlpe tlre LOS
at the S. Frontai.Ie,/chamenix intersestion ramains the same excont
the left turn antl through movementE fIg$ Chamonix Road which clrop
from Los c to D. The snaLL lttcreaee ln eaatbound volumeg on s.
Frontage Roail reducea the amount of tlne available for
confllctltrg trafflc flows to ctoss s. f'rontage Road. Hottever,Ievel af serric.: for xnternountain trips does not change f,rorn the
exist!nq cond.itii'.rn r.rltlr ths addltj.on of, Faegeler Project. The
exlstj.ng geonetri' of the ,5. frdntagc./chanonlx lntersectlon haEtraffic Lanes rbrllred to lnclude one conblned left' thru, and
right, turn lane aE, each of, the four approacheE. Hovlever, the
expanslve lntersectlon ctrrrently operatcs as having a seParate
right turn Lane on tlre north, south and €aEt approaches'
Restriping of the intersection to lnclude aeparate left turn
Lanes on the norcll and west approaclres, rather than rlght turn,
would better fac-'.iLitate traffic fLon. Analysis of this revisecl
geometry shows -i.nrproved L'.os f,or the gtreameide approach legs with
tlris nlnor lNprr)verdent.
Conclusion
Rddltiqnal vehlcle trlps generated by the raessletr Apartment and
Day care Project wlL1 not-have a signiflcant irnpact on traf,f,ic
operations at tlre WeEt vall lnterchange. The expected 47 peak
hour vehlcle trtps generated by the development wilL further
disperse beyond tha fotrr-way stop interEection adjacent to tltt:
dlanrond lnterclrange. If the Day care center wer€ to he
etiminatEcl fron the proposa] the feuralning 48 apaitrnenb unlts
could ba expected to generate about 20 to 3o peak hour trips --the loller va:l-ue representtng sone Sonnenalp employees resldlng i.n
the apartmenb heing ahuttted to and frorn work via a Sonnenalp
courtesy vatr. llot all enployees i,rould u8e ghe shuttle due, ltrpart, to off-site day care travel requireeents. Th€ 20additional tripa would eonetltute a 1.3t lncrease ln the nunberof vehlcles rtn'.:.rf,ing the four-way Chanonlx/s. rrontage Roadintersectlon dr.rring the PM peak hour. This change would not, bereadily perceivect.
I trust this adaquately covers'the
regardlng the Faessler Developmentyou have any quastions.
Sincerely
TDA COIJOI|J|DO INC.
traf,flc related issuesproJect. Please call rne if
David D. L,ealty,Principal
t'
TO:
FROiT:
DATE:
RE:
42 wesl meador drlvo llre department
Yall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
* * * * * l.lE H o RA tr D u u * t * * *
l'like llol1ica, Cornmunity Developnent
l{ichael l,iccee, Fire tlarsrial- 72)..
January 4, 1990
Fessler's Employee Ilousing Project
***+******
I have net r.rith Sici Schultz and \{e came to the follor.ring
understanding and agreements regarding the project. These itenrs
constj-tute conditions of approval by the Fire DeparLnent.
1. The entire project will be plan checked and constructed under
the 1988 Uniform Building and Fire Codes.
2. The entire project trill be eguipped wlth fire sprinklers.
3. The entire project will have an approved fire detection
s!'stem'
4. Fire truck access r.rj.ll be in accordance vrith Article 1 0 ,Section 10.20 of the trire Code, which reoui.res suf f j-ci.ent
space to turn a fire truc!< around. These turn arounds r.rill
be required to be maintainedr marked, signed and secured.
Turn around points are reguired rvhen the access road is in
excess of 150 feet from the public street.
5. Fire access roads will be a miniinum of 20 feet vrlde and wi.ll
be required to be raaintained free and clear of snoi'r, parked
vehicles, etc..
Adeguate sno\r reinoval and snot'r storage shall !:e provide<1 .
A \.rater nain shall pass through the proj ect in such a manner
as to be looped and connected to the neighborhood Cistributionsysten at tr.ro points. Fire hydrants are required to beinstalled at designated locations.
7.
')"
MEI4O TO MIKE PIOLLICAVail Fire Department
Page 2
8. The design, use and operatlon of the day care center wlllconform to the National Fire Protection Associatlon LifeSafety Code requirements and meet State licenslngreguirements, whether licensed or not.
9. l.lo wood burning fireplaces will be installed in any portlonof the project.
10. Trash dumpsters shall be located a ninimum of 5 feet fron anyconbustible structure as per the Fire Code.
?sttl EY sCHULTZ-ARCH [ftT,*c
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArL coLoRAo 81657
303/476-7890
January 2, 1990
Mr. Mike Mollica
Town of Vail
0ffice of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vai1, Colorado 81657
Faessler Realty Apartnents & Day Care
Dear Mike:
The following is in response to your letter of Decernber 27':
1. As I tried to convey to staff fron the beginning of thisprocess, there needs to be housing for at least approximately
fifty people to nake this project possible. The actual "densityttis somewhat irrelevant to us.
2. It is inpossible to make this proposal work with the L6,259
square feet of GRFA that is allowed under RC zoning. The
proposed 22,3O0 square feet is less than the al1owab1e if the
property were to be rezoned to MDMF.
3. Because of the existing grades, even if the entire third
floor were removed as is shown in the attached section, it would
be impossible to keep within the allowed heights without going to
a flat roof. Such a roof on a buiLding of this size would look
very inappropriate. We feel that the two and three-storybuildings as proposed with a staggered ridge line would be far
more attractive than 1-ong, 1ow buildings with a single ridge.
4. The proposal as originally presented meets the site coverage
al1owab1e.
5. The proposal as originally presented was within five percent
of meeting the landscaping requirement. If less parking were
required, as ue believe is justified for mostly one-bedroon
units, landscaping would be increased.
6. The maxinum number of covered spaces possible without
increasing the amount of structure on the site is about tnenty-
five. The nunrber of conpact spaces was increased on the originalproposal per Kristan I s request. The applicant has no problern
with limiting conpact spaces to twenty-five percent of the tota1.
7. Because of opposition to the day care center, the applicant
is willing to omit thls anenity from the proposal. The two units
above the center r.ri11 also be renoved. This brings the nunber of
MEMEER. THE AMEI?ICAN INSNIUIE OF ARCHIIECTS
units dor'rn to forty-eight and reduces the GRFA by 1,700 squarefeet.
8. As Alternate rrArr submitted on L2/2I/89 indicates, it ispossible to keep the building structures out of the 50 foot creeksetback. As that drawing shows, by moving the buildings further
south the buffer between this project and Meadow Creek
Condominiuns is lessened. If parking requirenents were reducedto fifty spaces it might be possible to keep parking out of the
twenty foot front setback.
9. The applicant is willing
housing "for the life of thedestroyed or removed and the
rebuild the employee units as
its original zoning.
to restrict the units as employee
buildings". If the buildings were
property owner did not wish to
approved, the land would go back to
10. The applicant j.s willing toof the project.construct a picnic area as part
11. At this time the applicant is not willing to dedicate any
public easenents along his property.
The comments in your letter indicate that the only Itincentivett
for Enployee Housing that the Town Staff can support is an
increase in the number of units. In return the Town asks for the
applicant to accept additlonal restrictions and requi-rements on
his property that would not be required with other proposals. To
us this hardly seems like real inCentives. As we hoped to nake
clear at the last neeting, Mr. Faessler bought this property for
the sole purpose of building housing for his enpl-oyees. Whether
it be the fifty mostly one-bedroon units as we have proposed, or
eight units allowed under current zoning with several bedrooms in
each, the nurnber of tenants is about the same. The fewer the
units allowed by the Town results in more bedrooms per unit,
fewer parking spaces required, and a project of less quality. We
have strived to design a project that will attracE the best long-
tern tenants, thereby maintaining the quality of the property and
mininizing impact to the neighbors. If we are forced to build a
project that requires tenants to share accomnodations, then the
applicant must decide if it is more beneficial to build a less
costly townhouse project within existing zoning and without any
Town imposed restrictions or conditions.
I spoke with David Leahy this afternoon.should be completed by Thursday norning.
on to you as soon as it is received.
His traffic reportI will forward a copy
Sidney Schultz
oo
,lA'\ f-otl
rlzlto
_- flooql,?Zg, 16,9 r?Ff
dafiln 7b.E
75 3outh Iront gl3 road
Yrll. colondo 81657
(303) 4792138
(303) 4p213S
December 27, 1989
Mr. Sidney Schultz
].4L East Meadow DriveVail, CO 81557
office ol communlly d€vclopme'nl
Dear Sid,
Upon receipt of TDAts draft transportation/traffic analysis on
Decernber 26t't,, the Town planning staff has again reviewed the
Faessler project. As presented, the staff is very unconfortable
supporting the project, however, we would propose a number of
rnodifications to your proposal which, if included in your
proposal, would al1ow the staff to take a more positive position
on the project. Such suggestions would include the following:
1) Project density - the naximurn nurnber of dwelling units
that the staff can support, and which we feel the site' can comfortably handle, is 30 dwelling units; the split
of one-bedroorn and two-bedroom units should be at your
discretion.
2) Project GRFA - this should be lirnited to a maximurn of
16,259 square feet. This would be in line with what
the current Rc zoning allows.Buildinq heights - should be linited to a rnaximum of
33r for sloping roofs, or 30r for flat roofs.
Site Coverage - rnaxinum of 25e" of the total site area.
Landscaping - minimum of 602 of the total site area.
Parking Standards - the standards designated in Section
18.52.1-00 of the Town zoning code shall need to be met.
We also feel strongly that the covered parking
reguirement of I covered space/dwelIing unit be net.
Also, cornpact car spaces should be linited to 25? of
the reguired nurnber of parking spaces.
3)
4)
s)
6)
7) Day Care Center - due to the projected impact the
center will have on the neighborhood roads (TDArs draft
report), the staff cannot support the appJ.ication for a
day care facility in this location. we would suggest
that you elirninate the center from your proposal .
8) Setbacks - we would Like to see aL1 the reguired
setbacks Listed in the RC zone district met, however,
we will work with you on this issue. The nost
important setback is the 50tsetback requirement for
Gore Creek.
9) Ernployee housing restriction - the staff belives that
the proposed enployee housing restriction of l-2 years
is not adequate. If the owner is truly sincere about
enployee housing, then the restrictions should be
Iong terrn - sirniliar to the secondary unit restriction
in the Primary/Secondary zone district (Section
1.8.13.080(B,L0) of the Town zoning code).
10) Project amenities - the staff believes that sone type
of on-site recreational amenities should be provided
for the projectrs residenLs. A tot lot, pi-cnic area,
and/or open space along the creek would be appropriate.
11) Dedicated easement - the sLaff feels that an easement,
dedicated to the public, shoul-d be provided along the
length of this property, adjacent and parallel to Gore
Creek. This easement could be utilized as a pedestrian
walkway to the proposed Stevents Park site to the west.
In order to finalize our staff comments, and to compJ-ete your
application, we will need the final TDA report. When can this be
expected?
sid, I would like to meet with you to discuss the issues I have
outlined above. Please call me and we can set a time to discuss
this further.
Sincerely,
Arl'./ lr'7-/Z .
t lz/-P , t v t?vl-
Mike MoIlica,
Town Planner
xc: Peter Patten
l:;.iF r_;'.; lf'.liLii'F':'r llTllr;L
\a Jrr trt'It: ,,r;:..:, .lr,__t i- .t-r-
Dccenrbel: 22, 1989
DRAFT
) h/e: ,f ckutl1
Sidney Schultz
Sicinei' Schuitz - Architert Inc,
141 Ea$t l,leaclow Dr:ive
Vaj.1, Co. 81557
Rei Faessler Apartnent arrd Day Ca:re Center Traffic an'l
Parking AeseEement.
Dear Sidney,
As agreerl r w€ have reviev..ed the prop<rsaI f ,,r': deve,' opi,ng Zi'
apartinen+* 'units and E day care cent;r bff L,,ipirre St:r.eet in the
iirternountain area. As we r:r'rclers'*and the propos;r}, the apBrttrlents'
will b,e used prlmarily by einptoyees of the Sonnenal-p Hetel. rn Vajl
\tillage and ihe day -cai'e faciflty viil be used excluslvely by
Sonnei,alp enployees] We further Uncletstancl a nuini.*r af Sonnenalp
enployeel currentty live in the Internrourrtain area. Ehe 3'4OO
sqlarb foot- day care center wilL have 3 to 4 emp.tiyees'
on the basie of this infsrrnatio]'r r^;e iiave prepared thie assessmellt
of potentlal traffic and perking impact aE_sociated with the
Faessl.er Apartnent and Day Care Cenler proposal.
Exlstlng condlltlon8
?he Faessfer Realty proJect '-'"ould be developed in a resideirtial
area that is eesenliaiLy-at the westerly end ot derelopnenL in the
core Creelc \talley. Souitr Frontage Roed connects the lrrterrnountaln
area with Cascade, Lionshe.ld ariA Vatt- Viltages. the West Vait
rnterchange ttlth I-70 ie about 1/2 nile west of the prolect' t{gr!,}
frcntage ft.oad and South Frontafe Road conneet via the l'le6t Vail
I-7O diamonil lnterchange, The nexb conflection for: lcsa1 frontage
road. novenentg occurs three Iniles farther east at the Main Vaii
fnterchange,
gguth Frohtsg€ Road iE a two iane rural roed serving 3s. a
eoli.ector-Cleirlbrrtor for regional trips Lo arlC f::olr f-70 and for
access to abutting parcels.- Betlreen tF-e wee t and Main vail.
int.erseCt.lOns, Soutlr Frontage Road is under the rnaintenallce and
access jurisdiction of the Coloraclo Stat-e Highual Department.
TraffiC volumeg On South Frorrtage Road ale r.uch hlgher east of the
'rlest VaiI interChange as rnuofu of the Iniet stete nicr'Tenents at'e
oriente,l to the comme-rcial areas of Cascade and Ll.onairead viIlages.
valumes orr south Frontage Road in the vicinity <rf the 1:rolect js,
estimated Lc be }ess than 1,500 velrlcleE per day. Daily volunrs
fluctr"raters arrnually baued on lovels of occupancy iIl llrLermount:ain.
It ls eslinated that abollt 501 of the dwelirrig unlte al:e
o.,l,rner-.oc.cupied,20[ ueed by second home pur'chaeers and lhe
genalnlt:g 3Ot are long teryr or geasonal renters. lPhel:e are no
-'-tgc i [rr I L-!i.riiF :, r:Ei.lTr-lF:I O t|- Il,] . ;-,ii!ir: :i ::r: i:i firer -'1.i:'l 1l::? P.U-:
cornnercial shert term or overnlght lodglng qnlts in fnterltountain'
occ upa ncl- .l eve l s ;;i a
- r rxhf i a r' ieti3 * i, 9:ti l':^ -9]"*'j,}nt ". Jt iI:il;;il";i"u;;-;;d "un*nt r,Jrriay pert-oas when ser-:o1d hotne user and
geasonal errrployrning-G! aaa to tndi
as Spring Break weel(,
The rnterrr,ountain area is e.erved werl by- public tranoLt. Towrl
buses on tbe w""[ Viii South nouie r,rn ail day frorn 5:20 A.U. t'o
L2;45 A.t{. The route connectE Internou:rtain with the three
vl).lages. tranef.it to other tonn routes are :nade at the Vail
i.r""ii"rtation C"nler ii Vifr Vittagn., rl]* t'l'!e^adr"i Creehrr bus sft)F'
is a lhort walk fron the proPoaed prolecE elEe'
Projcct llrafllc
The proposed project has two baEic sourses of additional traffic
generation:L. The 50 apartnent units
2. The 3,40-0 sguare foot Day care center
Thisresort
Inetitute of
Generatisnfr
and ie comParable to the rate
Transportaioh gnglneers -ln the 1'987
for ttLow RtEe Apartmentgr'.
publiehed bY the-publlcation "TriP
The same publication suggests Day care
trips trer dav rrer 1-000 Bsuare feet of
ffi-TnFividual trip generaEFlf-llElllrEF!
"aatttott"l trafflc gen-eration as sone of
be oriented to the DaY care center'
dropped and subsequently. picKed up
rep-rlsente fggl daily -vehicle Frlps --
siie eactr represent t ttvehlcle trlprr '
sj.mply actolngi Ene
overEtate the net
the reeiclerrtaf l triP wou)-d
Furthermore' each child
from a daY care center
entering and leavlnE the
centerE average 67
Gross Floog lr
Assuming flve sonnenalp houEehol-cts livlng irr lr:ternounLain uee the
Day care center ;;;;-a;y, ve would expecf.soulf llontage Road trip
ql;r"i.iion uouta be otdendise reduled qy 2,P. trlps Fef ..day -.(shouseholdr- x 4 dallt JJV-ciie-.rehicie tri-ps@r -household) ' The
proposed Eeven twcr--lierlrcinr unlte lncluded in tfre 5o*unit apartnent
couid account roi anot.iter half -dozen children uslng the- day -carece.ter. These "n-tit* usera ",r'rto reduce tlre- daily volune by a
eimilar 2o vehicle trlPe Per daY.
1 ,'
Xr'ryd*
i,rlF;"t_+ii llJrrrtF i UtI'l-l'l-lFtF OUt I'lr, .5[r-?.i,tlt,:;l,l
Veh.igle frips./oav
€'D "=E-20
-20ffi>-
Added 'Lo this would
apartnent dwellers.
be the new non-day care triPe generated by the
E r.rould eoual 280 vehicte trll}s (300 - 20
ehlcle triFF
ji|'L 2:,irg l:::3 F .rt)
Trlp Generator
FrEe--Etanding Day Care Center (ITE)
Exlatlng fntermountain gonnenal!'
Household Trips
On-Site Proposed Fiousehold Trips
lcB 3-ffi'x
x2 tl'2%
on-site
Day Care Center
50 Apartment units
7-o Aalls'u:
ZJr--fuilt:-bfu
fufure Oe,adr+l@u
h/anf t/ec1 [ u*u"l< urge
25Ao
TD4 COLoRADo r'lc'
1675 Lsrimer
Bl'li.?18""'ado 80202
Hence,
ln i,[ /..ty
925'1t o'?
?5 3oulh frontrg. road
Ysll, coloredo 816!i7
(3{r3) 47$2138
(303) 4792139
December L3, L989
Mr. Sidney Schultz
l-41- East Meadow Dri.veVail, CO 8L557
Re: Faessler Realty Apartnents & Day Care
ottice ot communily dwelopment
Dear Sid,
This letter is intended to document our telephone conversationtoday regarding the Faessler Realty project. We both agree thatthe adjacent property notice, which was sent out on November 29,1989, was not accurate. The notice was flawed in that it was notmailed to all current owners of record, of property adjacent tothe proposed development site.
As we also discussed, your application has now been scheduled for
review by the Planning & Environnental Commission on January 8,l-990. In order that we meet this hearing date you must provide
this office with a revised adjacent property owner list. I will
need to have this information by Friday, December 15, 1989r inorder to rneet the mailing deadline.
The staff is anxious to review the transportation/trafficanalysis which TDA is currently preparing. It is rny
understanding that such analysis will be subrnitted for our reviewon December 18, L989.
I will be calling you to follow-up on the above. Thanks.
Sincerely,
hJ, h'(/^-
Mike Mo1lica,
Planner If
xc: Peter Patten
FAESSLER REALTT APARTI.{ENTS
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Parsef--4.-
Stephens SubdivisionVail Intermountain
Wil-1iam Steward
Box 3, 2764 S. Frontage Rd. West
Vail, C0 81657
-Parc.e-]--B
Stephens Subdivision
Vai l- Intermountain
Steve Schweinsberg
2754 S. Frontage Rd. West
Vai1, C0 81657
and
August & Agnus Miller
10 Grant Ave.
Se1byvi11e, DE L9975
Paltet- C
Stephens SubdivisionVail Int ermountain
Charles & Charnayne BernhardtP.0. Box 2012
Vail, C0 81658
Chuck Ogi1by
2938 S. Frontage RoadVai1, C0 81.657
Meadow Creek Condoniniumsc/o Tom Gorman
Property & Rental Management
Suite 499
143 East Meadow DriveVail-, C0 81657
Columbine North Condominiums
c/o Charles & Charmayne BernhardtP.0. Box 2Qt2
Vail, CO 81658
S o{+$ T'rnntage Road
Colorado Department of Highways
Rich Perske
P.0. Box 2107
Grand Junctj.on, C0 81502
tL,tv'F1 nn4 *-t f/4
/re<z
v
NOTICE rS
Connission
accordance
of Vail on
PUBLTC NOTTCE
HEREBY cfVEN that the planning and Envlronnental
of the Town of VaiI wiII hold a public hearing in
with Section 18.66.060 of the nuniclpal code of the Town
the Town of Vait Munlclpal
Building. Consideratlon of:
1. A request for a rezoning from Residential cruster
Density Multiple Farnily with a Special DeveLopnent
for Parcel D, Stevens Subdivision.
to High
DlEtrict
'- 3.
A request for an anendment to speciar Development Dlstrict No.
4, Cascade Village to amend Area D.
Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd., clen Lyon Office Bullding,
Colorado Partnership.
A reguest for a major amendrnent to the Doubletree Hotel ,
Special Development District No. L4t 2SO South Frontage Road,
to change uses: reduce the number of acconmodation units and
to add a spa facility.
Applicant: ilerry Kratzoff
A work session on a request for an amendment to Special
Developnent District 19, Garden of the Gods, 3G5 Gore Creek
Drive, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Vittage Sth Fiting.
Applicant: .Mrs. A. c. Hill
A work session on a request to amend Speclat Developnent
Distrlct 7, MarrLott ltar:i, 714 wes! Lionshead Circle, lot 2,
Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Marriott Mark
t4.
.' 5.
r
..t
' ,'t
6. A work seEsion on a request for a minor subdivision for 1ot4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn lst Addition.Applicant: Sable-Lupine Partners, LTD
7. A request for a conditional use pernit in order to conEtructan addition to the vaiL Village parking structure located on
Block 5D, Vail ViIIage First Filing.Applicant: Torirn of Vail.
The application and information about the proposalE areavailable for public inspection in the Connunity Developnentofflce.
Town of Vail
Connunity Developnent Departrnent
PubllEhed in the Vail Trail on December 22, 1989
lnwn
75 aonlh trontrgo rcad
Y.ll, colorldo 81657
(flxr) 47+2138
(ilto) 47$'2139
Internountain Residents
From: Connunity Developrnent
Date: December L3 , l-989
RE: Faessler Realty Project
Residential Cluster, to High
Special Developrnent District
offlce ol communlty d€v€lopment
To:
Departrnent
- A request for a rezoning frorn
Density Multiple FamilY, with a
for Parce1 D, Stevens Subdivision.
The intention of this letter is to notify you that the above
named project has been scheduled for review by the Planning and
Environmental Commission on January 8, 1990. The public hearing
will be held in the Town of Vait Municipal Building, in the
Council charnbers, and the hearing will begin at 3:00 PM.
This is the only notice you will receive. Should the
application be further tabled to a later date, an announcement
will be made at the January 8th neeting. we appreci-ate your
input regarding this proposal and hope that you stay involved.
t2, ts,trq - n^;&J h d.6./",/ Z;./ f u,'-e4--'iA;
ruaLA-+.
/, r-ro+,rL rr:Y
D.l\rg"\:
'" fto r1pt.,f
I q..:t/aJ\ 9-
'<=>s1JWI
u"0/*'-
* //TT
R,Gn.n,r-.1 tl"-r.-- 'r')lt?- rly'eqcy'a'"-' Co'oeA Cc''/o 4so-
)zS Y-,te)( St-e<f . rJcz,'/ c,, &/<,t1 +76 -6276
/ "- 1' t J / | -', / t .I ,J,L, J.^on erZa f4n^,14. ,(C-Dk 4zl'/7PL
ocdn kr E A* ? Zta.wttw"ryra)
/fnrl uf EAeilmca]zta %\aDF.eey). &r. trf-@ +?6-'>8eJ Tori n br,lfiuk^_ )7.s.t . uL;.,.L /4"^/.u&"L&) l7L-trzo
//nl/rttz'.$ufl-a*tu*y pFe il,, " ' 'Trt"^ ,flt%+)hb taal
J (L^tbzA, t*an-.-, Jt:yJz,vr<nao fu @4 )'d-/' 7)G33/5
J, EdU,.DeeS s78BJ K,^/,,/tckn^)rcRt+', /A.l- Brcf z 4764768
I G""t5c y'sTumno /ts3 /Ju*t<,/(7<.,,t,, /<) 4V /4, / /ufuU t,,q,l /7/'{e5/--.)Jl^c fiuoazro,l 4t +r,
't Pui"ll1du Frw,tW .t
/1 ,'g:y'rr\,.d!z-rt/ts
ofti n et,[c>,,,1n; VAN, Co . ?/6sT 4lb'67ro
A/'"/.41a .t, ^-i , ,- Q-a,a'r*7 ^*4 ?74'P8
J( ,i it,,u.t-,'i ) Ja?li:i,r,-i,L;,r,,r,L, ';.itlji,l.'"') 'r7.' '-.L',tL'
Iirl ,., ].l or.,jr,r -irJu, i.,,i,,,-,,,, , . , ,'' -.,,.,J.,, ,,..,.), ui;n *r i. j
J : u,,-, {-.-r--./ --^/ --r,c'1 e. d'- f:., . ^t^it.L,-,= ,:'-,-) ./.r/' ',..J/t t1'.".
kv Lre v\ r:g i tnvr O'Co 6', ,1s l)
,/ ,jup*"fn, Vo Ll( rJle/,a,n Curtn,
J 3noa Srrn*-u
4,.,J -'l 7z-qn<t'13JD.J" I r /J ul J-)
fr'e
, lt t. ,a 24143 Kt NN c/<r,<r'tc-/L 6-L,14-__/*__/__:-
..,vrJ
\
"s(*
a\<
Ai
,;- ^ ^^^{*//D; flir &4 s42
{-._S*n P(q) #|-&Mh Dt
T\ ^J A
K W.eS- -2?.3 t k (^(N /KtN-(ek- ft'Z==
IT
&ar rr 2z--=--J1,kta
h""d*.U a8at hnnrV.n,"J" p{ c-o S+r.- 1,b-l
l!rl
'.T^'-. -.J.+- JravteL - rYdn sory
!it
- 1:l 6oP .. N' P-cnal .5t,-t't,70
t--t%n:i.-i.'/'*4
/r&;2 f"%0"bf;[*a7. €:
- lii v''
l,i - Su.le-..-223o
r;l Plozp- *at- *te - fTrecrtsaJ
u, \'utlo'.. f X- - 152o r
tii
iirlrl
!-rl
i_ rL_
1t_,tjr*,-
iil
---- #f.',i
Allen J. StephensP. O. Box 1119
Buena Vista, Colorado 81211
Decenber 18, 1989
Town of Vailvail, co 81657
Gentlemen:
Johannes Faessler has contracted to purchase Parcel D of the
Stephens Subdivision from the undersigned wlth the closingscheduled for early January, 1990. This letter is written to
confir:m l.lr. Faesslerrs authority to nake application for and seeka zoning change to allow the construction of ftfty rremployee
housingr units on such Parcel D.
o
yrf ar,ry tilo6..drt, O.a.ntr 13, tlfe - P.ge 3
:Cvail Associatos smployee8 Bdan Canlg and Patdck Keane help deltuer mattresses to trailers
"i'bolng usod lor the ski company's g[ploye0 housing. Tb6 48 lrailers boirE used al? at iho
Eagle Rivsr Village Mobile Homs Communily and are about so-percent occupied. Tho units
aro expsctod to hold appFxlmately 120 lo 150 erploy€eswhen tulv ocdjpl€d.
Intermountain up in arms
PtcGa0ltLY ctosErl..alt lhot1.. a...tll.a ll.tat lLt.
ar.r l.lll I a-s:ta
a2?-5545/Xhl.n
By Scoulhylor'.'/ D.&$dryda
lnamoolain tlsidc0B brDddr io fql! lvronday to oDposc Ir
cnploylc-houihg proitl lhGG.
' Tb€ sitc undrr cd|sidrfrdon by
dE Tow! of Vail Ptsmiog lnd Er|.
v'nonnrnaal Commissbtr i3 qr-
nooy zoncd ro dbw .q y dghr
lt{*brccs pcr m, Thc proFsal
vqrld havc Y) r€si&lcca F s!,guding lo rtsil lbwn Ptrt|t|cs
Micl|el Mouica.Tte tlcwhpr|cd it b.ing
proFacd by F6ler Rldly. Sitt-
rcy Schulq thc Frcssle( ttprrscn-
Lunclll.3pm
Dnner 5130 to l1 pn
Appetiars 11 am.l l pm
inishcrt ia drnc fc ric l99O skihg tlrc ncca toi cmptoyce trosingt4orL i! cFlical,- Cp said. "Wc favc g
CLANCY,S. Crr<rd.vltrgc*ffi
ElhaaarFlr.rolr|nr:raarEalortr-rarallr
I lt|,iv Otv tti Aa. t rrhc:H A|.. fH*..rn Sldrr o|l T P. H.IirilloE Sryh
U...Hdoq S..h.d Ptluldolu!.i Soisidoa '
k!au{r_ t&.tJr$*ar$$fu Ct*r.HnciLtoH|lEa. tLldta.tiood&rlr.f€tPtrrr lffitotF.tdL
OP€N DAII.Y AI 4 P. T.
q
. ' , Et@alst yoncll co tnat tpuiat t"n-r," ::Y'- irn"ri""*taiaP* ' .";fl':-"' '
t2.00 lor 1o n d& o htt, r1t fa.06 on&dosl ooil .
Thc pcopb rl|o mcr wfuh tlr
ccnmirsicrrr lr'londry vobd
cdrccnu rboot anc pmjecl'3 cficct
oo thcir !Gi8hbqlt@4 llollicr
tri(L''' ::. ':,. /
' ' '?Itc mah OEnio[ w$ whd
Dosriblc it|lpat ia x.q d hsw otr&c Eighbqnood. Pc{pte xrcc,
cdlccr|lod with ramc corgcstioo
rd dcnsity,' hc sEirt
Phllirg atld Enviroonqrtal
Coonisiolrr Distu Donovrn raid
cmploycc housing is r rcolr.ing b-
lrt of it rd wc build md!. Thcn
thcrl i! bo much d ir so 0E{r is s
glul ltcy |re rgld rnd tbc0 ds! i!
rnodrr shoruglci-
the coramissiqr b sdEdulcd b
dis€uls 0E m&cr tuor|dsy, d-
dnugh dF discrsior mry bc
lrblcd until Jeruary. l,lollbr rai4
'TtE tDplicrnt hirEd r cctsutr|rlt.b odyzc tnruponadoo if ttc
!(oif,r 8ca thlongh. I lrnw thc
pcoElc ar dr rlcclhg voutd lilr b
lcc ir ltd r€ rcad to lod rr il'
l,louica said 'I don't scc hoe r,€
f,ilgctall6stby lvtdrday.- . , i
'- . Chonge in
.. plons? Sell
your tlcket In
lhe Voll Doily
. .clossifledi
.'i"{.1
'l: ' 1, .:'.':F,
i ..-
utivc, said thc csrpbr couh bc ruc.
-N
CnuronnnGor.o*Rfft*i{l ;byfohnJakes ..
GZ lohn fakes Does it again!
Opcn Daily Cossredr 4?6'fol2
r:.. h !.' ;: r.i :
L"'r,:
't"-
.-l.i
,-j:t
Serving Northem ltalian Cuisine
-. located on Bridge Street
476.5070
.. .VAIL'S FINEST
ITALIAN
llclP Your
-
Pockct
b@k out
by
'u ms#
RESTAURANT
1:00 p.n.
2:00 p.n.
3:00 p.n.
TABLEDto
December 18,
PI,ANNING ISSION
Site Visits
Work Session on the Doubletree.
Public Hearing
1. Approval of ninutes of LL/27
2. A request to amend a conditional use permit, aparking variance, and a variance to the reguirementto pave a tenporary parking lot at Sun Vail
Condoniniurns for the VaiI Valley MedicaL Center on1989 Lots E and F, VaiI Village 2nd Filing.Applicant: VaiI Valley Medicat Center
3.
4.A work session on the McClintock property locatedin west vail at the intersection 6r i-zo-and the
West Vail exit on the South Frontage Road.
5. Prelirninary review session for proposed exterioralterations in Cornmercial Core I and Comrnercial
Core II.a. Lift House Lodge - Entryb. Lift House Lodge - MaI1c. Arnerican Ang1erd. Red Lion fnn and Condominiumse. Village Center Buildingf. Bell Tower BuildingS. Gore Creek Plaza Buildingh. Landrnark Building - Betz Remodeli. Cyrano,s
6. Cemetery Conmittee: Assign a Representative.
7. Cascade Village Tabled to January 8th, 1990.
GIen Lyon Brehrery Area D, Special Dev. District..
^ [,-
-
r/' . ^ /\-lt 4-ft_Yt'"t'
PI,ANNING AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 1l-, l-989
PRESENT
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim ShearerSid Schultz
Kathy Warren
ABSENT
Jin Viele
STAFF PRESENT
Peter PattenKristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Betsy Rosolack
itero until December 18th. Chuck
The vote l^ras 6-0.
Vail village Master Plan until
seconded to table it to Decenber
The neeting was called to order by the vice chairperson, DianaDonovan. Connie Knight and Jin Shearer were sworn in as new
nembers by Pam Brandrneyerf Town Clerk.
1. Approval of minutes of l.L./l-3,/89.
Chuck rnoved and Diana seconded to approve the minutes. The vote
was 2 in favor with 4 abstentions because Kathy and Sid were absentfron the last rneeting, Jin Viel.e was absent frorn this rneeting, and
Connie and Jirn S. had not attended the last meeting, because tbey
were nesr.
2. A recruest to amend a conditional use oermit, a parkingt
variance, and a variance to the reguirement to pave a
temporarv oarking lot at Sun vail condorniniums for the VaiI
Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F. Vail Village 2ndFiling.
The applicant asked to table this
moved and Jim seconded to table.
Peter also asked to table the
December L8. Sid noved and Chuck1-8. Vote r'/as 6-0.
ffinlil$*;',--f
Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Famity with aSpecial Developnent District for Parcel D. Stevens
sid schultz, architect for the proposal, removed himself fron theboard table. Mike Mollica presented the proposal and explainedthat the board had visited the site before the neeting. He addedthat two steps were involved, one to change the zoning to High
Density Multiple Density and one step to add an overlay of Special
Developrnent District. Mike gave an overview of the proposal andthen reviewed zoning considerations to be considered for the
3.
proposal . Kathy asked if an EIR had been submitted, and Mikereplied that only a part of an EIR applied to this proposal , thatof . traffic/transportation and flood plain.- Thetraffic/transportation analysis had not yet been subnitted.
Peter Patten read several goals frorn the Land Use plan:
Goal 5.3Affordable ernployee housing shourd be made through private efforts,assisted by lirnited incentives, provided by the town of VaiI, withappropriate restrictions.
GoaI 5.4Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demandsfor a full range of housing types.
Goal 5.5.The existing employee housing base should be preserved andupgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodatedat varied sites throughout the cornrnunity.
Sid Schultz expl-ained that the applicant was proposing to build 43one-bedroom units and 7 two-bedroom units. He added that if theproposal was not approved, his client was prepared to build 8 unitsin 3 or 4 buildings with 6 or 7 bedrooms i-n each. He felt thatwith the original proposal, there could be a good mix of tenants,more so than if there were only 8 units. He added that the LandUse PIan recommended a higher density in the area. The applicanttried to rnaximize the landscaping to buffer Meadow creekcondominiums to the south.
Greg Stutz, an attorney representing Meadow Creek condorniniurnowners, admitted that it was not fair to say that they did not vrantenployee housing, but they were concerned about the density andtraffic. Connie Knight asked Sid about the allowable number ofunits on the parcel presently. Sid replied that the size of thelot pernitted 8.9 units which Sid interpreted to be 9 units. Hesaid if they build 8 units, each could be 2ooo square feet with 7bedrooms in each.
Kathy felt uncornfortable with the location of the structures withrespect to Gore Creek. Sid replied that in phase I, there is someencroactrment, about 8 feet, into the 50 foot stream setback. Chuckwas concerned about thj-s also, and asked to see the 100 year floodplain on the site plan.
Jin asked whether or not Johannes Faessler owned the building, orjust had it under contract, and Sid replied that it was undercontract. Diana stat,ed that she would like to see exactly what isbeing planned on the site at the entrance and what the day carenumbers would be, the number of employees living at Valli Hi andthe number of cars Valli Hi generated.
Jerome Volk, a rnenber of the audience, asked why a day care was
being planned if 43 of the units would be one-bedroom. Sid statedthat the day care center would be open to the public if there wereopenings after the Sonnenalp ernployees were served.
Diana felt that if the traffic study was not available by Decemberl-8th, it should not be on the December 1.8th agenda. Mike Phillips,a member of the audience, asked why the complete EIR was notreguired, and Peter replied that the project was in a category
whi-ch did not require a conplete EIR. He explained that the staff
deterrnined what was applicable in this case, and narrowed the scopeto traffic and visual analysis frorn adjoining property. Peteradded that a platted subdivision including this property wentthrough the process of approval about 3 or 4 years ago, thereforethe staff was familiar with the land and could narrow the scope forthe EIR.
Diana requested some study be done with respect to the creek, aswell. Irwin Bachrach, a member of the audience, stated that thisproperty was surrounded by residential zoning, and felt that HighDensity Multiple Family zoning for this land would be spot zoning.
creg Stutz askbd why the application was before the PEC if theproper ownershj-p was not on the apptication. He also stated that
he had checked with the title company, and only a 25 foot easenentexisted where 40 feet !/as necessary. He was also concerned aboutthe fact that only one access point was planned and wondered howthe Fire Department felt about that. Stutz pointed out anotherconcern, that of uncovered parking. He stated that if the trafficstudy was not available until the 18th, there would be no time forthe public to study it. He asked why a day care was planned if
most of the units would be single-bedroorn units. He was concernedabout how close the buitding would be to the creek as well as howhigh the buildings would be. He felt that Meadow Creek condominiumresidents wanted employee units, but also wanted the integrity ofthe present zoning naintained.
George Feinman, a nearby resident, asked horn/ many people would beallowed to llve in the apartrnents if the project was changed to Iunits of 6 to 7 bedrooms. Peter replied that there could be 2 per
bedroom plus 2 more in each unit. ceorge then stated that a Largedeer herd lvatered in this area each morning. Jo Brown, anotherresident, pointed out traffic dangers. She also fett that the
statement that S large units would be built if the project was not
approved served as a threat. She asked how many parking spaces
would be provided for 8 units, and Sid replied that 20 spaces wouldbe required, but more than 20 would be proposed.
One mernber of the audience was concerned about the increase in
sewage and Sid replied that he had shown the proposal to UpperEagle Valley Water and Sanitation, and that they had had no problenwith the proposal . Jim Anderson, an Intermountain resident,pointed out that if a day care facility were allowed it wouldconstitute a busj-ness in a residential neighborhood. Anderson
added that employee housing would soon be available down valLey and
that he felt that down valley was where employee housing belonged.
Patty Franke presented a petition which she said contained L25signatures of persons against the proposal because of the increasein traffic, increase in transients, increase in noise, uncoveredparking, day care facilities, height of the buildings, narrow road,etc.
Bill Steward, another resident, stated that he owned a unitdirectly across the creek frorn the proposed construction. He feltthat zoning laws had been created to protect people rtlike me.rr Hepointed out that his view was toward the creek, because his view
in the other direction would be the Interstate. The uncoveredparking concerned hirn and he felt that the PEC should not waive the
requirement for covered parking. Jirn Anderson asked how theproposal would affect Stevens Park. Kristan Pritz told the
audience that Stevens Park r^ras to be discussed the following
Thursday evening at a public meeting at the Higgensr home at 7:00p.m. and invited interested persons to attend. she stressed that
the ppoposal before the PEc would not be discussed at the Stevens
Park rneeting.Tom Higgens fett that with no sidewalks in
Interrnountain, 'rEhe proposal would have an effect upon Stevens Parkwith regard to traffic.
Carl Dietz, developer of Meadow Creek, stated that he had
negotiated the access easement from Mr. Stevens to protect Meadow
Creek, and that it was 40 feet wide. He said that Mr. Stevens had
originally proposed 3 duplexes. He wondered how the PEC and staff
would hawe responded to the proposal for 50 units if they had been
proposed by hirn (Car1 Dietz). Carl also pointed out that this
housing was for one employer onIy, which rrmakes it a different kind
of ernployee housing.ll
Lynn Fritzlen said that it seemed to her that West Vail and thisproject in particular, had not received the same amount ofattention paid to other parts of Vail . Peter Franke pointed outthat the access into Intermountain required a left hand turn that
was already on a busy intersection, and that the increase in
traffic would make a bad situation worse. Mike chapnan, a
resident, asked how one would know that the day care would stay a
day care and was told it wou1d be a conditional use, therefore if
the use changed, the owners of the new use would have to obtain a
conditional use perrnit. Mike then mentioned that he did not see
how anyone could Iive in 400 square feet long term and v/ondered
what would prevent the SonnenaLp from using 3 month leases.
An unnamed member of the audience added that sid Schultz also
served on the PEC, the board that was to consider the proposal.
He felt that both the staff and Schultz were hurrying to get theproposal passed.
Diana Donovan rnade it clear that the peopJ-e on the PEC make thedecisions, not the staff. She added that they would probably not
nake a decision on December L8th.
Peter Patten also responded by saying that he resented theimplication that the staff was railroading the proposal. He addedthat the staff takes a very unbiased look at all proposals andwould look at all elements of this proposal before making adecision. Pegqy Osterfoss, former member of the PEC, stated thatthere was no need to feel the PEC \,rrouLd not be objective, that they
made a tremendous effort to be unbiased. Peggy felt the need for
an intelligent, inforrned observation which would be less emotional(than displayed at the rneeting).
Dave Reichart explained that he had tried to purchase this propertyto build L2 units, but then it was down-zoned. He felt that it wasunfair to change the zoning just because there was an employee
housing crunch. Charles Bernhardt, owner of Stevens Parcel Ctstated that he had not received notice of the proposal .
Kathy Warren, member of the PEC, wanted more information on the daycare facility, on the traffic study, flood plain and informationfrom the Fire Departrnent. Mike Molfica replied that the Fire
Departrnent had examined the proposal, and did not have any major
concerns about 3-t.
Diana wanted to know exactly what variances would be required ifthe property hrere RC. She was concerned about the number of unitsproposed, the snohr removal and the use in the neighborhood. Jo
Brown pointed out that usually day care facilities includedkindergarten children which would include school buses. Sarah
Ne\.tsam added that the school bus stop was at a dangerous corner.
She stated that when coming out of this project, there was a blind
corner.
Someone asked Mr. Faessler if the purchase of the property depended
upon the proposal of 50 units being approved, and Johannes Faesslerreplied that it did not, that he would purchase the land anyvJay.
Diana mentioned that the property ohrnerrs signature was needed onthe application.
Jim Shearer, a mernber of the PEC, stated that he did not think
anyone was going to rush to make a decision on the proposal, andpointed out that any decision would be a precedent that would have
to be fol-Iowed. Faessler stated that he had not intended torrstart a warrr between managers and residents of Vai1. He felt that
the statement that managers would not be happy living in 400 square
feet was an error, and said that he had some employee housing in
East Vail which he felt was too smaLl. He stated that he wouldbuild high quality housing and added that he employed 150 peopleyear-round. He felt that he would not create the problem that theaudience seemed concerned about. He felt it would be a shame if
everyone who lived in Vail took the attitude that all people whoare ernpJ-oyees are second cl-ass citizens.
Diana suggested interviewing people hrho live in the Bighorn
apartments to get their point of view. Soneone in the audience
asked Johannes t,o table his proposal and to rneet with the residentsof the area, and he replied that he felt the pEC rneeting was thecorrect forum for such a rneeting.
Soneone in the audience stated that she lived 2 doors away fron theBighorn apartrnents and that the residents had changed 3 tirnes inone year. Johannes replied that the Bighorn apartments were toosmaLl and that was vrhy it was irnportant to have one-bedroomapartnents.
Peggy Osterfoss, a rnember of To\^rn Council, stated that there wasno question but that the Town Council would be very interested inthe concerns of the neighborhood as well as the PlanningComrnission. She agreed that there was a need to work out detailshere. She said that if there was inadequate information for nextweekrs PEC rneeting, the PEC would not make a decision.
Jirn Shearer asked Johannes how crucial the day care center was tothe proposal , and Johannes replied that if it became a stunblingb1ock, he could take it out, but thought that people would see theneed for the day care center. Jo Brown told of early days inIntermountain, \shen she saw people come in, build, sel1 and noveaway. She said this was changing and the residents were trying tonake the neighborhood one of long term residents. Jo pointed outthat if the zoning is changed for this proposal , the residents ofIntermountain will have to live with the increased density forever.
Lynn Fritzlen felt that private developers needed direction fromthe Town government so that there wouLd not be confrontation withproposals, i.e. Pitkin Creek Townhomes in East Vai1. Diana repliedthat the way things worked now, the government needed to wait forproposals since all the Va11ey is zoned.
4. A work sessi-on on the McClintock property l-ocated in West Vailat the intersection of I-70 and the West Vail exit on theSouth Frontage Road.
Peter Patten explained that this property had once been annexed toVail, but was now back in the County. He added that the owner had
been meeting with the staff concerning development of the propert.ydating back to L980. The proposal was for a total of 4 detached
townhomes, including the existing residence. It was zoned RSM inEagle County, and the owner wanted to know how the Town would feel.about the proposal before they asked to be annexed again. Peterstated that the density would not change from that allowed by the
County.
Mike Mollica reviewed the zoning analysis, compliance with the LandUse Plan, zone change criteria, and other issues concerning theproposal . He stated that the staff hras concerned about existingtrees, naybe having P/S zoning, perhaps including employee housing,having a reasonable slope to the driveway, and the undergroundingof the utilities. He wanted to see the proposal staked.
Sr oQrv SCHULTZ-ARCH ICT,*.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
VAIL COLORAO 81657
3O3/476-7890
December 8, 1989
Mr. Mike Mollica
Town of Vail0ffice of Community Development
75 South Frontage RoadVai1, Colorado 81657
re: Faessler Realty Apartnents & Day Care
Dear Mike r
The following information should answer the questions in your
December 5th letter regarding the above rnentioned project.
1. A zoning analysis is enclosed.
A transportation/traffic anal-ysis is being prepared by TDA
Colorado, 1nc. and should be conpl-eted for the December 18
neeting.
I have submitted a site plan showing a tota1, of 77 parking
spaces. Counts that I have made out at Bighorn Lodge show a
maximum usage of one space per unit. Timber Ridge
Apartments allows one space per unit also. I would like to
discuss with the P1-anning Commission the following parking:
1 space / one bedroom unit = 43
1..5 space / two bedroour unit = 10.5
2.
q
6 spaces for day care
TOTAL PARKING
=6
60-Splcns
4,
The additional enclosed site plan shows where parking spaces
could be omitted and landscaping added. In checking with
the day care facilities in the area f learned the following:
a) Learning Tree/ABC School - 10 spaces plus turnaround
for 50 - 60 children;
b) RiverView - 7 spaces for 35 - 39 children;
c) Rumpelstiltskin - 7-10 spaces for 40 children.
The revised site plan shows ridge heights and existing
contours. I have also incl-uded a section showing the
relationship of this project to Meadow Creek Condorninium.
That section is taken along the eastern property line.
At this time the phasing of the project is uncertain. If
the housing problem continues at its present rate' Phase 2
nav be built as earlv as sunmer of 1991. For the tine
MEMBER, THE AMERICAN INSTIUIE OF Af€HIIECTS
6.
being, Phase 1wi11 end at the trash enclosure and the
western end of the site will remain natural.
I have net with Mike McGee and we discussed fire departnent
access through the site. I have shown the proposed f ire
truck turnaround on the site plan. Specific f i-re hydrant
locations will be pinpointed as the proj ect proceeds.
A professional engineer will design the parking 1ot runoff
control prior to application for a building permj-t.
Snow storage has been added to the landscape p1an.
7.
8.
o Mr. Faessler is scheduled to1, 1990. Mr. Faessler will
Stephens authorizing him to
Drocess in the interim.
close on the property JanuarY
obtain a letter from Mr.
proceed with the planning
10.
11.
11
At this time it is planned that the first floor of the Day
Care Center will be used as infant care for a maximum of 10
infants. The creek 1eve1 will accottnodate a rnaxinun of 20
toddlers and pre-schoolers. Sonnenalp employees will have
first priority to the center. If there are additional
openings they will be made available to the general public.
The fenced tot 1ot will be for the exclusive use of the
center during business hours and for use by resident s of the
apartnents after hours. Since the two-bedroom units are
specifically designed for famil-ies with children, and given
the parking information from other day care facilitiesr u€
feel that the six spaces allocated in the parking analysis
in item 3 above are adequate.
Based on ny experience, I feel that one trash facility is
sufficient for the population proposed for this proiect. If
however we find that one is not sufficient, an adjoining
dumpster may be added or additional pickup service provided '
I discussed with the Town Engineer drainage along the east
property line. As part of a drainage master plan for that
neighborhood he is sizing the pipe necessary to channel the
water. At that tine we will get with Upper Eagle Valley
Water & Sanitation to modify their existing easement.
Greg t s other concern regarding the width of the access road
and shoulders has been indicated on the site plan.
Mike McGee would like to revier.r the revised site plan before the
Monday meeting. If you have further questions please give ne a
cal1.
Ex'""'
Sidn'ey Schultz
8 Decenber, 1989
FAESSLER REALTY APARTI'IENTS & DAY CARE
CURRENT ZONING: RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICTSffiffij 2O--feet front; 15 feet sides and rear.
Height: 30 feet flat roof; 33 feet sloping.
Density ControL: max. si.x dwelling units per acresite area;not nore than 25 square feet of GRFA for eachfeet of buildable site.
of buildable
100 square
Coverage: max 252 of total slte area.
Landscaping: min 60% of site.
Parking: no parking in front setback;
1".5 spaces for proposed one bedroon unitsi 2,O spaces for
two-bedroom unit.
PROPOSBD DEVELOPMENT:Lot Area:
Setbacks:
Phase
Height:
Denslty:
Tot a1
1.99 ac. or 86,580 sq. ft. (65,036 buildable)
20t min. east & west; 65t min. south, L5r min. north;
1 will be approx. 34' nin. fron centerline of Creek.
South ELevation- 32 r max. to eave.
North Elevation- 39t max. to eave;
45r nax. from ridge to existing grade.
Phase | - 29 units ( 25 one bedroom,/4 two bedroonr)
Phase2-2lunits
Density:50 units = 25 units per acre for total- site
33 units per acre of buildable
GRFA: Phase 1
Phase 2Total GRFA + corridors and tenant storage
Day Care: First Floor
Creek LevelTotal Day Care:
Coveraget 14,4t2 sq. ft (177. of, site)
Landscaping:47,415 sq. ft. (552 of site)
Parking: 77 spaces; 21- spaces covered
L2,937
9,363
22,300 sq. ft .
3,082 sq. ft.
,426
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Planning oand Environrnental Commission
Community Developrnent Department
December Ll-, L989
A WORK SESSION to discuss a request to rezone parcel D of theSteven's Subdivision, frorn Residential Cluster to Special
Development District, with an underlying High DensityMultiple Family zone district.Applicant: Faessler Realty
I. Description of the Request
This rezoning request has been proposed in order to allow for thedevelopnent of a 50 unit multi-family/ernployee housing project.Also proposed is a 3,OOO square foot day care center.
The 1.99 acre parcel is located immediately north of buildings A,B, C and D, of the Meadow Creek Condominiums, and just south ofGore Creek. Access to the parcel is proposed via an existing 40,access easement, connecting the southeast corner of the propertywith Kinnickinnick Road, (between buildings C and D of the tqeaaowCreek Condoniniurns).
Phase I of the project calls for the construction of the easternbuilding, which would include 25 one-bedroom units, four tlro-
bedroom units, and the day care center. phase II would include L8
one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units, located in thewestern building.
The one-bedroom units are proposed to be approximately 4OO squarefeet in size and the two-bedroom units are proposed to range insize from 660-800 square feet. Tenant storage facilities areproposed at the ground floor level, adjacent to the coveredparking, and some additional storage is proposed on the second andthird floors. Laundry facilities are proposed in the basement ofeach building.
Section 18.40.01o of the Town of VaiI Municipal Code describes thepurpose of Special Developrnent Districts, and reads as follows:rrThe purpose of the special developnent district is toencourage flexibility and creativity in the development ofland in order to prornote its most appropriate usei to improvethe design character and guality of new development withinthe town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provisionof streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenicfeatures of open space areasi and to further the overallgoal-s of the connunity as stated in the Vail CornprehensivePlan. An approved developnent plan for a special developmentdistrict, in conjunction with a property's underlying zonedistrict, shall establish the requirements for guiding
developrnent and uses of property included in the special
development district. It
The Town Code also states that any uses permitted in the Special
Development District shall be limited to those permitted,
conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zonedistrict.
In order to meet these requirements of the Special Development
District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone thisproperty frorn Residential Cluster to High Density Mult.iple Fanily,
and has simultaneously applied for a Special Development Districtoverlay. This memorandum wiLl address both the rezoning to Uigh
Density Multiple Farnily as well as the Special DevelopmentDistrict application.
If. Zoninq Analysis
A summary of the proposed development is as folLows:
A. Lot Area
Total: 86,580 square feet
Floodplain: 1-8,828 square feet
40? Slopel. 2,71-6 square feet
Net: 551036 square feet
B. Floor Area
Residential , Phase I: L2t937 square feet
Day Care center, Phase I: 3tO82 square feet
Residential , Phase fI: 9,363 square feet
Total 2 25 t382 square feet
c. Buildinq Heiqhts
Phase I - maximun ridge height. 45 1
Phase II - maxirnurn ridge height: 37'
D. Site Coveraqe
L4,4L2 sqluare feet or L6.6 Z
E. Parkinq
21 Covered spases or 272
58 Surface Spaces ot 73e" (includes 36 compact car spaces)
79 Total SPaces
F. Adiacent Land Uses
North: core Creek and RC zoned property north of the
Creek.West: Unplatted parcel , zoned RC and currently vacant.South/East: Meadow Creek Condominiums, Buitding A-8,
zoned RC.
ffl. Zoninq Comparisons
1.PERMITTED USES
2.SETBACKS
HEIGHT
DENSITY
SITE COVERAGE
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
residential dwellings.
(no more than 4 units,/bldg. )
Front:20'
Sides: !5'Rear: L5'
-Single-familyresidential
dwellings.
-Two-farnilyresidential
dwellings.
-MuItiple-farnily
Flat Roof: 30,
Sloping Roof: 33'
A1l-owable
D.U. 's: 8.9
GRFA: L6,259 sf
254 = 2L,545 sf
60Z = 5L,948 sf
-1 Space/D.U.shall be covered.
-25* conpact car
spaces.
-Same as RC
zone with the
addition of
lodges.
Front: 20'
Sides:20'Rear: 20'
FIat Roof. 45t
Sloping Roof: 48 1
Allowable
D. U. 's '. 37 .3
GRFA: 39,022 sf
552 = 47,619 sf
3oZ = 25,974 sf
-75? shall be
covered.
-25? conpact car
spaces.
SDD - PROPOSED
-MuItipIe-familyresidential
-Day Care center
Front: 20'
Sides: L5'Rear: L5'
FLat Roof: N/Asloping Roof: 45'
ProposedD.U.'s: 50
GRFA: 22,3OO sf
L6.62 = L4t4L2 st.
55? = 47,6L9 sf
-27? covered.
-46? conpact car
spaces.
J.
tr
6.
7.
IV. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluatinq This Proposal
There are two sets of criteria that rnust be used when evaluatingthis proposal . The first set of criteria to be utilized will bethe three criteria involved in the evaluation of a request for a
zone change. The second set of criteria to be used will be thenine development standards set forth in the Special DeveloprnentDistrict chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. Zone Chanqe Criteria:L. Suitability of existing zoning.
2. fs the amendment presenting a convenient, workablerelationship within land uses consistent with Municipal
obj ectives.
3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly,viable community.
B. Desiqn Standards in Evaluatinq Special Developrnent District
Proposals:l-. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the imrnediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, sca1e, bulk, buildingheight, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible,efficient and workable relationship with surrounding
uses and activity.3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter 1,8.52.
4. Conforrnity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive PLan, town policies and urban design
p1ans.
5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic
hazards that affect the property on which the special
development district is proposed.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open spaceprovisi.ons designed to produce a functj-onal development
responsi-ve and sensj.tive to natural features, veg'etation
and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles andpedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulation.8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to optinize and preserve natural features,
recreation, views and function.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workabl-e, functional and efficient relationship
throughout the development of the special developmentdistrict.
c. Land Use PIan:
The Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any
request for a zone change. This property has been identified
in the Land Use PIan as suitable for |tMediurn Density
Residentialrr use. This category includes housing which wouldtypically be designed as attached units with cornrnon wa11s.
Densities in this category would range from 3 to l-4 dwellingunits per buildable acre.
v.Staff Comnents
The staff has not yet formalized a final position on this request,however we have attached a letter written to the applicant whichlists additional infornation necessary to review the request aswell as issues regarding this project (Ietter to Sidney Schultzdated December 5, L989). The staff mernorandum for the Decernber
18, L989 Planning and Environnental Commission hearing willinclude an analysis of the above named criteria.
P--)
tE
o
..{
.r.{
o
)(
a)o
H
B
(d
0)E
=-.r' -
o
+-s-!_--
'ii
--d--
;-E-; :\,{r, !:aI
.d
4
(
il= t i* lti; ng r .
tilhffi ii
tq,l"-,",t i
s4..'u
....'. Ft.\a\.\: .z'.r.t. \i,'.\' \4.,{: \'R')s
\ffi., l$
AL:-o\.n
o /!
\F. u )\\'r 6,Gi. /q,-
\(r)(
i -!,$f,' )^..r I l-ii: fJ' il€lP (-:,I ttli, ut ,/l-i ,.(<lr Vl .lJ \ rr
: gffi.l I; i'Yt L'r! t rl;; { il'E1'tli :t t L,=_l | |ii r I
i,i {i 1
")'j
:\t,, r t?-j frl,gf',fl,c''' /9\ \ |- \ t ,;''!rp,f
\ r,; bl-}..\ ,xt ;\iv7; .r: -==
, .1:' \
', \; .t'i ", \g;
,. .o)
'.. (',R )t\.'(
"i. \
a,a
-Ji
%t-t\
,t
I o.
\.4
\\
\
\
I
...
1
hwn
?5 south lrontage road
Yall, eolorado 81657
(303) 47$2138
(3Gl) 4792139
otfice ol community deYelopment
December 5, L9g9
Mr. Sidney Schultz
L4L East Meadow Drivevail , co 81657
Re: Eaessler Realty Apartments & Day Care
Dear Sid,
The planning staff has revie!,ied the above named proposal and hasidentified a nurnber of issues and/or application-deiiciencieswhich r have listed below. Due to tne-iigtrt time schedule yourclient is on, and in order to avoid tabli.ig of your applicaiion,please respond to these conrnents by 1-0:00 i.m., Decenber ff,L989.
As you are aware, a worksession has been scheduled before the pECon December Ll-, L989, and a pubJ.ic hearing has been scheduled,also before the pEC, on December Lg, L9g9:
The issues are as follows:
1) -A zoning analysis is reguired for this proposal . Suchanalysis should include proposed GRFA, site-coierage figures,landscapifg^percentage, number of pariing spaces pioposld,building.heights, etc. please include a-breakdowir ror the daycare facility.
2) - Density - The staff has deterrnined that the current densityarlowed under the RC zoning wourd be 8 units (buildable area).
3) staff has agreed to waive the Environrnental rmpact Reportrequirement for this project, however, we would agiin regirestthat a transportation/traffic analysis be subrnitted, (pef sectionL8.56.020(N) of the Town zoning code).
4) _ You have reguested a reduction in the reguired number ofparking spaces. rn order for the staff to deterrnine a position
relative to your request, we ask that you be nore specific as tothe exact nurnber of spaces you would like to see removed, thelocation of said parking spaces, and the proposed landscaping youinclude as mitigation for the deletion of such spaces.
5) Ernployee housing restriction - The staff is uncomfortablewith the proposed 12 year restriction. To assure consistencywith previous Town approvals, the staff would propose that theproject be restricted, as employee housing, for the life ofTiffany Lowenthal plus a period of 2Q years.
6) Building Heights - Please provide all proposed ridge Iines,
and associated elevations, on the project site plan. Becausebuilding height is neasured from existing or proposed grade,
whichever is more restrictive, it would be preferable if youcould show the existing topography beneath the ridge lines.A cornparison with the existing units at Meadow Creek wouldbe helpful in analyzing the irnpact of the project on the
irnrnediate neighborhood. A written and graphic comparison shouldbe submitted for review.
7') Project phasing - P1ease provide a tirnetabl-e for the proposedphasing p1an.
8) Access - The Fire Department has a concern regarding the one
access into the project. Have alternate access points beenlooked into? Please address Article L0, Section 2O7, regardingFire Department access.
9) Fire hydrant locations need to be shown on ttre site plan.
10) Please provide detail-s on your proposed method ofrunoff/pollution controL for all the parking areas.
11) Snow storag'e areas need to be shown on the landscape plan.Will you be able to accommodate snow storage exclusively on theproject site?
12) The actual property owners (Allen and Marion Stephens) nustsubmit a letter acknowledging and authorizing Mr. Faessler toproceed through the planning process.
13) Day Care Center - Please provide more detailed inforrnationregarding the centerts use. Specifically, will the center berestricted to use by on-site residents only, aII Sonnenalp
employees, or will it be open to the general public? Will thetot lot be fenced?
The staff feels that the drop-off/pick-up area in front ofthe day care center may not be siled adequately. ft appears thatonly two vehicles can park there without causing stacking ordouble parking.
14) It does not appear that only one trash facility will beadequate to handle the trash needs of a project this size.
15) A drainage_easement will- need to be obtained along the east
Efopgrty line in order to acconrnodate a defined drainige channelflowing from the south. A drainage ditch and/or pipe witt Uerequired.
16) The proposed access, from xinnickinnick Road, will need to bewidened to a minimum paved width of 24 r, with 2 | shoulders oneach side. This access should provide for proper drainage andsnow storage, and these items should be reflected on the sitep1an.
r wlllshould havecontact me
Sincerely,
be calling you todayany questions on theat 479-2138.
with these connents. If you
above, please feel free to
l4A hlIL
Mike Mollica,
Planner If
xc: Peter Patten
75 south fronlage road
Yall, colorado 81657
(3G!) 4792138
(303) 4792139
otlice of communily development
December 5, l_989
Mr. Sidney Schultz
l-41- East Meadow DriveVail , CO 8L657
Re: Eaessler Realty Apartments & Day Care
Dear Sid,
Tl" plqying staff has reviewed the above named proposal and hasidentified a number of issues and/or apprication'deficiencieswhich r have listed below. Due to tne- tiqnt tirne schedule yourclient is on, and in order to avoid tabliiq of your applicalion,please respond to these comments by 10:oo i.rn. r- Decernber 1r-,1989.
As you are aware, a worksession has been scheduled. before the pECon Decenber L1, 1989, and a public hearing has been scheduled,also before the pEC, on December 19, l_9g9:
The issues are as follows:
L) _A zoning analysis is required for this proposal . Suchanarysis should incrude proposed GRFA, site-coierage figures,landscaping.percentage, nurnber of pariing spaces pioposed,building.heights, etc. please include a-brEakdorir e6r the daycare facility.
2) Density - The staff has determined that the current densityalLowed under the Rc zoning wouLd be 8 units (buirdabre area).'
3) staff has agreed to waive the Environmental rmpact Reportrequirement for this project, however, we would agiin reqirest
!!u! u transportation/traffic analysis be submitt6d, (p"f sectionl-8.55.020(N) of the Town zoning code).
4) . You have requested a reduction in the required nurnber ofparKrng spaces. rn order for the staff to deterrnine a position
relative to your request, we ask that you be rnore specific as tothe exact number of spaces you would like to see removed, thelocation of said parking spaces, and the proposed landscaping youinclude as rnitigation for the deletion of su-h spaces.
5) Employee housing restriction - The staff is uncomfortablewith the proposed 12 year restriction. To assure consistencywith previous Town approvals, the staff would propose that theproject be restricted, as ernployee housing, foi tle life ofTiffany Lowenthal plus a period. of 20 yeais.
6) Building Heights - please provide all proposed ridge lines,and associated elevations, on the project site p1an. Becausebuilding height is measured from existing or proposed grade,whichever is more restrictive, it would Ue prefeiable if youcould show the existing topography beneath the ridge 1inel .A comparison with the existing units at Meadow Creek wouldbe helpful in analyzing the irnpact of the project on theirnrnediate neighborhood. A wrilten and graphil comparison shouldbe subrnitted for review.
7) Project phasing - please provid.e a ti:netable for the proposedphasing plan.
8) Access - The Fire Departrnent has a concern regarding the oneaccess into the project. Have al-ternate access p6ints beenlooked into? P1ease address Article J_0, Section ZO7, regardingFire Department access.
9) Fire hydrant locations need to be shown on the site plan.
10) PLease provide details on your proposed method ofrunoff/pollution control for aII the parking areas.
111 Sno\./ storage areas need to be shown on the landscape plan.Will you be able to acconmodate snow storage exclusively on theproject site?
L2) The actual property owners (A1len and Marion Stephens) mustsubrnit a letter acknowledging and authorizing Mr. Faessler toproceed through the planning process.
13) Day Care Center - Pleaseregarding the centerrs use.restricted to use by on-siteemployees, or wiII it be opentot 1ot be fenced?
provide more detailed informationSpecifically, will the center beresidents only, all Sonnenalpto the general public? WilI the
The staff feels that the drop-off/pick-up area in front ofthe day care center may not be sized adequately. rt appears thatonLy tr4ro vehicles can park there without -causing stacking ordouble parking.
14) It does not appear that onJ-y one trash facility will beadequate to handle the trash needs of a project this size.
a
) . at
15) A drainage easement will need to be obtained along the eastproperty line in order to accommodate a defined drainage channel' flowing from the south. A drainage ditch and/or pipe wtlt berequired.
16) The proposed access, from Kinnickinnj.ck Road, wLll need to bewidened to a ninimum paved width of 24 t, with 2t shoulders oneach side. This access should provide for proper drainage and
snow storage, and these items should be reftected on the sitepIan.
I will be calling you today with these comments. If youshould have any questions on the above, please feel free tocontact me at 479-2L38.
Sincerely,
l4A lqrcL
Mike Mollica,
Planner II
xc: Peter Patten
]
t
l
75 south lrontage road
yall, colorado 81657
(303) 47$,2138
(303) 479-2139
October 19, l-989
ollice ol community development
Mr. Sidney Schultz
141 East Meadow DriveVai1, Colorado 81657
Re: Stevens Park developnent
Dear Sidney,
The staff has reviewed ttre proposal for the Stevens Park project inInterrnountain. We recommend that you rezone the property to HighDensity Multi-Fanily and also use a Special Development Districtoverlay. This approach seems the rnost appropriate due to the fact thatthe existing zone district does not list as a permitted use a multi-family building with the number of units you desire in one building.
The High Density MuLti-Fanily zone district appears to fit with your
proposal . For this reason, we beLieve it is the appropriate district
although you may wish to propose another zone district.
The SDD zoning is appropriate to allow for the flexibility in siteplanning and design of the project.
Below is a surnmary of comments that we felt would be important to pass
on to you as early as possible in the design process:
t'/L. We would tike to see the relationship of your project to thesurrounding buildings. A vicinity map is necessary for yoursubmittal .
{ 2. Elevations of the ent,ire project and floor plans should besubrnitted. It is irnportant for the staff to understand how theproject will appear when built out.
3. The number of units proposed will certainly require userestrictions for employee housing. This will be a negotiated timeperiod. Holrever, as you can inagine, the staff would prefer thelongest period possible.
?
,,/ s.
,/u.
the
rtlz -
8.
1n
,,/t:..
,,/ tz.
13.
L4.
15.
/:'s.
1_8.
9.
The buildable area must be deternined by a registered surveyor.
As you know, aII areas of 100 year flood plain, areas having 40?slope or greater, and any red avaLanche areas must be removed fromthe buildable area.
5. A traffic study wilt be required as a submittal iten.
It is our understanding that there will be no fireplaces in any ofunits. If this is not correct, please let us know.
The encroachments in the sewer easement must be addressed in theapplication.
At this time, the staff has concerns about the height of thebuilding in certain areas. It would be helpful to have somegeneral inforrnation on the heights of surrounding buildings.Also, heights should be decreased, especially on the northelevation.
There is only one access point for this property. This is aconcern to the staff. Fire Department access must be addressed.
We suggest that you look at the possibility of providing anotheraccess. The Fire Department asked me to pass on the
recommendation that you look at Article 10, Section ZO7,concerning access. These standards will need to be met.
The Fire Department would appreciate seeing where fire hydrantswill be locat,ed on the site. They also asked to have some accessto the rear of the building.
The Fire Department reguested that you move the two boiler/laundry
rooms closer to the street for easy access.
Under the 1988 nuilding Code, the entire buildinq will need to besprinklered. Snoke detectors will also be required.
Sone type of pollution control Cevice will be necessary for theparking lot.
Snow storage shouJ.d be indicated on the plans.
carage doors may be appropriate on the covered parkingt area. The
Meadow Creek Condorniniums to the south will have a direct view ofall the cars. Berming and heavy landscaping on the south side ofthe project are important to address in youti submittal.
You may want to use conpact car spaces for some of your parking inorder to better utilize the parking lot.
The staff would be concerned about rezoning this property to HighDensity Multi-Farnily without the Special Development Districtoverlay. As you know, if a Special Developnent District is notacted upon within three years, the SDD expires. For this reason,
we would want to make sure that the ohrner understands that we
woul-d need sorne agreernent on his vested rights for three years
once the High Density Mrrlti-Farnily zoning is approved. We wouldnot want to have a situation where the SDD has expired and the
High Density Multi-Family zoning still exists for the property.
{ 19. We ask
bikes,
that you put more lower level storage into your project for
kayaks, etc., which this type of project seems to require.
20. We suggest that you change the narne of your project frorn stevens
Park to sonething else. We have a public site named Stevens Park.
The staff's opinion is that the narne will create confusion andalso probably unnecessary controversy as people may assume you are
converting Stevens Park into a housing development.
2I . In respect to the daycare center, we would appreciate a statement
describing how the daycare center will operate. We would also
suggest that perhaps the tot lot area be pulled back from the
strearn as much as possible. However, we realize you can addressthe safety issue by fencing or some ottrer type of barrier.
22. The Land Use Plan designates this area as a Medium DensityResidential zone. Under this designation, three to fourteendwelling units are allowed per buildable acre. We thought this
information may be helpful to you.
,42. we feet an upclated survey is absolutely necessary. contours,buildable area, and Loo year flood ptain should be indicated onthe survey.
I have attached the forms for a Special Development District andrezoning. I{e look forward to working with you and Johannes on thisproject. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
KP: Ir
cc: Johannes FaesslerPeter PattenLarry Eskwj-th
Ir
I NTEP.-OEPARTI'IENTAL REV I El.l
P?.OJECT:ss/en.
DATE SU3I.IITTED. // . /5 .7?
C0l.',r'.tENTS IIEEDED BY. t/,Zt?, y1
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING /2.I/,'?
50/,;h t hryffi
tloateJ45/_9/_ - t.t,(ta- 49t.Vj
_-- ., I *1"":u .v*.bl47 Q,4a.l _ Uh_l &+ C,toss /tc.{-h * 5d*fl*T6 +l',a- *r[h e,q.,loa"n .lW .*hn?.
^Le)
Io sho,_, h"- dra_*,r*f.,* -J/Y?
du;eL1e-u*'* -;1t ,r-,,"t-W .Yr*. A roat{f ;s Ab}4r_ kt,*,u. ,.*n;s1tJV en-ns;b'*L F;tf %).*-'Jr..1,r.3..--n- ,*-6 n<l t*-- A;;;U,; -/$q,,;' !nn;nny'{o-- p*b\ L( t- 1[- d,,at [u-li.f\Dr.x<*-
Y* -,:r.,N'l 4" t-- "ll&,"r1 au6ss]1n dL 4,t fuJr -E t^^il-l,l*stif-;
vLed 1" l;a< 6,r"AbJ. 4e 6)ze ,*t;lf l* ho;,"*' ei"(z
Jl^a- ,!t*V '+'+ L +tt wun is .u.-7Lk - DlL, * vo;V J-
il*ea{',^ +{* L, I q,-. n.r3 ,;,rr*,
:, fu qLao' -rL arcus *J- az-16 { k *' u{L.
;' W)"# "h Tj, *. ?^::! -f- J,,",-'-."/rc ^*t 6n^"a' ct:rn-- 'r-dlirr16'rFk*'trrrt h*r o^ t';2L/ - v
,--,+tl, L +$!.n-["J J;" .J- J'/,- L+
4. /n Lf, : k//. t^,;// "^/H /*- ("-J .L A" h,-L ;-6*h h,j,
t*:xL. Al( dh, h/t. , ,,! I t L. u.2. oI alo bu. tT"I#i
or b# pn t"h qnLu ' Br-uu* -f ;/t 't4'o'L ru-^'L
/, V' ,-J (Lvz e'
#+h^!::t.. -**',/ 4t'e-4s'I - z{ ;s. ..rJ;J .}Lt ttuLL,/ REceEATIot DE'ART4CNT --a - r'a
Revlewed by: Oate_ . ;
Co;;ents:
Ut-,rs u";l( b. puLA "+ -/,- co,,-rp/rn ./At'- "'t"L'y"-LJ./t
bne
. Reviewed by:_ Date. Conlents:
Reviewed by:
Connerrts:
Date
/
INTEP..OEPARTI'IENTAL REV I EI.I
pp.o.:Ecr: Ee5s/eB (an/{v
DATE SU3I.IITTED: /1. T.f .I ? . ' DATE OF PUELIC HEARING /E.//,P'
C0Li.lENTS NEEDEO BYz ll,2?, t I
ERIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE pR0p0SAL: c,O .qa";A '
PUBLIC }IORKS
Revler,red by:Date
Conr,ents:
+ ,'4 f,.q:,
(/"*L 5,/ '-/ Qar&t+ / tt'2tr't1
POLICE DEPARTI4ENT
Revieved by:
Connerrts:
Reviexed.by:
Co;;ents:
RECF:EATiOIt OEPARTI.IENT
Date
i
'{ r.
..: j;
/
Date
ooI,
:i
/J,^a- =
", ' I 6.r. a,vrfs
zq - 2L*.,,
x
I
j? /"
74#.4tL
/.(r* -f,t
lE- lLo-u,t*t
f - zL*.
Tad+l , EFZ
,14 b_a?,
@ byr-t.257. = /?f*'n*.
' gln*t ' ,/ \, eN)
\ 2t ?-tM>
HDNP "7rZ qr'4 ' b0
d
/0 7o
A*t'--L
@ u-ia.dJ.4fil
sr dQrv scHULz-ARCH ITCT,*.
20)
This proposal is located along the south bank of Gore Creek
adjacent to the proposed Stephens Park in Internountain and
includes a tro-ohtuo-phaae deveLopmenL that at conpletion will contain
i'"slt€ a totai of flfty rental apartments.and ar*
6-eater. i I t is necessary to rezone the
property to the High Density Multiple Family District in order to
obtain the number of units requi.red to make thls developnent
possible.
Phase 1of the proposal includes twenty-nine units (twenty-flve
one-bedroon units, four two-bedroom units) and the day care
center. Phase 2 has twenty-one units. This phase of the project
is stil1 fairly conceptual, and the mix of units will be
determined by demand. It is expected that the unlt mix will be
very similar to Phase 1.
To get a feeling for the size of this development, the Bighorn
Lodge in East Vail has 25 apartments on almost three-quarters of
an acre. Bighorn Lodge consists of 320 square foot efficiency
units and 600 square foot one-bedroom apartments. The majority
of the apartnents in the Faessler Realty project are approx-
imately 400 square feet and are designed for one person, though
could accomrnodate marri-ed couples. The two-bedroom units range
in size from 660 to 800 square feet and are intended for sma11
families. Each unit has a private balcony. Bicycle and ski
storage is provided at the first floor 1eve1 with additional
tenant storage located on the second and thir d floors. Laundr y
facilities are located in the basenent of the building. A Town
of Vail bus stop is directly across the street. It is not
believed that this development w111 have a rnajor impact on the
bus service in the area as the majority of the tenants will be
working for the Sonnenalp Hotel who has agreed to operate van
service for its emplovees.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
VAIL, COLORAO 8165/
303/476-789O
L3 Novenber, 1989
APPLICATION FOR REZONING AND SPECIAT DEVETOPMENT DISTRICT
FAESSLER REALTY APARTMENTS & DAY CARE CENTER
MATERIALS INCLUDED IN SUBMITTAL:
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
FLOOR PLANS-PHASE 1
ELEVATIONS -PHASE 1
FLOOR PLANS-PTIASE 2
ELEVATIONS -PHASE 2
BUILDING SECTIONS
TYPICAL UNIT LAYOUTS
LANDSCAPE PLAN (to be submitted by Nov
on the
a.fJolnt
MEMSER, THE AMER CAN INSTIIIJTE OF ARCHITECTS
The day care center is being deslgned so that its use can changeas demand warrants. The center is located on the west end of the
Phase I apartments and occupies the main 1eve1 and the creek1eve1. Entrances are provided at both 1eve1s. At thi s tine it
is anticipated that the rnain 1eve1 will accomnodate infant carewhile the creek level , accessible via a sl op ing path from theparking 1ot or from the main 1eve1, will care for toddlers andolder children. The design of the center, as with any licensedchild care facility, will be revievred by the Colorado Departrnentof Social Services.
At first glance it might appear that a rezoning of this property
f rorn Residential Cluster to High Densit y is a najor upzoning. Itshould be noted however that the Vail Land Use Plan has referred
to this area of Intermountain as a Medium Density Residential
Zone a11owi-ng up to fourteen units per acre. Under the current
RC zoning, twelve units vould be all-owed on two acres. Tf this
development had twelve four-bedroom units, there could be the
same number of tenants. While zoning refers to allowable numberof units "per buildable acrett, the intent of that restriction is
to prevent the nassing of the buildings on a flat corner of a
steep or otherwise unbuildable site. This site as it was platted
in 198 5 has two d i stinct areas of development that are dictated
by the location of the easement that runs through the property.
In actuality, the propo se d bui 1d ing s are ver y simi 1ar in nassing
to the adjacent Meadow Creek Condominiums.
Both affordable rental housing and day care facilities are
d esperatel y needed by the cornmunity, e s pec ia 11y at thi s t ine. Itis felt that thi s site is ideal for both of these functions
because of its convenient location (on the bus route and near the
Vail das Schone shopping area) and its relationship to thesurrounding nelghborhood which already has a large nunber oflong-term rental properties. The development wi 11 require somevariances fron existing Town zoning. While Site Coverage and
Landscaping requirements can be net under the existing RC zoning,the requirement for covered parking spaces must be relaxed.
Although this proposal shows the number of parking spaces thatwould be requl-red for the fifty apartments, the applicant nouldprefer to see this requiresrent reduced and include nore
landscaping between t,he development and its neighbors, Past
experience has shown that this type of housing does not generate
nearly t.he amount of parking as zoning requires. The rnaxirnunheight allowed in the RC zone district is thirty-three feet. The
maxinun height of roofs in this proposal are generally betweenthirty-six and thirty-eight feet above finished grade. In thepast when variances have been g j-ven for rental apartments, the
Town has imposed use restrictlons to assure that the units remainin the long-term rental pool. The Bighorn Lodge apartments in
East Vail uere restricted for twelve years following theircompletion. The applicant feels that this is a fair tine period
for the restricti.ons.
I
ri?
I.This procedure is required for any project
the Special Development Distrj-ct Procedure.
The appl'ication will not be accepted until-
A. NAME oF AppLrcAtiIT Faessler Realty
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
,y',,
that would go through
all information is subnitted.
November 13, 1989
rrs$
20 Vail Road PHONE 476-5656ADDRESS
B.NAME OF
ADDRESS
APPLICATIT I S REPRESEIITATIVE Sidnev Schultz Architect
L4L East Meadow Drive PHONE 476-7890
C. AUTHORIZATION-.QE-PROPERTY OWNER
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS Vail Road 476-s656PHONE
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS
LEGAT DESCRIPTION Parcel D Stephens Subdivision
FEEE.
F.
$100. 00
A List of the name of owners of
Subject property and their miling
PAID 11 S.'f,d !-,i.,-..-
all property adjacent to the
a.ddresses.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A. Detailed written/graphic description of Droposal .'8. An environmental impact rejrort shall-.be submitted to the zoningadninistrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waivedby Section 18.55.030, exempt projects;
C. An oPen space and recreational pJ-an sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated by the development without undue burd.en on availableor proposed public facilities;
(0vER)
'f,Application fo$Pecial Development oistrJ Development PIan
D.
F.
Existing contours having contour intervals of not more thanfeet if the average slope of the site is tt'renty percent oror with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if theslope of the site is greater than twenty percent.
fiveless,
avera9e
A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than one ilch equalsfifty feet, showing the approximate locations and dimensions ofall buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facili-ties, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entries, driveways,and off-street parking and loading areas with proposed contoursafter grading and site development;
A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than one inchequals fifty feet, showing existing land.scape features to be retainedor removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped sitedevelopment features, such as outdoor recreational facilities,bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, watex featuresand other elements;
Preliminary buiJ-ding elevations, sections, and floor plans, ata scale not smaller than one-eighth equals one foot, in sufficientdetail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interiocirculation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general
scale and appearance of the proposed development.
III. Time Requirements
The-.Planning and Environmental Commrlssion meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accompanyingmaterial must be submitted four rveeks prior to the date of the rneeting
NOTE: It is reconnended that before a special developrnent district applicationis subrnitted, a review and corunent neeting should be set up wiih the
Department of Commun ity Developrnent.
petitj.rloate November 28, J,ggg
PETITION FORM FOR A.}IENDI,IENT TO THE ZONING OR,DI}:ANCE
OR
A cHANGE ffiTi:fi-l3fi BoTTNDARTES
. i .
This procedure isr::S:i::g. for a-ny amendment to the zoning ordinanceor tor a request for a aistrict-t-oundary change
A. NAT,IE Or PETITIONER FAESSIEr REAIIV
ADDR-ESS 20 Vail Road
PlioNE 476_5656
B.
c.
D.
NA]'18 OF PETITIONERISI REPRESENTATIVE
NAI'IE 0F Ol{NEfiqr;int olfype) Johannes Faessler
srcNAruRE :){q9ffi
Sidney Schultz Archirect
PIiONE 476_7890
ADDRESS 20 Vail Road
PFoNE 476_5656
I,OCA'IION OF PROPOSA].
ADD.R.ESS
F. A list of the- ."ri.J."i,";:.liT"i ."tnill"#l,ii all property adjacent to theaddresses.'
E. FEE $100. 00 . FAID
Parcel D
PROJECT
(ovER)
LEGAT, DESCRIP?roN lot block filin
Stephens Subdlvision
AND GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
.':tiiion form for enrenfo zoning ord or Reguesr O "r,_r,g" ir to|.-r.ijrrr".
If . Four (4) copies of the follor,ring infornation:
A. The petition shatl ,""r:U:_l :y*aly ol.rl: proDosect revisionifdl:::ry"ii;ilt:i-jj;;;::ui nr:=;:r,,,.; ;i -il,; iiopo."a
il,i,l:";:::,1,:L::*j.**::ijn"-,:Aj1.'?:Li:il:.li,'.^:Jti';,
,ffl. Time RequirementJ
$i*ii=. :i"q:il"-iiii:- :{l!i,'.::r*iil"in3"i..x":i_ !t" 2nd and 4,h
Hl?"Firl;,,iir!.* :ubmj.tted-]J,1."' "u*:*" p.iJ."iJ=il:'Li:':ltil:*g".
;ii.#:$rr: i;j';:#iiF,:is:nlr *,il;, i,::ruh*+"ffirg,
1.
't
SCHEDULE A
ottDBR NUMBT)R: 89005.1 12
EFf't)CTlVlJ DA'llI'; : ,lrrly 25, l90q at 8:00 A.M.
POLICY OR pOl,I(:InS T() BH tSSUnD: AMOUNT Of INSURANCE
A. AL,TA OWNER I S t'Ot,t Cy $ 119,500. 00
PROPOSED .INStJRtitt: SONNIINAI;P
PROPERTTES, INE.
B. AI,TA I,ONN POT, T(:Y $
TIROPOSED l.NSURITD:
C. AI",TA IJOAN POLICY $
PROI]OSIlD INSIJRBD
'T'TIE ESTATI] 0R IIJ't'I.]ItI1ST'I.N THN T,ANI) DIi:SCRINED OR REF'!]RRED TO 1N
TIIIS COMMITMITNI' N ND COVI.IIII.]I) III:]RI41N .I S FIIB SIMPI,E AND TITI'FJ TH}IRETO
IS AT 'fHE IIFFF:C1'.TVE DATE IIERI'OF VESTED IN:
ALT,AN .I . STEPIIT.:NS ANIJ MATI.TON I-,. STEPHENS
THF LAND Rh)!'Flflltl)l)'l"O.IN TlltS COMM]'Tt'{l1N'f IS DT4SCRIBED AS FOL{,()WS:
I
PARCEIJ T)
STEPHENS SUBDIVI SION
ACCORDTNG TO '1'II[1 AMENDED PT,AT THEREOF'
RECORDED MARCH 19, 1985 IN R(Nt( 409 A't PA(;E 160 AS
RECEPTION NO. :]05440.
COI'NTY OF EAGLH
STATE OF COI/ORAI)o
FOI1 gUES'rIONS I{l.l(iArlDtNG 1'll.l s coMMITMIIN'f PT.,EASE CAI t' SANDY CAPEIIJ
( 303 ) 949-L0l-1
3.
4.
PREMI I]M:
CIWNERTI:
TAX CEIIT.
662.00
10.00
STEWAR'T 'T TTII,FI
oF IJA(;I.tt (:otjNl'Y , r M.' .p.o. B()x l-248vnrL, (:o.81658
( 303 ) 949-1011
s'rnll'AR'l. TI'fl,lt
OUAiT 'T C(}I PA TY
09c 1600M 1-89t
o o
SCHEDUI,,E R - SE]CI'.TON 1
ORDER T.IUMBER I t}900531.2
REQU IrlllMEN'l'S
THE F()I,I,OWING ARIi] TIII] tIHt]I,IIIIEMNN'['S T'() BE COMPI,IED WITH:
ITEM ( \ ) PAYMT]NT TO ()R F(-)Ii 1'[IN A(:COIJN'f OF 'I'TIF: GRANTORS OR MORTCA(;ORS
tlF. TIII'; F.UI,I, (,.oNSTT)NRATI0N F'OR 1:IIt.: BS.TATN ()R.TNTEREST TO BE TNSIJRIJD.
ITEM t.I) PROPER 1NSI'IILIMNNT (S) CREATING THE NSTATE OR INTNRF]ST:f0 l]ts
fNSURl lr tvtUST BE IEXECUTED AND Dtll,Y FILnD rOR RECORD' TO ltflT:
1.. li:\"(luLion of aff.idaviL as to Debts and,Liens and if-s rot,ttrn t1()
Sbewart Title Guaranty ComSt.rny.
2. tlr,:r::ution of Certifi.cat.e - Enl--it.y'fransferor/Individual
TranFit,'t:or and i bs retrrrn t.r> the of f iee.
3. lir rrlence satisfactory Lo Stewa.r:t TiLle Guaranby Cornpany t'hat
the rr',r I estate tr:ansfer tax as'qesered by the Town of Vail has
been r,;ricl or that the transaction is exempb fron said tax'
4. Dr"r,rtl from Allen J. Stephens and llarion L. StephenB, ve€tbinll
fee sinrple title in Sonnenalp Properti.es, Itre.,. NoTE; NoTATfoN
oF THI;: i,ncet ADDRESS Ot' TnE GRANTEII MIIST APPEAR ON TI{n frEnD AS
FER 1976 AMENDMENT TO STATUTE ON RECORDJNG OF DEEDS 73 CRS
38351.0') (2).
t5'l' D \r'A ra'r a' I a' L l|
99C (600M r-a9)
S(:HFDIII,H }] - SECT.TON 2
EXCI:iPl'I ONS
ORI)filr NUMUI':R: U(.)005'tl 2
1,1111 P11t,l{'Y ()ll I'(rl, l('ll:s'l'0 t,,r.: lsslrfill) wll,t, ('oN'l:Altl llxcEP'lltoN.s'x)'f}lD
l'ol,l,()wT.N(; UNt,l':::ili 'l' t.t gnMJl AIitit l) jl,()slll) (rl.' 1'() 'l'ltl;l sAT lqF'A("rl()N {)lr'
'I'IIE ('('MPANY :
1. Rl(]fl'l'l.; ()tl cl,n tMs ()lr PAll'rJlrls lN l'ossassION N()'l' sllowN llY I'UE
l'lllll, I (l Ill::(:()ltl)S.
I . l:ASf'lllllN't'S, ( rlt (lt,A llls ()r l;lA:itll'lllN'f S, NOT StlowN llY 'f llll ptllrl;IC
lllit(.oRl)S.
:l . I)1 S(:Rn|n NO l t;;s, (:UNlit, l.clllti l l,J B()tl\rtlARY l, LNIi:l.i , ,..illoR't'A(;l') l \ AITEA 't,;r!-r'R()A"ilMt:rN'l'S. nNl) ANy r'A("1'S Wlll(:ll A (loRltll(:'l' stlf{vllY ANI)
lNqpR(:'t't()!,\tr (rF ifllFl l)ltliMlsl';li wouLL) DlscLosn ANI) |,l/lllCtl nRti; NoT
Slf(,WN tlY 'l'lIf;: Ptltll, | (l Rn(:oltl)l-l .
4. ANY 'Ltii',N, ()R l{l(;ll'l''l'0 n l,Ili:NI l.-()lt
IIr.tlll'folr{)Rl,l illi{ IttlRlii\Fl'I;li l.'tl}(NI sIIIlt),
srf()wN BY't'illi 1,uRl,t(: RneoRl's.
-r . Irt.,-1.'tii("],1r , l,l l r,,Js. 11N{:tlMl}l{n ^J('l;:fi, n lrvllttsF; ('1,n tMS (-rR ()',rllt;;l{ llA'l"t l:jRS '
I N nNy, ('tiIn't'till), l; trisT ,\l'l,r':At{IN(; .IN 'l't{l'i l'LlBLI(: l{l';(:()lllrs (tl{
^'t"t'A(-'lllN(;
til flstl(lllliN'l' rI'(.r rl'l1l;l r:['ltli("f tvo I-rn'ltt ll]':llE()],' I]ti']' {'l{1.()l'l
'l'(r 'rlll;i l\n 'f l; llROt'()sttll lIr|51.rrrlii) ACqtllRlls ()i.' llfi(l()ltD Ii'()ll vn l'tllil
'J'ilI,: IlsT,A't't'j ()lt INi'ttRIr:sT oR ll()tr'11(;A(.lt; '1'lll.lItl.;(.rN (:()VEREt) IlY 'l'll1.S
COMM.TTMENT"
6, Arry anrl ir | | unpai.(l taxes .rlrl ;rssessmenl.s ;1nd any llrlrtl(J(?emed
tax salcs.
7. 'l'tre ef f cr:t of irtr:l usi.ons :in ;rny g.rrt(,:ra I or specif i'r: wal:er
c()nservancy, l. ire pr(lt-ecti.on, sc) j I ('()nse!'vation or othr:r'
tlist ri.ct- or inclusi.on irr any water: service or street improvcment
a L'ea .
tt. RighL of l.lre [rr.fpr iet:or ()f a ve j.n or ]ode to c'xl-racl- a.ntl
r.r--,mclvc lris or".' Lherr'rf rom, slronlrl tlre s;)me l)e foutrrl t.o ponetral:e
r._r l. i nt erslr:t. I ltc.r prr:mi sos lr,.r.,,lry grilnt'r.tl , as r:eserved in tlrli.l-ed
Stat.e.s pal:errt. recbrderJ A1:r:i | 1.S, 1.934 i.n Book 123 at Pagc 3'
9. ll i.qht. of way f or rl i t clres t)l' (',:lrtit.l s constru(:tt'<l l'y t'he
^uf_lr(,l.ity crf t.trc lJli t.cd Statr'Fi, as reserved in Unil.r'd St.aLr:s
Pal-nnt- rr:<,rot'clcrl Apri I tB, 1934 in Rr.rok 1 23 at- Pergr-' 3 '
i0. lti<;ht- of rv.r y .for' l-he llll i.r)l-('t't'tlt 'l i''1 f low c'f Gore Creek'
.1..t . M.'rp ;rncl lr i I r'h St-;rl:cmr"nt for I rtt' lirtder D.i-l t.'h l= i le<l for
rer':rlt'rl r-rn (tc:t-olrr.t' l-2, I905.
12. l{iqlrr oF trl.ry llas(.'mr,rrl gr..rnt-ed t..o wr,-st-.errr SJ.opr- (;ns eoml)any
lry A I tcn .f . Jit r-1,11r,.ns i tr <locumcnt rr-,r--ordcrJ JuIy 27, .l-966 in Rook
197 at. Pa<;r' -',71 ;t:-l Ret.:rrt'L i on No. 104441 .
(lonl; i J;114,1 r.rn trext 1:a c-1r-'
snRV I r1.rS, l,Allol{ t)R MA'lllRrAI-,
1,r,11'rlSIit) flY 1,nW ANt) N()'f
s'r'l'\vAfl.'l' 'rrTl.lt
c'UARANTY CI'l|PAIfY
99C (500M 1-89)
('oN't' tNrJAirIoN snERT
S{:tll:lDt!L0 r} - SEeTIC)N 2
l.:x('t;:F'llI oNs
ORDER NIIMB[::R: f]90(15.1 t 2
I 3 . 11 i..;hl. of Way n rlrc,em.rnt. lrc.l:ween rl'he M()lrntn.i rt st;rt-f.!s
,f'r: I r':t 'lroirr: .'rn.l 'l'.. I r 'r I 1';1;11', C.nr1 r;1ny and Al lerr .l . Sbr:phens an(l Pl;l r.i.rlrl
L. Sl t'lrhr:ns i.tr rlrx:ttnr:nt, rr-(:,,t'rlod Novomber ?8, .t967 i n Book 2 [ |
at pn(ro 67t) as ta..36.grt ion No. 1.07018.
14. t?ight. of t{ay grantcrl l-o l'"he Upper Bagle ValIey Sanitatjon
Irisf. I'ir.l- by Allen ,'t. sl:r'1:lrcrrs anrl t'Iar:j.on L. stephens in (l|)eumenl:
rnr:or.tlrr<l lrebruary l7 , I q70 i rr [.k.ro l< 21.7 ab Fage 96 as Rec.:Lrt i.orr
Nrr. 1 1261t3 .
1 !'r. (:as S.y*slem llt: i I i.ty tlasemerrl: t.;rarttecl l: o Frtbl ic Serviee
(krmfr,rnv of (loIor'.,rrlrr lr1, Al lcrr ,1 . St,rr1-rhetrs .:rnd M.arictn Stepheltrs i.n
,loetrroc'nt t'r'cortle<l J.rrne 27, I ()78 in Book 271. at Page 534 as
Ilecelrt i on No. , 167934 .
16. (;a!r syst.em ut-i. lity East:rn.'-trt- grarlted t:o Publ ic: Servj.t:er
(''rr6pnryy o[. (]rr I or:arlo lry Mari r'rr Stc:phr:ns i.rr document recotidrid .Iunr'
21 ,l97B i.n Book 27 1 at Page 535 as Reception No. 167935.
1.7. l;lasement ;;..,-',1 lrnh-w€en Al Ien J. Sl-:ephens arrd Marion f,.
Sl.r:1,f1o6s and 1.h.1 Vai I f nt r.: r-mottnt'.a i n Water l-).istriet reeorded July
2t], |978 j.tt lkrol< !72 al. f'.:rgt: 0.1,4 ;rs lt<:c-'r:pt.iorr No. 169218'
1{1 . l',lmpoJ:,Iry F);rsemr:nl- qr:atrl erl t.o the UpPer EagIe ValIey
sirn.i l-alion ltistrir:l: try Ai I r'rr J' sl: r'pherrs and Mari'on r" strrphens
j 5 {pr:ttme11t recorded iarttr;r ry 22, 1979 in Book 281 at Page 99 as
Ilecelrb i on No , 1775O7 .
19. Flasenr.rrl s, rr.stri.ei:.ions and f lood plan ae shovtn on Amendefl
t, l.at: , S .,plrcns Sull{ j.v j si.on, t'rrcorr]nrl wtar:ch 19, 1985 i n Book 4l)9
fit- lrrlg. t {,1) irs llot:eption No. 30544(].
20. 'l'et'ms . ('orr(l i l i.ons, rcse rval-i.ott,s , restri ct-ione and as
conl--ai.ned i tr t'crrrvoyanr.r. ,-rf l')asemerrl t'r,'r:orderl Fe bruary 17. 1984
i.n tkrok .]7tl aL [,age 781) as ttecepl-ion No. 275100.
-o Lg b ,r&,,i^<
S't' l.:\VA RT'f I'l' I.lE(rulnti?l coLPAlrY
I
ii:l99C t6ooM t-89t
MME OF PROJECT:PARCEL D
LIST OF I'IATERIALS
. STEPHENS SUBDIVISION
. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF P
The followlng information ls_required for submittal by the applicant to the oesign Review
Eoard before a flnal approval can be flven:
A. BUILDING MATERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL COLOR
Roof
Sl dl ng
0ther llall l'laterials
Fasci a
Soffl ts
}ll ndows
llindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Fl ues
flashings.
Chlmneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0ther
Denni.s \Anderson Assoc. , Inc.
\
LAND3CAPING: Name
PLANT I''IATERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES
EXISTING TREES
BE REMOVED
of Designer:
phone:
Botanical'Name
47 6-640s
, Ma.lqs' sp':; ;r.1.
'Radlant'Picea pgr-tg-els.
lauca
Radiant '
Etg.gC.shs-Crab
,-CoIoradoBlue Spruce
.-.Quaking
Asgen
. Narrow_leaf
Cottonwood
Populus ..__ -_tremuloides -Populus
aqustifglia-"-
Common Name Quani ty Si ze*
3 2-lI Cal.
5-6' , 10-8 '3-10' High
6 2-t" ca1 .
2-1" Cal.11
for deciduclous trees. Indicate height for conjfers.*Indl cate ca'l i per
PLANT MTERIALS:(con't)
SHRUBS
Botanical Name
^---......'--_uornus al.ba
eleganti s s ima
Euonymus alatus
' compacta t
Ju,riperus sab.tamariscifolia
Pinus mugo'pumilio
Potentilla frt.
'Jackmannii'
Ribes
aureumstfiF-
purpurea
_-r-!-v]-DUrnum
lentago
T.ype
Perennials
Cornmon Name
Dogwood
r..---_-varregated
Doqr.rood
. oGffifrliea
Euonvmus
Tam
Juniper
Dwarf Mugo
Pine
Jackmans
Poten!-i_ll_e_
Alpine
Currant
^-1_._-GOJ.Oen
Currant*......_---uwarr EIue'Artic Willow
Nannyberry
Cornus stolonifera Red twio
6
4
9
I
--
Size
3r High
3' Hiqh
5 Gallon
--24 " Hj-gh
5 Gallon
tl
GROUND COVERS
I8
4-5' High
Square Footaqe
160
s0D Kentucky BLue Grass Sod 14, ooo
SEEO Native Grasses 11, ooo,
Automatic spray and drip 18,000TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD
EROSION CONTROL
gp Native grasses
0THER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls, fences, swimming pools, etc.) p'lease specif
PUBLIC NOTICE
NoTIcE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning
Cornmission of the Town of vail wiII hold
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the
Town of Vail o :00
and Environmental
a public hearing in
municipal code of the
PM in the Town of VaiI
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
L. A re.guest for a conditional use permit in order to construct
an addition to the Vail Viltage parking structure located on
Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail.
2. A request for a parking variance and a density variance for
the Enzian Lodge located on part of Lot L, Block 2, Vail
LionsHead Third Filing, 705 West LionsHead Circle.
Applicant: Al.rna Eguity Corporation, L'Ostel1o.
3. A request for an amendnent to Special Development District
No. 4, Cascade Village to amend Area D.
Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd., Glen Lyon office Building, a
colorado Partnership.
4. Consideration of adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail .
A request for a zone change frorn Residential Cluster to High
Density Mu1tiple Farnily with a gpecial Development District for
Parce1 D, Stevens Subdivision.
Alv, rr*t o"'J "'t''2
)RB T*- 3C " '*"7*e ^4 *X il.77't1
oo
The applications and inforrnation about the proposals are
available in the zoning adnrinistrator's office during office
hours for public insPection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Published in the Vail Trail on December l-, L989.
PUBITIC NOTICE
NorrcE rs HEREBY GrvEN that the pranning and Environrnentar
commission of the Tolrn of Vail will hold a public hearing ln
accordance with section 19.66.oGO of the rnunicipar code of the Town
of vail on December ll, 1999 at 3:oo pM in the Torrn of vair
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request to amend a conditional use permit, a parking
variance, and a variance to the reguirement to pave a
temporary parking lot at Sun Vail Condominiums for the Vail
Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd
Filing.
Applicant: Vail VaIIey Medicat Center
3.A request for an amendrnent to Special Development District No.
4, Cascade Village to amend Area D and Area A.
Applicant: VaiL Ventures, Ltd., GIen Lyon Office Building,
a Colorado Partnership
A reguest for a conditional use perrnit to allow the expansion
of the Village Parking Structure located on Block 5D, Vail
Village Lst Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
A work session on anending Special Developrnent District 7, the
Marriott Mark.
4.
5.
6. A work session on the Mcclintock property located in l{est vaiL
at the intersection of I-20 and the West Vail exit on the
South Frontage Road.
The applications and informatl-on about the proposals are avallable
for public inspection in the zoning adroinistratorrs office during
office hours.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVEI,OPMENT DEPARII{ENT
Published in the VaiI Trail on November 24, L989.
It
1
rAB$SLBT RBALTI APART}IEIITS & DAY CARE CE}ITER
Parcel A, B' C
Stephene Subdlvlalon
Val1 Intermountaln
A11en J. Stephene
P.0. Box 1119
Buena Vleta, C0 81211
Swln & Tennls Club
Chuck 0gtlbY
2938 S. Frontage Road
Vall' C0 81657
lleadov Creek Condonlnlune
c/o Tom Goruan
Property & Rental [anagenent
Sulte 499
143 East Meadorr Drlve
Val1, C0 81657
South Frontage Road
Colorado Departnent of HlghraYa
Rlch Pergke
P.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction' C0 81502
FAESSTER
ADJACENT
(
REALTY APARTMENTS
PROPERTY OWNERS
& DAY CARE CEIITER
Parcel A, B, C
Stephens SubdivisionVail Intermountain
Al-1en J. Stephens
P. O . Box 11 1.9
Buena Vista, C0 81211
Swin & Tennis Club
Chuck 0giLby
2938 S. Frontage RoadVai1, CO 81657
Meadon Creek Condominiumsc/o Ton Gorman
Property & Rental Management
Suite 499
143 East Meadow DriveVai1, C0 81657
South Frontage Road
Colorado Departnent of Highways
Rich PerskeP.0. Box 2107
Grand Junction, C0 81.502
t,/zz-/ t th t,.Lq