HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 2001 PART 1 LEGALGENERAL
Middle Creek Affordable Housing Development
SUMMARY:
The Middle Creek Affordable Housing Development seeks to establish
affordable employee housing for the residents of Vail. lt will provide 142 units of
housing, a community center, and an early learning center on a 6.673 acre site.
The site is located adjacent to the Mountain Bell building, near the Vail Village
roundabout and the Lionshead pedestrian bridge. The proximity to the center of
town presents the possibility of a transit-oriented development, reducing the use
of the automobile in favor of pedestrian and bus traffic. The development does
provide 245 parking spaces exceeding the Town of Vail standards.
The Middle Creek development contains 11 buildings, including the Early
Learning Center and 2 covered parking buildings. All of the residential buildings
have three or four stories of units, and many incorporate tuck-under parking.
This allows the development to have a density of 21.3 dwelling units per acre,
while maintaining 60 % of the site as open space. In addition, the tuck-under
parking helps to provide the development with a total 144 covered parking
spaces, or 59%.
PROGRAM:
The 142 units of affordable housing on the Middle Creek site are divided
into four separate unit types: studio, 1,2 and 3 bedroom units. The majority of
the units are three bedroom or studio units. These two unit types incorporate two
variations each, providing a wide range of unit choices to accommodate many
types of living situations. Five of the buildings have tuck-under parking and
three stories of units; two buildings have four stories of units.
Building B contains the community center on the ground level with studio
units above. The community center will contain a leasing office, laundry facilities,
and community areas such as mailboxes. There will be a Town of Vail bus stop
directly in front of this building. The central location and community facilities of
building B will encourage the use of transit, as well as provide a gathering place.
The Early Learning Centerwill replace the existing ABC/Learning Tree
Child Care Center on the site. lt will serve up to 60 children and 15 staff with a
gross area of approximately 5,000 square feet. The Early Learning Center
contains five classrooms, a studio, a kitchen and an outdoor play area. This
building will be more fully developed as we proceed with the details of the interior
floor plans in future design charettes with staff and parents.
SITE:
The Mountain Bell site is arranged around four axes, which create distinct
view corridors and organize the site as a whole. Two of these axes direct the
eye to the existing Mountain Bell building, reinforcing and enhancing this
significant piece of the Town of Vail's architectural heritage. The central axis
establishes views from the town of Vail to the mountains beyond. Two four-story
buifdings, oriented north-south, flank this axis and create a community plaza for
the residents of this development. The buildings themselves reinforce this view
corridor, stepping down the sloping site to create varied and modulated
architecture. The eastern most axis separates the housing portion of the site
from the relocated early learning center with a landscaped area. This separation
provides needed privacy between the activity of the housing and community
center and the quiet nature of the early learning center. Each of these view
corridors performs a specific function to organize the development.
This site organization splits the development into three distinct clusters of
buildings, effectively reducing the visual density of the project. The west cluster
houses the community center and bus stop. The bus stop is placed just inside
the main entrance of the development, allowing easy and safe transit access and
minimizing curb cuts. The east cluster has a strong visual presence, creating a
community of buildings respectful towards the Town of Vail while offering
opportunities for resident interaction. The early learning center, near the eastern
edge of the development, has both privacy and a direct connection to the
surrounding open space.
The clusters are arranged along a central spine of vehicular access and
parking. This corridor greatly reduces the paved area while maintaining a 5 Yo or
less grade across the site for ease of movement and fire department access.
Some of the buildings sit on the south side of this corridor, screening the parking
beyond. These buildings also have opportunities for solar access, including
south-facing entries. The axes and the central corridor work together as well;
generating areas of south-facing open space and community plazas where they
intersect. The view corridors break up the parking areas to create a more
residential feel. This site organization provides efficient access while preserving
views and open space.
PHASING PLANS:
There are no anticipated phasing plans in place at this time.
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding
neighborhood.
This development respects and incorporates the existing architecture of
the town of Vail. The character and scale of the buildings reflects the existing
Bavarian village feel of the town. The Mountain Bell building, a significant Vail
architectural landmark, is given pride of place next to the community building.
The orientation of the buildings provides solar access and creates south-facing
open spaces. The massing of the buildings into clusters minimizes the visual
density of the development.
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding
neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
This development provides needed housing for the working population of
Vail. Within the development, units are provided for individual workers as well as
working families. The Mountain Bell Site will be a transit-oriented development,
reducing automobile useage in favor of bus and pedestrian traffic. The density of
the buildings allows more room for open spaces and natural areas. The
development plan successfully introduces a large amount of housing while
remaining sensitive to the prominent nature of this site.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed
to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities
for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the
proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated
with existing open space and recreation areas.
The placement of the buildings on the site into clusters reduces the visual
impact. The spaces around the buildings themselves are pedestrian plazas
where residents can interact. Between the residential and early learning areas of
the development, a landscaped area provides a separation and a natural area of
open space. A bicycle and pedestrian path connects the development to the
pedestrian bridge to the west. The view corridors retain views of the mountains
while organizing the site.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe,
efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the
development.
A central spine of vehicular circulation allows efficient access and takes
advantage of the elongated east-west axis of the site, creating a maximum 5%
grade. There is parking for each building either under or near each building. The
entire site is served by a Town of Vail bus stop and a bicycle/pedestrian path
which will ultimately connect to the pedestrian bridge, reducing the need for cars
overall. Pedestrian circulation within the site takes place along a corridor which
follows the central spine yet remains separate, moving the car to the outside of
the development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
projects environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating
measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan.
Yes, these impacts have been identified in the environmental impact
report, and will be implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. A
preliminary mitigation plan has been submitted to the PEC, and a mitigation
specialist will be hired to complete the plan.
Middle Greek Village
Parking Management Plan
Parking Space Gount and Gonfiguration
The Middle Creek development provides all of the parking spaces that are required by Town
Code, for a total of 243 spaces. Of these, approximately 600/o are covered, and I 10 spaces are in
a tandem confi guration.
The following Table summarizes the breakdown of parking spaces for Middle Creek Village:
Number Percent
Subtotal Total Subtotal Total
Standafd vs. Compact
Standard'
Compact
Traditional Compact
Standard/Compact Hybrid2
Subtotal for Compact
Total
150
9393
6r.7%
27.6%
10.7%
38.3% 38.3%
243 t00%
59%
4t%
100%
76.40
10.904
12.1yo
23.6% 23.6%
143
100
243
t2
t4
84
2626
110 r00%
Childhood Education Center Number Percent
'lncludes i0 ADA Accessible Spaces
zStandard/Compact Hybrid spaces are LARGER than compact spaces. For surface locatiors, the hybrid spaces are 8
x 18 versus 8 x 16 for traditional compact spaces. For covered parking locations, the hybrid spaces are also 8 x 18
versus 8 x 16 for traditional covered conpact spaces.
Surface vs. Covered
Covered
Surface
Total
Full Size
Compact
Standard/Compact Hybrid
Subtotal
67
26
Tandem Space Details
Tandem Spaces
Full Size (includes I ADA)
Compact
Total
l5
2
88%
12%
100%
Assignment of Spaces
All tandem spaces and all covered spaces will be specifically assigned to individual
residents/units and will be monitored. Since the project intends to charge for covered spaces
(whereas surface spaces will be free of charge), Middle Creek management will monitor the use
of all covered spaces. Furthermore, tandem compact spaces will be assigned to units that have
cars that fit in compact spaces, and covered compact single-car spaces will be assigned to
compact cars. Since there are very few tandem compact spaces (only 13 apartment units out of
the 142 total apartment units will use tandem compact spaces), issues related to monitoring and
managing these should be minimal.
Childhood Education Genter Parking
The Town of Vail does not have a specific parking requirement for Day Care Centers, and we
have been asked by Town Staff to review the requirements of other municipalities (see separate
memo from Odell Architects.) The standard requirement for a Day Care center of this size, based
on the requirements of Boulder, Lakewood, and Denver, would be 18 spaces. The Middle Creek
Development Plan provides for 17 spaces, of which only l2%o are compact. Furthermore, there
are additional "housing" spaces immediately adjacent to the l7 dedicated spaces for the CEC,
which are available for the short term pick-up and drop offparking needs of the CEC. Since
some or many of the residents of the housing project will use the cars during the day to get to
their places of employment, Middle Creek anticipates that there will be many additional spaces
available to CEC parents during the mid-aftemoon pick-up rush hour.
t7
Middle Creek Village
Parking Management Plan
The Middle Creek development provides all of the parking spaces that are required by Town
Code, for a total of248 spaces. Ofthese, approximately 85Yo are covered, and 70 slots (140
spaces) are in a tandem configuration.
There are a total of 69 units that are either 2-bedrooms or 3-bedrooms. Each of these will be
assigned to a tandem slot. That leaves only I additional tandem slot, which will be assigned to
one of the studio or l-bedroom units. This can be easily accommodated since each of the studio
and I bedroom units has 1.5 spaces provided for it,
Middle Greek Village
Noise Mitigation Plan
Overview
In developing a noise mitigation approach to the development of Middle Creek, we
pursued three major components:
l) Assess current noise levels of the Site to determine if existing noise levels
are acceptable vis-d-vis HUD noise standards
2) Create opportunities for berming and landscaping between the highway
and the development
3) Use materials in the construction of the Buildings to further mitigate noise
Assess Current Noise Levels
Coughlin & Company commissioned a study from Hankard Environmentalto analyze
noise levels of the Mountain Bell site. This report is dated January 28,2OOZ and has been
submitted under separate cover to the Town of Vail staff. Hankard Environmental
assessed noise levels at the proposed building locations using a Sound Level Meter and
making appropriate adjustments to these readings to reflect peak hour noise levels and
building height.
The conclusion of this study was (in part):
"The noise levels measurements and analysis show that the proposed
Middle Creek Affordable Housing project will achieve the HUD interior noise
goal .... A reasonable interior noise level is achievable. Meeting the HUD
requirement would result in and interior space that is livable from a noise
standpoint..."
Create Berming and Landscaping
The Middle Creek Landscaping and Grading Plans include berming and landscaping, to
the extent possible given the steepness of the site. Flat or bermed areas are located south
of Building A, Building G, Building H, and the Childhood Education Center. In some
Iocations, these berms are 4 - 6 feet in height and provide sufficient mass to mitigate
some of the highway noise. Trees planted on these berms and in other relatively flat
locations on the south portions of the property also provide some level of sound
mitigation. Buildings that are located north of Mountain Bell Road are less exposed to
sound due to the greater distance from the road and the fact that buildings on the southem
portions of the project will shield the northem buildings to some extent.
Buildins Materials
The exterior closure system of the buildings will utilize materials that are designed to
absorb noise, in addition to providing insulation. The wall system will include 4"
exterior wall with l'2" thick gypsum wallboard on the inside, Yz" thick plywood (or
acoustical equivalent) on the outside, and fiberglass filling the cavity. Windows will be
double paned, and exterior doors will be the acoustical equivalent of solid core wood.
These materials will provide adequate sound absorption to provide for a livable interior
noise level.
sooor
rFoaoo(oo(9Ncoo)oo)rssqc!|.fr@ c)
;;61$[a5 il7l
slol$l
olEI
FEEI
HEEfl
El
' '
gl
sq
rf)
so
Gi
c\l
t
(n
oo,\
(f)\t
cl
ot
ololsl
olol(!ll-lot
BIol
olcl
El
f,l
ml
}Rc\
(oN
d
@oro
ryc\ro
ao
t-o
ioc
G
oc
=t-(o
o-
oo-oo
;qos
op
a
I
(Uo
o
-a$
=co
o
aoo)(E
coo
FO(U0-
-o
(EOE.t, .=fx'nYcO-rrr O-J
L
jr:ffi
Xlitiri
rnl'iliili
;rN
il,i*tr
lr li 'i
{,1 t; ,,
t$ ilr
,jl'iil
F i;rh.\
..H.\i{
'1.'lilin
E
h
E
E
ETta
ii
E;
5l
!E
I irih ;l:' tta
alc
Iul
IET,aI
![:-Ea:'I
;t:
t!
l8
et
:rn
gEd
Bte
qi
P6
g9
t:
5.
iE
It8t
4;
Ft
lilifii'il
':;E
iEtt
89F:
;g;E
i:;t*6r;
tfFtt9
lir
:!E
ugi
H
F9iiler;c;
rhF
!Bl rtl!'
lit
titrll:ll
dlEr;!
'iill
ru
:+- (
lttt
I,
/ I it;i
' i it,i,,/' ll,i'
ir X Lllt'fi:i i l'B
'+ V *"sli*Yi*'iF-'\.
g
oo
ooI
o
oI
!
Or o dttllElrtt.
Br
48rig
s
t
I
G,*
lI$
irr
lrirrl
i
llllltllllllillt!!rEillil|illl
iiiiiJlr
itqtltl
!!tEiir!
$
ffi
, f '- ...1,
7i t..t ,
,2.! i, t',.n';i
'i i{
vri ii\
,.i "l ldl
;'1,';,:'''
1,1,':li1t
',.l,!.,.,,,,.",.
iii
ir.'t.
lri,,
11;:i+
Wffi trffii
IM,
t)" 1 ,l
TOPOGRAPHIC MAF
PROPOSED M]DDLE CREEK VILLAGE
TOWN OF YAIL
EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO
l
il
t:
:r
u"tl'','.t''.r ',i,1
',','-4'. \<-. ,/
.\ .,/. ..'-\;) / '-*: --
Ilq
,;
/,
i ,,
:tt'lcttrl
eil .| ../
,'! ,t iR-!lr
iY
J-; ,' -J
It,'-:
5
.1j9 I$lli .j
ii
ii
t4 t,
iil /!t i
'tli 'i /r
il.il
tAt{ /il
i,A[J
llII.l
It
i
ill
rl
=.-*
-rn
irgciFt;.
\?*t-.-
CONCEPT GRADING PLAN
MIDDLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TfVN Bf VAIL, fAGLf CIUI{TY, CILORAI!li$liH
U'o#-m
452S3na*?l
tr
igr==
VICINITY MAP
MIDDLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
T!VI.] !i VAIL, :AGLf ClUNTY, C!L!RAD!i#tiH G
_l
a4Yt
=i
UIE
Uz
z*
=
dE
zf
U
0
r,m\z_Jg
e
oE
Eo6()
jo
__l
Irl
. t- I
-+<-
| --=
ller{-'l:ttiS,r=o, l- E/ tR (Dtrc)
r t- (Dlo
=-qo-
EU)
c)
CD.g
voEo
-!q-t:le
il!;i
)' i.
iiiui ! ii
iri
iilii!
!!ii
tiitiitti6iII
$ixll
!r""'
$l
q
HI
riz
zf
(J
€
zJ
CJ
0
m\/i
e
c
-g(L
8_Iv,Eg
_5
oE
Ectoc)
(5
t6EEt€ip
fifilii
!irIt
H
)*
rl
Ill
IIIIII
"Jt/rf
i!;
!i!E
iilu!
*-l
:i!
Iiiilt
l:iifiiilil
gl t"er p
+*a
C\l
F-
c)
E
o
"--'-"'T'
a
atIttI
I
t
I
\
I
I
I
ItII
,i
| --.\
I\\
\
I
i
I\
-f IiI
(!d
(D
E
o
(D
C)
(l)
Ep
c
=E
rnE
Uz
z*
=oU
d
ZJ
:)oO
s
r,R\qlf=
O
(l]'
\,t-l\-(!
EE
-ErnH
Uz
zs
U
d8
zI
O
oo
(U
-9o
C)
j
(l'
o
c\I
f*
q)
-o
Eoo
c)o
(,
gt
._c
=(l)
'.r
,\
. /Ya
..$
o
o)
.E
==cl
-g(L
co
Eo.oo
oo
oo)
-g
Joo
C)P-s
=E:Ed=
o
o
o
o>9o
lJl -rlorP
.=
: c.)'=E
co6
-,.'. r,. ,. *
z)
t!
()z
z*
U
dE
z-
IE
U
@
P
o!t
Eo
o(J
6
oN
t-
o_o
E
c,ooo
LIt,
c
C'o
o)
.gc
G'oJ
o-uJ
c
|U
(L
Eo
Eeoo
()o
oot
-g
-Yo
E
C)
-gEp
I
o)
.E
=fc)
q,
oO
o,
.gCL(5oJ
(E
I.JJ
ECo
r
atCo
o
otr
=,'o9
E;i'=I
dl6
1
d\-r-1
=E=ElnE
&N
(fr
\il)_E
U1
z#
oUs
zI
(,f
U
op
(E
o
=(9,
o
c{
t\
o)
-(t,(-'oo
(!d
cq)
Eo-o
(D
oo
('t(!
o)
EO
0)'(t
=
o)c
==m
U'c
_go-
t-oc)
LL
W
q
=E
lnE
c).1
z
L)
€
4
F]T
:
Os
m\1J:
F
o_o
(U
Eo
'6
oo(\t
F-
(D
€)q)
€)o
d
o)
ECL
;i
oo
c)
(E
oo)
-!9E
=
(E
o,.=
==cn
(t)c(tt
o_
l-oo
LL
rV
d\a)r!
EE
-ElnH
tsj
/,}'c
\_l_lb
(.)z
z
O
€
1J
U
E
(o
ooc{
l-
E
q)o
d
c
E
-n
o)oot:')
-(g
o
EE
o
o,-cE
=m
U)c(o
o_
Loo
lJ-
aq
=E
rnE
Uz
z
i\
z.
(J
dd
e
F.{"t(,)
U
G\,/
/R\t }.1l.E\ \'/ /lI
E(!
oE()
j (!r
(\t
F:
o-oE
o)
Q)o
o
$
Htl
E]
H
$/T\
\l-l
g
d
o)
Eo-oq)
(Do
.(E
€)
Eo
-!IE.!l
=
A
Y
.lq
g
EI
s1iq,
A\l-l
$
Htl
II
i
$
tly
LL
Ec(o
LU
.Do,.g
==co
ac
-go_
Loo
lJ-
l
--lUq
EEHEFlt
rnE
Oz
z
=oU
dE
z
r-.1E(1)
(./
t$J
/q\(( ?F\1!g
o-o
(o
-=
(tr'
ooc!
FJ
o-oEo)
o)o
o
Ig
H
II+
ffi
@
-go_
G(D
Eo.o
o
(Doo
o)_op
@
I
I
I
I
3
g''
HI,/T\(Tl
(,
o)c
==m
(t>c
-go_
Loo
LL
B
€(
=E
lnE
(,z
zs
U
du
aJ
:E
'J)oQ
s
/,|\=e
\q/5
o'c,(5
ooO
'6
oC{
F-
o-oEoo(l)o
c.
d
c
Eo-
-9o)
q)o
(1)
=:o)
E
-!p'Eg
=
Ec(E
-U)c')c
==co
ac
-go_
Loo
lJ-
=l
tnE
z
z*
(J
€z-
.x
e
(,m\iz)5
F
oo
(U
oo
C)
=(U
o(\I
t-
o
-o
Eooc,o
li
$$
9
l$
IE
TI
nH:{'
R
.=
tl
f$
+
T
c
-g(L
co
E
CLoo
oo
It,
€D
-g
:o
E
C)
-gEp
9
€T
=E
lnE
Oz
z
oU
{zf'1.
O)oU
G\,/
r.R\\ i l'ts\:lJE
oE(U
oEO
'6
oo(!
F
cc)
o
qt
?tt
a\ttri
;oE
Ctt
ca)
ii
t!
tl
c
-g
q,
Eo-o
c)
o)o
=
E
-!u_op
=
)L
d
=EEHr.Errt
lnH
0
I .. 1i=
*JF
F
(-)z
Z
O
€
1
:Eo-oU
E
i:
6o
'6
c!
t\
E(D
Qoo
(t'
UJ
'5
6q)
=
(.t)
E
P..9
J
</t
E0
-
-!p
<DEo
o,c'6a(o
o-
C(D
Eo-o
c,)
o)o
o)
Ic)
E
-!PE
==
=Eo
-
<1,
d\-<r
EE-trnE
(Jz
zs
U
€
1
T
I
U
v
r'+
\?__r:
o
E
-9o(J
'6
,t
o
c\t
F
c)
Ec)(-)
(Do
=t(goE
a,anoI
.s(E
c
o
EelJ-
C,
=t
(t)
(D
EF
(It(I)
d!
o
EIoco
c(o
o-
E
E
q)o
c)
=
E
o)-op
=
=t
(t,
q)
E
(Eoco
o
.E!tp
=
xoco()
(D.=
U>
a22265Po id
5H5 E^
^7;-a>",^'' -:oX>mj
2iE sE
i"{s*rn:rri ^Na"<t>>62Tlo !"
., 14<oriI:i<o<^
P'z>
:\io o-)(,'-
obE
d!
a
;!
:3
iE
I
!d
lli
lIr;it
;tr
!El!#
Ii[:
EI
i.'
t"
ilt",i
:r l. ,l'r r
.; t. /
.
!
t
I
E:l
rtqlat
i:i
igl
!gi
ii*l
l, l
a,'
l'j
)'n
I
I
i
it,
-'i.\
ItI l$'
EEfnFP
ltE
H
Yrnt-lo
FEE
lc)r
lcrn
k)
f"
x,r)rqn
bEtll
!\,i
lj,,{rrrc
t clii
It
iI
//flii
i-*
iii
it
ii,i i'',
i,.'t ;ii:lltii,
ili l;f
ffi'
;,1 Sf i'
$
9-,',
oe oe@
Esi:sEil
:liiiE:lE
EHEiiEff Eii aiEEi'
H i::*;
:isliEE
Slrq g
E;F i
*
=i
F:
EN
..JM
-ni
a5?Di'hf;8I
ie -. -
CONCEPT HMARD MITIGATION PLAN
MIDDLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TIVN !' VAIL, TAGLL CIUNTY, C!:!RAJ!ifliliH {r
i 'i I l .',
\l'| ,'t.1,"t,
n4
^\t I
\
')
\-
) ...
'lt
',.i
'.,I
/ il,l
rii,
lrl
l',, 1
;,,:\ ,;,,, \.,
=-*Il'.
i:/,' ',
".'
,' ,'t
"
'''
fl.---t,l'
/,1
; , , : ! | i iF
'| i ; ! .t ..
I | .' ,' ,1
: .; '" ,'
I
i[
cttsfi era-SNOW STORAGE PLAN
MIDDLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Tl\"'N [F VA-L, fA:Lf aal,NTY, aaLlR4t[ililiH
g :luauqcqlv
:
(D
o(U
-9-o
-'E=xlo f4t{ €!{lf=iEE :{O U&R Elna
o)otc.Eo5E.EA(UJcO.o.=;Es =.;e<rrs'biX6 -ftFD
gOJrE
t f (J * *.t* ; tDq 6 P ci:ci d ./Ja)
E
=
A 6q6 dt 88,o - ooo - 6aiE rE iE (I)OCD o.s)nr iE iE iE iE .,a, ariE .iE OrOO, ,.ri r/)NeEa5 Bez<E =p5t ggs Fi $s
\o -otCt o\loo (9
.iE(tooos! 9 cir olN(f)-aDlE,E*,E ,=,r,=E ,sEEc * R oci oo il<:oooo oooo oooo Vt ri lll € llj lll =ltuNNNN NNNN NNNN = b o-() oo- <lo-
cit,
@oqlr-LL
*€€€€:-(DoooE9(JoooAI E'
sg !E;rE rpE;rs;-s;rs ,, * Ee gE,sE ; 'E€ € s;'E E ;E -t'oF; E 3E E EEd ; EB 5'E3iu Errr Idr dl ErIlI s r!- lurre.EE EJ 3.8-' C A.Fq,E;FE+C,egF 6 Er E I
.2o
Etr
o.=a
pl
crl
8lol
9lq6
uJo
-olt(D
=-9
(u
o
.E
(d't
"!t
q)
.-rl t
=lYolE
=lR
5oc,t\ooolo <Dd <o-
6*
o uto .1,a lr at 0'ogr@I 888888cL (E (E 0. O.(U 0.(, o.cL(,) o o-',(t) (D (DFN d'o(o Al(OF@N.tCll (\IC')Gl-Nr
i12 lE
<tt:,'qEoqoo g I o-.o5ECCE O O) (0
^,J=Jt O $ $Srool+r u)- \ dFt(\l(\l\i O) F @
ooul ulo- aL
bEbdc
*; p FFE E,sE g5g5f;f;F Eq.E.3 E€{€EEg ig
E # 5 EEE e"KE."r"Rfi s FE-
$ H fi f,;eef; FF"-H-H"". tg'-f#s.F
Summarv Early Learnino Center Proqram
Summary:
The Early Learning Center is an all-day school program. The ages of the
children range from 2to 5-112 years. The ELC building has an approximate
gross floor area of 5,000 square feet on two floors. The area on the first floor,
approximately 3,750 square feet, is dedicated to classrooms and children's
areas. Administrative functions occupy approximately 1,250 square feet on the
second floor. An outdoor area with a gross area of approximately 4,300 square
feet resides to the east and west of the early learning center. This area will
contain toddler and preschool play areas.
Numbers:
Up to 15 toddlers (2 to 3 years)
45 preschool age children (3 to 5-1/2 years)
12 staff full-time members and 2 part{ime staff members
Parkinq:
There are 17 parking spaces provided, which has been accepted by the ABC-
Learning Tree staff.
Main Elements:
Two toddler classrooms serving up to 8 children each (45 sf per child = min. 360
sf)
Three preschool classrooms serving 15 children each (45 sf per child = min. 675
sf)
A studio for large projects
Kitchen for snack preparation (including refrigerator, stove, microwave and sink)
Administrative area for staff
Toddler playground (75 sf per child = min. 1200 sf)
Preschool playground (75 sf per child = min. 3375 sf)
Early Learning Center at Middle Creek Affordable Housing
The Early Learning Center replaces the ABC-Learning Tree Child Care
center currently on the Mountain Bell site. The new building will house 5
classrooms, a studio area, kitchen, administrative and outdoor play areas. lt will
accommodate 15 staff members and serve up to 61 children from the ages of 2
to 5-112 in a caring and educational environment. The nature of the proposed
use is further described in the summary program provided.
RELATIONSHI P TO DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:
The Early Learning Center replaces an already existing childcare center
on the Mountain Bell site. There should be no additional imoact on the Town of
Vail Development Objectives.
EFFECT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND AREAS:
As the proposed Early Learning Center replaces a use which already
exists on the Mountain Bell Site, it should have no additional measurable effects
on public facilities areas.
EFFECT UPON TRAFFIC:
This information is listed in the provided traffic study.
COMPATIBILITY ISSUES:
Considerable measures will be taken to separate the busy activities of the
housing development from the quieter activities of the early learning center. The
Early Learning Center is on the East end of the site, separated from all of the
apartment buildings. There is a separate entrance from North Frontage Road,
shared only by 20 assigned parking spaces for tenants in the closest apartment
building. These parking spaces are separated from the Early Learning Center
proper by a fire turnaround and four landscaped islands, creating a definite
gateway to the Early Learning Center itself. Because of its position on the
eastern end of the site, the ELC has access to the open space surrounding the
Mountain Bell site as well. ln addition, the adjacency of the housing and
childcare uses provides residents of the development with the opportunity to fulfill
their child-care needs on-site, enhancing the nature of this transit-oriented
development.
CHARACTER:
The character of the Early Learning Center should benefit the surrounding
area. The siting of the new ELC near Frontage Road will allow it to take on a
new visibility, separate from the Middle Creek development itself and the
Mountain Bell building. lt can become a beacon in the community as a center of
learning and a place for young children.
D
Summary Early Learninq Center Proqram
The Early Learning Center is an all-day school program. The ages of the
children range from 2to 5-112 years. The ELC building has an approximate
gross floor area of 4,500 square feet on two floors. The area on the first floor,
approximately 3000 square feet, is dedicated to classrooms and children's areas.
Administrative functions occupy approximately 1,500 square feet on the second
floor. An outdoor area with a gross area of approximately 4,300 square feet
resides just to the east of the early learning center. This area will contain toddler
and preschool play areas.
Numbers:
16 toddlers (2 to 3 years)
45 preschool age children (3 to 5-1/2 years)
12 staff fulltime members and 2 part-time staff members
Parkinq:
There are 16 parking spaces provided, which has been accepted by the ABC-
Learning Tree staff.
Main Elements:
Two toddler classrooms serving 8 children each (45 sf per child = min. 360 sf)
Three preschool classrooms serving 15 children each (45 sf per child = min. 675
sf)
A studio for large projects
Kitchen for snack preparation (including refrigerator, stove, microwave and sink)
Administrative area for staff
Toddler playground (45 sf per child = min. 700 sf)
Preschool playground (45 sf per child = min. 3375 sf)
DECEMBER 2OO1
A7/82/2A@2 66:30 343-62560A4
l.F-_---1+-_ '#-.€"c
TDA COLORADO INC
Traffic ImPect Asscssment
FonduProPoeod
Mtddh CrechResidentiel & Early Lemning Centcr
DeveloPment
veilColomdo
PrEPr[edfor
Oddl Archttcsl$ P.C.
Evt4tcett, Colwado
PnFrudtY
tDACdorodo,Inc.
sxo l6F Stnc.r. SriE 424'Dcovetr CA &N2
(3O3) s25-7lg?,FAt( (3O3) t25<)04
Decanbcr 3l,2G,l
PAGE A3
ALl62/2AA2 a6:3A 383-8256684 TD,A COLORADO INC
Mddle CreokTmlfic ImNt Study
Trble of Contents
rilInoDucllolt ........-..........-,....* I
ExrsTIt{G At{D mntnE noalr cl}NDnIoNs...,..-.,.......,....-,...
SUITiIANY OF TDIDII|GS
ArfINDIX
LE\ELoF SERvrcE Worxsrssrs, AN{ & PM... .,..,..,.
PAGE 02
A1/A2/28,8.2 ?,6tAB 3A3_82SEAB4 TDA CI]LORADO INC
Middk Crvrh TrQfic Inprct fudy
Figures
PAGE A4
TDA
at/A2/2A62 A6tAB 383-8256A84 TDA COLORADO INC PAtr 65
D{TnoDuefill
ffrii t e*t acr&i6,r trrfic c€ditio.s, norr and in tbe firurr, in S€ vi€in1t_y o{to ptuaeC
Middlc Cnols rtidrmiil *O "aju"*t
a":no* dcvetopmeot in Vnil etqsNotthftcdag! Rod'
mc ON.em atqing dro ir w€d-ofthe Mao Vdl Rod&bflt adjrcd to t[c 'Mr Bdl"
commrsriccior towlr {xf ; cxigiog daycare c€!t.4. A dnglc accecs driw rerws both cttiftnts
tto*. 1|f" MlHlr Creok projlct c{ndltl of 142 dfErdabla aprrrned roite Tl",ofrry*ty
earty cbil&ood bslrnS cd;;r.et "i"gttt"
oxitttrg c.€rft!r.- Th.' mix of dudio, l-. 2- ad 3'
be<Loo' rmiu r *tt .t*Ot"tl"i,e"dtrt (deed restridcd) horsqg nrenq frrVeil Vellcy
*odd: F.amt "trfifufftUr"iritfcc
aoOiorptes ryto1o!*-O3morrtain- rrrcrt rervico
recor. Studbunb(64d;.tid;tfiltcortry.iteitrtr.ia-fefontnstnretqnmix' Itsnew
c,hiffioodb;1nrugcdarg,tl1b;iinr*cU ce] edt.rceiAecco"dd wilthor€rtp.rts rsrnd
;""1d. A-t{rd & Zls .*&- ;;rfi"C ;."* *Ut U. pt*iC"A rf which t4 will bc plrt of tho
larnrng ads til6,
RGsiddr will h|vo gpod sIEnstiw trrarpat*ioo dloiail. Tlre eitg il cdrditdt to Srsc Tfin
frec bur liD6 r''nitg Nors-f.*algr-;Othc Torm'r trmrpo'rtuicn.*9.c" 3 Vdl VitLgp' Abur
tt .rrrt-.-l""eri* tt[ nrA-irtrodwiU psnlt sr<rtc boardiug. aad elirhing'
.
Pcdr*rio wrl]r
will cmnccf wib6e fsvrn;r traii s'cotd. fte t*m'l in4oqmbur sylt tn r$d trduPortltion
o-to "tt "
,/*mile srlklbiko to tti oa* ua rqth. Ths I'?0 pedoririao ovtrprrs eotrtctidr to
Liorbord Vilhgp ir r |4milo qrcc of thc site.
'thb fipqt daEribe thc apeeea trp rnrkng cbandcriettc ol'uoastt eod dry oare prmnr ad
*o.tni, c,rr,n dB r-d'lt--d otry*"6 mrt mf6c qe6lng coditios itr 6'€ vicioity Ed
hrtly, addre$or 6e nrEd ud scrlc of suggortod acccrs rnd cilculetiat improvcoentr'
thir rWort ooinr thc trbwiog scctiog:o hodrtioo F,*bg& Ftfrr?Rddcoditiqt3r frojcct Trb Cascicm urd Distributimr l*rtffiCoditicnrr lntnumf,dRndlrryrowmomrr fuuryof,fqdirSt. Appadix A: Ilwl o'f Smricr Worlctcetr
TDT.
PAGE O6TDA COLIRADO INC6t /62/2AA2 86:34 383-gZbGBA4
aE H F
EI I!
>E
.gI
=
$$JF-{
ffi$tEa,
sv
*T.-.'+
r{
rl
(sg
HI
2
p0
\t\J\
ro{
as
.$
\
7,
fr"
PAGE 67
A1/A2/2aAZ A6:36 3A3-e286A04 TDA CULORADO INc
{aFFE il
#T E-'! lL
l
Tt
.;l
u
'{ ..,l ar
j$
'!til
WTh' .t
ffiT
,w-$ffiItr$ifs
I
ils-
rsl
i
(EE
AL/02/ZEAZ 85:30 383-8256A04 TDA CJ]LMADO INC
Ex$mirc at{lr trvntf,f, RoAD Cd(Il{Trofis
Thir $Cim dcccdbtr oriting and firnrre Ueffic conditios alcng North Frcntagp Road in tbe
project viciniy.
HortFrillltnod
Nortt irinlft iel ir a two-hno ffont4gs road rci$in lhc t'?O ndtr of "ay. Gndcd rhoqldorg
vrry froqr bir to ctgh ft{r h widh, It ccnnecrr the Meh Vail and W'cGt Vril intln|1atrg€
eerving lodgingr, *i fown po* offce srd cornnercirl urc alonglbe nortt ride of6o tud aud
r*al t*clin!'ceto *optoiAe hsme sit€s. Thc aligunort is oorcrtially nni$ *ith gradurl
vedicel curyes-Oar tttstry t. ga*ly roliqg ttmain. PoCed qoed ir 35 nph in drc prdcct
vicinity. Posk houf ttffc corttts pirtormca recentlyt suggc5t N traffc vohme of rbg1fi 6,000
vehiclcs p€r dry panbg tc rte.
Vrtllod
Vail Road crure Veit Villagc to drc t-70 interchmgo aad dre Megp ro& srvbg acb ridc
of &c irtonto higbr*ry, Tho-$ro-hne road flrrcE to sdd lercs rrt tho roundrborn approrchs'
Soq& of imsrchelge tiro-tse Veit Road iatcrscctionr qdth riregr neadow Driw md Willw
Rold erc Sop-rigtr coffio[ad.
I-70 tricrcbery: Xosd$outr
Thc M:b Vlil i-t0 intcrcbragc rqrndabortc wse Se firrt mqdom roundabor*g coottrud in
ths txc of Colurdo. lbo Sqdr Froteso Rond rcnmdebout is thc large*, in &e rtrts st a 200-
frot outsido diemcct. Tt NoN.th Frwage Rod rondabcni is thr $nrll€st b the Vlil Vrlloy at
f 20-Sot dhrnccr. Cotrdr bkm attho Nor& Fradagle Road lcg indi€rd. PM pc* horr volumes
of 220 rotaing \,rhicla rrd ?50 edting wlricleo of qhich 35 cernc ftorn tho t-70 wo*bcnnd sff
rrrp, Tho Nor& rqra&baa fur€icne €dFctiv€ly ar a single cilqilatins lme, ohhanlh whfubr
o phyricrltytnwltso rbrert erqlndSe circul*ing hne.
Edrtrlanf ofS.nfur
Lcrrcl of rorvioc (LOS) b r metlrod urcd for evalu*ing roeduny tmffic qcrning coditiou. h i3
drpadld cn rnany ictorr i$luding trr6c volumca, petceot hearry vrbiclcc, lanc md rhouldcr
widttr, Thc lrvol of,rsnricc ir dctcnnin€d bt, calnrlatirg thc delay oporincrd by oach whiclc.
Thir drlay ir usignd e lcr bctrvsGn A rnd F nprrscuting :he l*g& of ddry. At LOS A
motoricts will oqerlace linle or no datay. At LOg F n|(totrists.e'.ilI qcdmcr rtcp rrtd go
coaditiors ad rncoeivc &ley. Datey is ugd as a mErsrsr oferynftrg covlairmce ltd
nnocnrvcrbility of thc driwr. Ihlay for tle eftced itrcrgs<tiooe was ddprmincd uring
HigrilMy Cagctty &fowe, irplunating mcthodolqy b the lliglwq Capaclry Marflnl, 1994
ttp&tcd 1997, Twttsprtattoll Rarearch Burd. 17l,a btersacticn crprcity mel1lsis Forksh6€tt are
included b Appadir A.
|httttffigpR"tr
For e two-lnc, 35-al nph roodway with I I -foot Imc srd #fo,rt rhouldere, limitrd parrhg
ofpdnnhi* sd ufocnrpcd flwir tho sorvice volurncr br ach lewl of svirx tugp ftom 125
rnhiclc pcr hnrr rt I,oS A to 1,755 rph at LOS F, as $otm in Trbte l, Tho obrcntsd
(Oscqnbcr 2001) fcrk hqn volume atong North Frcatege Rd t rhc projcc rccers ir rbout 4 15
vchiclor ia &c t:30 to 9;30 AIvf ponl houi ana SaS vebicls dunng thc 4; 15 to 5i t 5 PM P.*.
Accordhg,ly, orrrcattqrc.he rradrray o'pcretim ir LQS C in &c Alvt ad PM p'cl P.riodl.
PAGE B8
I Pcrh Land CunrlUr, lnc.'tlurnihy lzlLit}l
TDI.
sI/82/28A2 66:36 343-8236884 TDA CT]LORADO INC PAGE A9
l-7O f*lmhsF- i5rft RtosndaDost
tccording to ii* Ourrto, trs Torrt'i romdrbolt Oporaticrs ccnruttra! paek holr roluaao
€slsti"g ri. rqudebort it 2,233 vchicles and *thir ierol tlo rsundabor,t ir qcmting in thc l,OS
A *,S;. Thie indic*tpr drqru is r considemblo c;pacity ruserve nrailablc rt tbr nort rorndabort.
ffiAcosr
Moming ad rftanou ttudng mov€meut cdtsrt rt tt cxirehg Day Caru{lle Bcll rocrs drivt
8tr dro rn b Figurrr 3. Ih6 hi-lbc*' sirtrgtG nrowfircoq 2s wlctbcilnd dghtrmr fiorn Nortb
Fnn4p Ror4 occurr during &c 8130 to 9:30 AIvf pcok hour, Duirg tlc PM Oe highcrr
rtrovustt wlr 15 tcfr tmr tu ortbound North Frsilrgp Rod {tsunrd rhc l-70 ittuchmge)
ftltowed by 14 bt firru/roa &e a*bouad direcim. Dry*rc trlpc NFps to bc linhod to
wt*bomd frodege roail tripr ia drc Atvl md tbo ntrrrn crstbannd uipr b tha PM, The prniling
flow of throqb trrfic ir ortbqmd in the AM ud we'rtDornd in tbc PM.
flordr Ffitnttgp Rold Lrvcl of 8sv]cr
nftfrx;cnc*
B
c
D
E
330
el0
0ts
1,?$5
TDA.
At/62/2rF2 A6:36 3A3_82566A4 TDA CO-ORADO INC FA,GE La
Flgure 3
Residential and Early Leaming Center Access
AM (PM) Existing Peak Hour Volumes @ Buildout
Middle Cree k Developme nt
A
I
NERTH
No Scate
Existing Daycare/Ma Bell
€6
o tv
r{1
t\rf)
oscv
TDA
83./62/2A82 A6:34 383-8255064 TDA Cttr-ORADO INC
Teblc 2
Etinrtcd Vchhlc Trtp Go:relioa
Mt&te Crcek Development
Vail, AO
Sqr{: frf Gtrrnfdt Ur flbt , Htrb of TrrnQcrfldr En!h*r, l*7.
L D.yctr Cff, lTEtm Ur66
?. C{|t Tqillnf,, tTE LI|C Ur.130,..{ud.dtoHFat$lv&G6l6dp-r hur.
Pa,onc'rTil?ClltlnArroN
proie.t v€hi€le tfip ostimdrs rrr brsed sr The lnsihrtE of Traqtortrrfi Enginecs publicrtiot
i;;G";;;;;i,'& main 199?. This document ie $ compilrtiorr of trfus r*ar derived ftom
trafsc cotds at sioflar ud througbort Se canntry. Msst iTE rfiidefii8l trip fies ere ftom
trefEc courts rt suburban ceuingr with little or no accees to public tranrit.
Tho Middh Crcck projoct ir locd€d alorg a high rervice tnosit dorridq with good psdcftrirrt arti
biko liokrgcr to viil ;d Uushod Villaios. -A rnajority of t€oafrs rrt srperted to sort in Vril
efibfidficils uftrrG long.t6fm on-site p-rking $pply wiu bc at: a prtariurt for muc! of tlc yar.
Wc dicipatc Middto Crcck reridmts will be less inclined to tra'/l! lcelly by cat for work rnd
persmrl buriacsr tripr tlrn deir "ffE ' count€rpar&. AccordingJy, wc eryVtdatly ruEidcntiat
'vpticte tripr will be iOolo lcrr tbat the ITE dcriwd rarr rnd p€ak hour lthiclo tnpc *'ill bo ono-
&ird lese ftsr tlre ITT,. nta. Wirh those .4iuctmcrrtr we cdimrte et hrildoutthe rcsidootisl uNe
wi[ gmcrdc 666 daily,4l AIvt and 5l PM peak hnrr whiclouipl r* Teble 2'
Tho earb learning ccor will have perking for 15 cnptowes ard rhon+erm rpaca for Prts.
Paftorstpic.ltyperkforfiwto l5 miiltca for bcltlrc muning drq ofrud cveningpickup'
Usiry Ifll rne for a Dry Care Cwter, tbe center ir opected to garofltc tbout 75 rdtiolc trips
during erch poak hou. Thrurghout the day this oitc could gocr*e 46E vdicle tripr.
PAGE 11.
kqncT TfPl):mngunor
Mirfflc Cndr nciddel tnpc witl di*ribr*o ovsr ihe runourrding roed slsetn bo$d or tnp
origia or d*tiadioo, ad eere rnd direcdress of urwl. Nfil'ruiddbl trbs will tnvol wcst on
{t0 fiod|gp rd for ftod rhqping" nail ud othq local pcrronal burircss uipr' Mse dirtmt
trips outrfolo tbc To*'u witl bc siontd oast tnmrd dro I-70 fuacrcbange. Accordiogly' wc
dicribub 40% of reridnnicl tripr to the we$ rnd 607c cast of,tre rito. Day crre trip:, which tend
to be litrkgd to der trips, ara dirtributed similrr to existiug eatcring and oriting pateras.
illll Ferltht o$
Pif Frlk
ht otrtlfid U$ Slrr Tync Drilv
Dey Crru' 15 Empto1;ces
Rce. Condo I 112 Drrcfl|nqs
46€
8GO
41
7
35
34
37
3r+
11
17
fotrl 1.134 {t 8t f0 rt
TDI.
AJ./62/2A62 A6:36 383-8256884 TDA COLORADO INC r.'tttc I z
Flrrrrnt TEAlltc CoNDrnoNt
Ftfrrre €ondiiilt wgr! Edytrcd srsuming prsj€ct buildot by 2003. fui rnnurl backgfornd
growli cf 3% wrs asfl1rrd fbr $s vehicls volume atong North l-rcntegc Road not lelated to the
pr"jcC. This gccorgngdst€s modcrdo contimring recid6ctitl d€t/€lqmcat eloog tbe Noffi
Frmagg Rord trrvcbbcd. Fq fi*urs analysis we rpplied tho ITE tfip rateo to carly lamtng
c€fier. Thoro arc somourba high€r fhst the obrcnrCd peak horr dry cero trolunor sd tF
assurned to rcqrut frr rddcd busioess due to updrting the fteility-
FutucYolrro
Figuro 4 ithffi. pcrk har wturnee o4€d€d rtthe intinrcir:o qf Nsrth Frmage Rod rnd
Middle Crcctr Rsid@tial and laamiag Calrr rcccrr€s, TL6 hig[est tttttring movcrtcnt will be
wecbomd rfb nrmr - 3l morrng the l,ermbg Ccorer ecrecg ,ur the AM rnd r similar volume
entonag thc roiOarirt drige*ray ir 6e PM pe*k bour. the highcsf tofi hrln atrring volumc will
be 26 rrchiola tuning into tbc Larniag Cenccr drire il tha PM pcak bott.
Futurr L*nl o'f Sctri* rttl Prolcc
Tabtcs 3 d 4 dipict lcvrl of srrvice d the fivo a€c€ss dn'rrcc rnd rlog two-lanc Nord| Frcntrgc
Ro6d rt buiHorn crfthe plunod Middlc Crsek ho{rsbg dovelcporent rnd tir ncw Lcaming
Ceotr, roryocrvety. CsProty adrb6is worlehcct! sto #chd m Ap'podix A.
Rf€iicrfiutr,ytfr Bc0Acrcss
Thir Stop+iF 4prach will opeate lo tte t OS B raqge for bofithe Alvl rnd PM pgkrdr. Thir
ir a rmy rccrytrbio levcl for piet holr opecation d a pfeerfy rca!6r intcrrcciolt. Iaft tums imo
fts rils will orysirnco lidc crno doley (LOS A) sr rbo il'rctr8\t.
&Nlaantry Crn0rAc6es
Sirni|et b crl*iag, frit tppro.dr will oEericncr short &lay (LOS B). t fi htnr into &c dte
wiU hrve liclr qno dclay, (LOS A)
Nwth Fmfic Rurd, Iwo*nc Rocdway
Nort FrG$ Rf,d r* oflt! projcc is s?*€(tcdto ca'fy ryF fiim*sly460 AM rrd 610 PM
pcak horr rdriclc fix. At ttir volumq twe'lane Nortb Frontagr Roed wilt cctinue to oprd. 8t
LOS C drftg Dah pok bosrc.
Trbh 3
APtlPo* Hour ErldndBulldoutLavd of &rvlct
lffit Ft"fttogp Road/lltid/e ct?€/r' ftaftatA(ila&$
TDI.
ALla2/2Aa2 A6:Sa 383-8256884 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 13
ifollh Frfitr6 Rord trwl of Eervht
nktcfle Crod< Dg ves''''t/nt
?ltt.
aJ./82/2AAZ AE:36 383-8256A64 IDA CCLMADO INC PAGE 14
Figure 4
Residentlaf and Earfy Learning Center Accass
AM (PM) Future Peak HourVotumes @ Buildout
Middle Cmek Mvebpment
A
I
NORTH
No Scol€
Prcfect Access
s
(v
6.
ot
/6tl€s
S*s
*S*-Eanly
Leonning
Cen ter,€,--t
e+< euo)
q
265 Qas)
,VoA onrsGi;
10 TDA
6t/A2/2A82 6E:36 343-8256684 TDA COLERADO INC
n8aouil$tDtr' I'rgtlcT noAD llr'xpno\/8,MlNrs
Sewral irryruarllr dr sugp*od atthc Middle Credc prcjed: accccc intorsaiom in
csformrac0 wirb t[c CI]OT $te Higbway Acocs Code. Thcrc chrngne rsflect tte 35 nrph
podod ip€cd qf Nor6 Frotege Rord a, thc poek hour roluner porfir)€d m Figur 4, and dre
Catcguy F-R (fcdrgs rnd) chnificatior odrfic 6citiry
l,eftItmLgult
Tho midctirl rcsts wotild ttot moGt tro 25 rdriab por hour left tum thsrhold br wfnNnting I
lGft tutn rtorqg! hqo pcr e€ Codc. Tts projocted (fu qcr*iqrrl uabab) bft turu t,olurrn of 26
vehicle fur tb Lsrnbg Cantr rccosr *ould ju:t excrcd tbb duprhold. Tho cuzwrr PM poek
lefr uua volunns o,f 14 qb world not meet the Coda'c lhr!&old. Tbc raorntcd lanning cafs
f,cility ir dorrgn€d, E! w6 rsdErrund, Sr rarbingthe crme rire *affmd cliorrtch.
Oa rho brgir of margioal jutific*ion wc rucommcnd nct coo*nrcting hft turn $oege hnss !t
oitbcrccan.
REttTtm 6!rtrlrrps
Ncitla .ccsr rncCr tc 50.rgh tnrudrold rrquirod to wrmnt righ turn hna, flsrvoror, sbca
thc nifuirl rccan ir plruncd to includo Torm of Vail bunsr Ucbg tbe prqerty, we adviso
cancructing e 3tGfrct lfi& I l-ftot wide right tum lane, hrcludod in &is dictaac,t woutd bc I l0
fcc of truritior trys OO:f rdb). Trmrit vehiclor, pr*iortergrthocccgnybg *rada.8, hrw
difFrfrt dcpclrmrtioa chrnarrirtics thal perrcoger orn.
RtdttAott ?1r?r foorb.|da/t 1ff13
RiCn qr bft tur acclle*im lanc rrc ncr ncoded d thir pmjoct for airhcr rccerr.
PAGE 15
tDt
6I/42/2062 6E:3A 383-82568A4 TDA COLORADO INL]
s'rilranvorr[rm|Gs
A cqnbincdtfrl of ebqt 1,t30 whictes por day wilt u5e&onr'oPrryos€d Mjddlc crcek
rsridcofial trd lrrning cmor drvelryment acacs drives. Ths roruhing pcgk p€riod cDttrslon
(lcvel of rorvlco) o'f eeih eccerr Stq*iga rpproedl *rjll be ia the r6mc Sort dehy rugc (l,OS
S) o tbu exi*ing day care/Ma Bc|l;cc€si &ive. Let nrrus o'fFNodh Frcatrgc Rsd wiU
rxperiace litflc or ub dcby io mo6t cl€Gs. No lgft tum rtoteS! bnca aro trrodtd p€r Stale
Hirhway Acccrr Code crbuie' e right um doeelcratim lane b suggectrd d st rEsidtttisl
ecoer to bitt r .cc{rmrcdat€ Tmm of Yril bq|sts thst wiu be turaing nto thc rito 13 thoy tnrcl
pesthr ritc.
The additiorl volume oftrrfio eddcd to Nortr Frcaago Road will noa ceu* r chrngo in two-
hne highmy q.rcifi, Tbe rord will continue to oper*a in rhc IOS C tmgp, with PM
ogcatim at tbc rrypr tnd of tht rrge.
Tbe xi*nrg I-?0 ild& Vdt ofilb rurndebout imrrchroge hr,t cmgilcabbscrrrc cepeoityto
reedily rccomrodtotnffc ddd bythb prolcct.
PAGE 15
TDA.
AI/62/2442 05:36 303-g2SEAO4 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE L7
f A ,. Tail't'dnculch@UnFrfqtLet-zclnpdd'&t6'
Appendix A
Eristlng and Buildout
Lwel of Service Workshects' AM & PM
r0$,t\t
Application for Review by the
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
Ieli 970.479.2139 faxi 970.479.2452
web : www.ci.vail.co, us
General Information:
This application is for any project requiring approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Please refer
to the submiftal requirements for the particular appoval that is requested. An application for Planning and
Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community
Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Design
Review Board.
Type of Application and Fee:! VarianceI Sign Variance! Rezoningtr Major Subdivisiontr Minor Subdivisiontr Special Development Districtn Major Amendment to an SDDtr Minor Amendment to an SDDtr Zoning Code Amendment
,tr:g;lortheRequest |;ongmwrx, UW Wffi 6( W tr^e'ttill2
Locationoftheproposat, tottldL aock:- ruoarrrton, VlN,( &4 (fof7o)
Physical Address:
ParcelNo.: 2lOl'0 WL
Zon ing:
$2s0
$200
$200
$1000 + $20/lot
$2s0
$1s00
$1000
$200
$2s0
d Conditional Use Permit $2OOtr Employee Housing Uniwype:_ No Fee
D Bed and Breakfast $200
D Major EKerior Alteration in Vail Village $500tr Minor Exterior Alteration in Vail Village $200tr Major Exterior Alteration in Lionshead $500tr Major Exterior Alteration in the PA District $500O Floodplain modification $200E Amendment to a Developm€nt Plan $250
(Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8540 for parcel no.)
H
Name(s) of Owner(s):
)f- owner(s)Signature(s
Name of Applicant:
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPUCATION, ALL SUBMMAL REQUIREMENTS
AND THE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLOMDO 81657.
For office upS,Pqlya
Fee Paid: ll,lVl u A)Check No.:
Application Date:
Planner:VED
Mailing Address:
DEC 17 2001
Application for Review by the
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
teli 97 0,479,2139 faxi 970.479.2452
web: www,ci.vail.co.us
General Information:
This application is for any project requiring approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Please refer
to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and
Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community
Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Design
Review Board.
Type of Application and Fee:n Variancen Sign Variancen Rezoningn Major Subdivision! Minor SubdivisionD Special Development Districttr Major Amendment toan SDD! Minor Amendment to an SDD! Zoning Code Amendment
Description of the Request:
$250 D Conditional Use Permit $200$200 D Employee Housing UniWype:- No Fee
$200 D Bed and Breakfast $200
$1000 + $20/lot tr Major Exterior Alteration in Vail Village $500$250 tr Minor Exterior Alteration in Vail Village $200$1500 tr Major Exterior Alteration in Lionshead $500$1000 tr Major Exterior Alteration in the PA District $500$200 tr Floodplain modification $200$250 tr Amendment to a Development Plan $250
Physical Address:
Parcel I
Zoning:
Name(s) of Owner(s):
(Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.)
.{f-. ownerls) Signature(s):
Name of Applicant:
Mail-ing Address:
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMTTTAL REQUIREMENTS
AND THE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657.
For Office Use Onlv:
Fee Paid: AAt UFt' check No.:- By:
PARTIAL DRAFf
Traffic Impact Assessment
For the Proposed
Middle Creek Residential & Early Learning Center
Development
VaiI, Colorado
Prepared br
Odell Architects' P.C.
Evergreen, Colorado
Prepared by
TDA Color<rdo, Inc.
820 166 Sheet, Suite 424
Dentrcr,CO 80202
(303) E25-7107/FAX (303) 825{oo4
December t6,2001
\l4-
Middle Creek halfrc Intpad&dY
NECOMMENDED PROJECT ROAD IITIPROVEMENTS 12
MiilIe &ez*ftatfrcl@${ltdY
Figures
Figure I Vicinitylvlap.... " "" ?
Figue 2
Fi6rc 2 Bd$ing PeakHour Volumes """""""""""""' 6
fiirue z Veu z-peukrtut Votu.et """"""""""""""" 9
filure e nuilCout Peak Hour Volumes . . ' ' . Ermr! Bookmrrk not defined.
filure +future Acces Drive Volumes, AI\,I & PM PeakHour.,....'..'.......' Ennr! Bookmark not ddined'
Tables
Table lNorthFro'nagrRoadFeakHourlselof Service """""""""""'5
Table 2 Vehicle TripGneration """""'7
Table 3 Peak Houi Level of Servhe..., ..""""""""" l0
Table 4 Nonh Frontage Road Lerrel of Service........ """""""""""' I0
TDA
INTRODUCTION
This report describes trafrc conditims, now and in tho future, in the vicinity ofthe planned
Middle Creek residential aod adjacent daycare develqment in Vail along North Frcrtage Road'
Tl:r 6]%a('e sloping site is west of the tf,ian Vait Roundabort adjacent to lhe 'flvta Bell"
communications toier and an existing daycare center. A single access drive serves bcth existing
uses. The Middle Creek project consists of 142 affordable apartrnent uits md acontemporary
early childhood learning curier, replacing the exiting center, The mix of studiq l-, 2- and 3-
bedroom units is structured to the affordaUle (deed restrfuted) housing market for Vail Valley
workers. Tenants are likely to be singles and couple enrployed in the mountain resort service
sestor. Studio units (64 dwellings) will comprise just under half of the tCal unit mix. The new
childhood leaming center will bi situatea east ofthe residences and will have s4ard€ ac'€ss and
parking. At61al;t243surfrceparkingspaceswillbeprovidedofwhich14willbepartofthe
leaming center site.
Residents will have good ahernative transportdion choices. The site is convenient to three Toun
freo bus lines serving North Frotago andthe Town's transportation cemter in Vail Village' A bus
tumout alongsido thi main eottaocJ *ilI permit on-site 6salding and aliglting.
-
Pedestrian walls
will connea-with the Town's trail syslem. The Town's in{own bus system andtransportation
cernter are a %-mile walk/bike to the east and south. The I-?0 pedestrian overpass connection to
Lionshead Village is a % mile west ofthe site'
This rqort describes the expected trip making ctraracteristics of tenants and day care patros and
workers, evaluates srdsting and eryeded firure traffic operating conditious in the vicinity and
lastly, addrosses the need and scale ofsuggested access and circulation improvements'
This report contains the following sections:
6E .F
-q-E ril (
=t E aE$A F
:gT '!r>6srott
E
..[#'2
I}
/l
*tt
E?4r
JUa
&",\
lu1'i*
(,s
-\
I
qT,
F
lEo
EE7
RI
2
. g\'
ds
'$N \
\}
N
q>.
EE N .1reE ril q{tr& E OgE ? F'.^o =-'5 lr.
g
C'
.9E1'
=
.\. j\i
i
l/t/ !lli!:
i,[r!:]i
t ,r.
$ri
i;$
j .o-
3E: Ez
c)
ct,(!
o
<EE
3
PaeelMiddteCreekhalflcl,rfiodfu|tl
EXISIING AND FUNNS ROAD CONDIIIONS
This section describes existing and firture traffic conditions along Norlh Frcnrtage Road in the
project vicinity.
North [lontage Road
North Frcrntale Road is a two-lane frontage road witbin ttre I-70 right of 11V;- Graded shoulders
r".y ru- fo,it to eigbt fe€t in width. ft frneAs the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges
,.*iog lodgings, thi Town pott om"u and commercial uses along the 19rth sifg of the road and
i""ar Ur*,thi onto slqelsiae home sites. Tho alignment is essartially straight with Sladual
vertical curves-that follow the gently rolling tenain. Posted speed is 35 mph in the project ,
"i"i.*fy
p*t hour taffic *,rit" p.rfor.i recemlyt suggest a traffrc volume of about 5,000
vehicles per day passing &e site.
VailRoad
valt [oaa "o*.cts
vail village to the I-70 interchange and the frontage roads serving ea^,h side
Jtne interstate highway. ThJtwo-lane road flares to add lanes at the roundabout approaches'
SoUh of interchanle two-lane Vail Road intersections with West meadow lhive and Willow
Road are Stop-sign controlled'
I-70 Intercbange Roudebouts
Eristing Levet of Service
Level of service (Los) is a method used for evaluating roadway traffic-cperating conditiqns- -It is
depeodent on many factors inclrrding t affic volume-s, percent |eavy vehicles,lme and shoulder
widths. The level of service is AAei"i"eO ty calculitingthe delay eryer-ieaced by eac!-vehicle'
ft is aeUV is assigrred a lefrer between l, ani f represetrting the length of delay. At LOS A
mdoristswill e$erience lifile or no delay. At LOS F mdorists will experience slop and go
condilions and extensive delay. Delay is used as a measuro of comfort, ccmvenience and
maneuverability ofthe driver. Delay fortle aftcted irtersections was determined using
iignioyiopiritySoftware,irylementingmetho{ology intheHighwayCapacityManual' 1994
uiaotri tCgZ, fiansportanon Research Bloard. The ilters€ctioo capacity analysis wor*sbeds are
included in Appentdix A.
North Frontage Road
For a trro-lanel 3545 nph roadrnay with I l-foot lanes ald 4'foot shoulders, liniled passing opportunities
and unintemrpted flow tle sefvice volumes for each level of service range ftom 125 vehicles per hour at
Lo.S A to l,?55 \rph at IOS E, as shown in Table l.
The current @ecembet 2001) peak hour volumo along North Frmtagg RTd .at the nroject access
isabow 415 vehicles inoe r:joto 9:30 AMpeakhour and 535 vehicle's duringthe 4:15 to 5:15
PM peak. Accordmgln cunent PM qeration is LOS C'
t PeaklandConsutunc, Inc. Thursday l2ll3l0l
PrgesMiddleCreekr*Ifn,-I,ryoa.fu,,Iy-
Morning andaternoontuntry movemefi courfs attbe existingDay !are!{a!elt access drive are shown
ioi;Fit -Tt"
niSest singri novemen! 28 westbound riglt turns fron Notth Frontage Road' occurs
d'ing the 8:30 to s:lo AM oi['ho-. ffigO. pr"f trc [ignot moveT€nt :vas 15 left tumt to
eastbound North froorage Roa4 io;O G I-70 interchange. me ptwaitlng flow of through haffic
eastbound in the AIr'l and westbound in lhe Ptr[
North Frontagc Road Levcl ofServise
Middle c/eek
Maximum Service Flow Volume
A
B
c
D
E
125
330
610
915
1,755
Figure 3
Eristing AM (PM) Peak Hour Treffic Volumes
Middle Creek Proiect
PROJECT TnIP GENERATION
Proiect vehicle trip estimates are based on The Institute ofTrausPortation Engineors publication
Tri'p Generation,'d' Hinor,1997. This document is a conpilation of trips rates derived from
trahc counts at similar uses througboutthe country. Most ITE resid€ntial tnp rates are from
traffic counts at suburban secings with litle or no access to public transit'
The Middle Creek projecl is located along a high service transit corridor with good pedestria_n ryd
bike linkages to Val ana lioostread viltages. A majority oftenants are expected.to work in Vail
e*ablishments where long-term parking supply will be at a premium for much of the year.
Accordingly, we articipati that residerG will be nctably less inclined to travel.locally by car than
their "ITE "counterpa;s. We expect daily residential vehicle trips will be 20% less than the ITE
derived rate and peak hour vehicle trips will be one*lird less than the ITE rate, With theso
adjustme,nts, or" irtir*tu buildout, th! residential use will generate 666 daily, 4l AM and 5l PM
peak hour vehicle trips, see Table 2.
The early leaming center will havo parking for 15 erryloyees and short-term spaces for parents.
puents i1'picallylark for five to lS-minutis for bcth tle morning drop offard ovetring pickuP.
Using ITt
""trt
fot a Day Care Center, the ceuter is eryecled to gen91{o apgt ZS vehicle trips
durin! each peak hour. Througborr the day this site could generate 468 vehicle triPs.
Table 2
Estimeted Vehicle Trip Generation
Ifi ddle Creek Deve lo Pme nt
Vail, Co
source: I4ip Genalrttc,r' 6th Edtot , Inatitute of TransPortation Englneers' tS7.
1. Day Care cet*er, lTE ttnd UEe565
2. Condo/Tqunhou3€, ITE [3nd U38 2g), djusied to g)i5 of daily & 66{b ot pedk hour'
PR(NECT TRIP DISTRBUTION
Middle Creek residential trips will distribute over the sunounding road system based on nip origh or -
destinatioq and ease ad directness of bavel. New residential tripe will travelrrest on.th- 9
fionlage road for
food sbopin& mait and other local personal hrsiness trips Tnps ouSidgthe_Townvill be Oriqrtedeast
towarO Oi t-iO fure.ctmgp. Accordingly, we distribute 40plo of resi&ntial tsips to the west and 600lo east
offhesite. Daycareuips]whichtendio'belinkedtoothertrip,aredisrihrtedsimilartoexistingentering
and exiti4 tripc.
AM PeaK
ootln
PM Peak
ln OtttLrnd Use Size Type Daily
-Diy Carer 15 Employees
Res. Condo 2 142 Drellings
468
606
41
7
35u
37u
41
17
Total t.134 48 69 70 58
ftNI'NE TRAFTIC CONDrIIONS
Future conditions were analyzed assuming project buildout by 2003' An annual background -
growth of 3% was assumed ior the vehicli volume along North Frontage_ Road not relatpd to the
i.:O. This accommodates codinuing residential development in tn_" Ngtth Frontage Road
iravelshed. For fi.rture analysis we applied ttre ITE trip rates to early leaming cenrter. These aro
somewhat higher than the oUseruea peat hour volumes to accormt for added business due to
updating the facility...
Future Volumes
Figure 4 illu$rdes volumes expected atthe intersection of North Frcntage Road and Middle
Criel nesiaeffial access. Norih Frmtage Road is expected to carry approximately 470 AM and
600 PM peak hour v&icles. At this volume, North Frmtage Road will oper€te at LOS C during
the AM and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Horrrever, vehicles entering theproject from
southbound North Frotage Road are opectod to operate at LOS A with very litle delay and
mcforists exiting the site.
Figure 4
Residential and Early Leaming Center Access
AM (PM) Future Peak Hour Volumes @ Buildout
Middle Creek Development
A
I
NORTH
No Scole
ot\
cv
6
cr)
o\.t) I8t3lot
eE /9o- /s2 s
/.ov S2/5.o
-Js4=-
for ty
Leo.nening
Centen
244 Q2o)N.,dE;,nEtE
265 Qos)
TDA
q
Figure 4
Future AM (PM) Peak Hour Treflic Volumes
Mddle Creek Residettial
MORE TO FOLLOWI
t/r
December 13.2001
Michael Coughlin & Company
Attn: Michael Coughlin
140 East l9th Avenue. Suite 700
Denver. Colorado 80203
Subject: Conceptual Geohazards Mitigation Recommendations
Middle Creek Village at Vail Development
Vail. Colorado
Job No. 14613
Mr. Coughlin,
We are sending you information regarding the proposed conceptual approach for mitigating the debris
flow hazard for the subject project, per our discussions with Otis Odell of Odell Architects and Mark
Tanall of Peak Land Consultants (PLC) in the field on December 7,2001. Based on our site
observations, we believe the debris flow hazard can be mitigated as part of the proposed development
without adding volume to any potential debris flow. We are providing this letter to outline our approach
and recommendations. Final design criteria will be provided once field work is conducted next spring.
We understand a schematic model of debris flow mitigation is needed now for a submittal to the Town
of Vail. Our recommendations are based on our observation of the site and our experience. The
identihcation of the geologic hazards present at the site is based on past work performed at the site by
Jim Irish, Arthur Mears, Terracon, and Nicholas Lampiris.
Attached to this letter are marked-up site plans (Figures I and 2) and schematic cross sections (Figures 3
and 4) in order to help develop mitigation plans for the submittal due on December 17,2001. Structure
locations are presented on Figure I and the schematic method of debris flow mitigation is outlined on
Figure 2. A concrete diversion wall with a soil berm behind it to provide passive resistance is the first
option for a diversion structure, with two soil berms below the wall to help guide flows once they are
"turned" by the wall. We are in the process of consulting with Tensar to see if a Mechanically Stabilized
Earth (MSE) wall design would work in lieu of a concrete wall, since the MSE could be less expensive.
A cost-benefit analysis might be needed if the two systems are compared, since maintenance over the
design life is an issue for debris flow mitigation structures. We have some reservations regarding the
shear forces on the upstream face of the wall and we are not sure if a facing can be developed that would
resist a debris flow event. We know that any facing, such as modular blocks, rip-rap, gabions, etc that
could be used on the upstream side must not able to be dislodged, since that would add to the flow
volume and could make damage worse downstream. We are discussing a smooth precast or cast-in-
place concrete facing and we will advise you if a suitable solution can be developed. We considered
using geotextiles wrapped around the ffont of the wall without a facing, but the durability of an unfaced
wall is a concern. Two options for the diversion structure, a concrete wall with a soil berm and a MSE
wall desigr with a soil berm, can be shown as options at this time,
Debris Florv Mitigation
Job No. 14613
Page 2
Based on previous projects, we recommend a preliminary concrete wall thickness of 12 inches and a
maximum height above the ground of l0 feet at the northeast end of the wall. The wall height may vary
either higher or lower, and the final wall height will be determined during the final design investigation.
In order to protect the foundation from frost action, the footing should be at least 3.5 feet below the
ground surface, so the total wall height would be 13.5 feet at the northeast end. The wall should be
pinned at the northeast end by excavating at least 3 feet into the native slope and embedding the wall into
that excavation. Soil fill behind the wall can be blended into the native slope at the northeast end, as well
as the existing soil berm built to protect the ABC School. We have shown the extent of a 2:1 frll slope
behind the wall on the attached Figure 1. The wall should follow the high gtound indicated on the
topographic map, about midway between the building and the wetland boundary around the creek, as
shown on Figure 1. The soil berms can be landscaped to hide the diversion structures from view.
A spread footing foundation is assumed, bearing on compacted native subgrade consisting ofthe onsite
alluvial fan sand and gravel. Compacted structural fill consisting of onsite soil will be added to the back
of the wall at an inclination to be determined. A maximum inclination of 2:1 H:V (horizontal to vertical)
can be used, but less steep inclinations will increase the passive soil resistance, and should be used if
possible. Using additional soil will utilize the most onsite materials and make the wall design easier. It
appears that a2:l H:V fill slope or flatter is possible behind the eastem two-thirds of the wall, but as the
wall gets closer to the building there is less room for fill. The highest forces will probably be in the
eastem two-thirds, so that is a good place to add extra soil. Adequate drainage must be maintained
between the embankment and the Mountain Bell building, so a swale should be incorporated at the
bottom of the embankment, above the building. During the site visit, it appeared that there is a swale
above the building already.
The wall should extend to the comer of the building, as indicated in Figure 1. Although uncertainty
exists until the results of volumetric work next spring are obtained, we believe the wail should be able to
be tapered down to a lower height at the west end than at the east end, to make a smooth transition to the
soil embankment that will start at the west end of the wall and extend to the west side of the parking lot.
An approximate wall height of 6 feet at the west end should be assumed at this time. The soil berm
extending past the wall would match the height of the wall where they meet. It appears that the wall will
be about 150 feet long
After consideration of site constraints, we believe that in order to avoid adding soil to the flows, the soil
berm at the end of the wall may have to be an MSE design with an optional protective facing, which
would also allow a near-vertical upstream face. This will also allow the embankment to be as narrow as
possible and minimize ground disturbance, given the amount of vegetation in that stretch and the fact
that we come close to the concrete-line ditch uphill of the parking lot. The shear forces should be
reduced by the time the flow reaches the west end of the concrete wall, since the flows will have been
"tumed" by then, and flow is assumed to be parallel to the wall or embankment by that point. We should
not have impact forces on the berm past the wall, as flow will be parallel to the wall. It appears that this
embankment will be about 130 feet long. It will probably be at least 6 feet tall at the east end where it
meets the concrete wall, and may taper down to about 4 feet tall at the west end. Of course, the berm
could be made as tall as needed and as wide as possible to use up excess onsite soil.
All unreinforced soil berms should be planned with minimum 2:1 H:V side slopes and will be
constructed with onsite soils in 9-inch loose lifts, screened of materials coarser than 6 inches on site with
a"grizzly". A grizzly is a large screening device used by earthwork contractors to segregate oversize
materials from native soils in the field. If an MSE wall is used, the maximum particle size should be in
Debris Flow Mitigation
Job No. 14613
Page 3
bccordance with the manufacturers or designers recommendations. A second embankrnent should be
constructed between the high ground at the southwest comer of the parking lot and the west end of the
parking area located north of the buildings on the west side of the project. It appears that this
embankment will be about 150 feet long, and it will vary in height as the existing ground surface
undulates here. We should assume an average height of about 3 feet in this segment. All soil
embankment materials should be compacted to at least 95o/o of the maximum standard Proctor dry
density, per ASTM D698, within 3yo of the optimum moisture content.
Our final mitigation design will use the 100-year flood event as the hydrologic basis of our work, as this
is the statutory basis for hydraulic designs. We will attempt to estimate debris flow volumes by assessing
the 100-year flood hydrograph and using bulking factors to increase the water volume to account for soil
and rock added to water flows. We will also study the alluvial fan deposits underllng the site in order to
determine debris flow volumes.
We believe this information is sufficient to develop the conceptual plan for the submittal next week.
Please call with any questions.
Sincerely,
CHLIRCH & Associates, Inc. Reviewed by
David A. Cushman. CPG
Engineering Geologist
Mark J. Vessely, P.E.
2 Copies Sent
Attachments - Site Plan, Mitigation Concept, and Schematic Cross Sections, Figures 1-4
Faxed to Michael at 303-863-7100
I copyto Odell Architects, P.C. Attn: Lee Mason 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439
I copyto Peak Land Consultants, Attn: Mark Tanall 1000 Lion's Ridge Loop, Vail, CO 81657
[and Title Guarantee Company
Y0uB c0ltTAcTs
Datet l2-12-2ffi1
Property Address:
US WEST PARCEL
Buyer/Borrower:
TO BE DETERMINED
Our Order Number: VC27U36
Seller/0wner:
THE MOIJNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPAT.IY, A COLORADO CORPORATION, AS
TO PARCEL I
TOWN OF VAIL, A MTJMCIPAL CORPORATION. AS TO PARCEL 2
If you have any inquiries or require further assislance, please contacf one of the numbers below:
For Closing Assistance:For fitle Assistance:
Vail Title Dept.
Roger Avila
IO8 S. FRONTAGE RD. W, f2O3
P.O. BOX 357
VAIL, CO 81657
Phorc:970476451
Fax: 9704'164534
EMail: ravila@ltgc.com
Need a map or directions for your upcoming dosing? Check out [and Title's web sitc at www.ltgc.com
for direcfions to anv of our 4l) ollice locations.
ESIIMATE OF IITTE FEES
Information Binder 9r7s .00
TOIAT s77s .00
ForD cPlr:fAC?THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDM!
Chicago Title Insurance Company
ALTA COMMITMENT
Our Order No. VC272A36
Cust. Ref.:Sdredule A
Property Adilress:
US WEST PARCEL
l. Effective Date: April 26, 2@l at 5:00 P.M.
2. Policy to be ksued, and Proposed Insured:
lnformation Birder
Proposed Insurerl:
TO BE DETERMINED
3. The estate or iderrst in the land described or rcferred to in this Cornmitment and covered hercin is:
A Fee Sinple
4. Title to the estste or interest covered herein is at the effectlve ilate hereof vested in:
TI{E MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. A COLORADO CORPORATION. AS
TO PARCEL I
TOWN OF VAIL, A MUMCIPAL CORPORATION, AS TO PARCEL 2
5. The land referreil to in this Commitmmt is described as folloun:
SEE ATTACTIED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OurOrderNo. VC272436
tEGAt DESGBIPTION
PARCEL 1
ATRACT OF LAND rN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SECTION 6,
TO\ryNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE
PARTIC{JLARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT BEING I17O.2O FEET NORTH 36 DEGREES OI MINUTES 25 SECONDS
WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF
THE 6TH P.M.; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES l80.ll FEET; THENCE NORTH 88
DEGREES 34MINUTES WEST 143.67 FEET; TIIENCE SOUTII 60 DEGREES 09 MINUTES WEST
107.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES l7 MINUTES WEST 32.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
88 DEGPJES 30 MINUTES WEST 120.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 36 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 30
SECONDS WEST 65.24 FEET: TIIENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST
41I.93 FEET TO TIIE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
TOGETHER WTTH AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO AND EGRESS FROM THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED
TRACT BY PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND MOTOR TRAFFIC, FOR AERIAL AND BURIED
TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC POWER LINES AND FOR BURIED WATER. SEWER. GAS, AND OTHER
UTILITIES TO SAID TRACT OVER AND ACROSS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY, TO
WIT:
A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SECTION 6,
TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTT, COLORADO, MORE
PARTICIJLARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGININNC AT A POINT BEING 1170.20 FEET NORTH 36 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 25 SECONDS
WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSTilP 5 SOUTI{, RANGE 80 WEST OF
TI{E 6TI{ P.M.; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 40.25 FEET; TIIENCE NORTH 83
DEGREES 36 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 382.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 49
MINUTES WEST 88.18 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 70: THENCE
NORTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST 4O.OO FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 70; TIIENCE NORTTI 15 DEGREES 49 MINUTES EAST 122.20 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 4II.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINMNG, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
NOTE: THE FINAL POLICY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY GUARANTEE OR INSIJRE THE DMENSIONS
OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS DERIVED FROM THE CHAIN OF
TITLE AND ONLY AN ACCI]RATE SURVEY CAN DETERMINE THE DIMENSIONS,
PARCEL 2
ATRACT OF LAND IN TIIE SOUTIT HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTTON 6,
TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAI MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNry,
COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINMNG AT A POINT THAT IS N OO DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF
686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING TTIE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
AISO BEING A POINT ON TI{E NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE 70:
THENCE N OO DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION
Our Order No. VC272/+36
LEGAT DESGRIPTIOiI
6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET;
THENCE N 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 2I SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAIL/POTATO PATCH FILING;
THENCE S OO DEGREES 07 MINUTES T2 SECONDS E AIONG SAID EAST BOIJNDARY LINE A
DISTANCE OF 351.2I FEET TO A POINT ON A CIJRVE. SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON T}IB
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE 70;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FOIIOWING 8 COIJRSES:
1) A DISTNACE OR 204.62 FEET ALONG TI{E ARC OF A CTJRVE TO TTIE RIGHT, SAID CURVE
HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0
FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING N 85 DEGREES 3I MINUTES 10 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF
204.60 FEET;
2) N 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS E A DTSTANCE OF 2il.80 FEET;
3) N 84 DEGREES 55 MTNUTES 50 SECONDS E A DTSTANCE OF 319.70 FEET;
4) S 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS E A DISTNCE OF 424.40 FEBT,.
5) S 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 2l SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET;
6) S 74 DEGREES 2l MTNUTES 35 SECONDS E A DTSTANCE OF 204.70 FEET;
7) S 83 DEGREES 36 MTNUTES 29 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET;
8) S 71 DEGREBS 33 MTNUTES 45 SECONDS E A DTSTANCE OF 196.10 FEBT TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING, COIJNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED, RECEPTION 114OIO, BOOK
218, PAGE 419, FILED OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK AND RECORDER OF EAGLE
COUNTY, COLORADO.
NOTE: THE FINAL POLICY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY GUARANTEE OR INSURE THE DIMENSIONS
OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS DERIVED FROM THE CHAIN OF
TITLE AND ONLY AN ACCIJRATE SURVEY CAN DETERMINE THE DIMENSIONS.
ALTA COMMITMENT
ScheduleB-Sectionl
(Requirements) Our Orden No. VC272436
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the gf,antors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or
interest to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instnrment(s) creating the estate or intErest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record,
to-wit:
Item (c) Payment of all taxes, cbarges or asses.qments levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due
and payable.
It€m (d) Adclitional requirements, if any disclosed below:
TTIIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. A}ID NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED
PI.JRSUANT HERETO.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B - Section 2
(Exceptiorr,s) Our Order No. VC272t436
The policy or policies to be issued will contain €xc€ptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of tbe Company:
I . Rigbts or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or chims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts whicl a correct survey and
inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter fumished, imposed by law and
not shownby the public records.
5. Defects, liens encumbrances, adverse glaims s1 other rnatt€rs, if any, created, first appearing in the public rccords or
attaching subsegueil to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for
value the estate or intercst or mortgage thereon covered by this Commiment.
6. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existiqg liens by the public records.o the Treasurer's office.
7, 11.*;slrnpaid water atrd sewer charges, if any..
E. In addition, the owner's policy will be subject to the mortgage, if any, noted in Section 1 of Schedule B hereof.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
TI{EREFROM SHOTJLD TI{E SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY U,1904, IN BOOK $ AT
PAGE 503.
IO. RIGIIT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY TI{E AUTTIORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN TJNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY 24, 1904,
IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 503.
1I. WATER AND WATER RIGHTS. DITCH AND DITCH RIGFTTS.
12. RIGIII OF WAY .10 FEET IN WIDTH AS DESCRIBED IN CONDEMNATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY
AWARDED TO THE IJNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 12,
1935 IN BOOK 116 AT PAGE 349,
13. RIGHT OF WAY AS GRANTED TO TTIE STATE OF COLORADO IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED
JUNE 8, 1940 IN BOOK I27 AT PAGE 466.
14. RIGHT OF WAY AS GRANTED TO TI{E FLEMING LUMBER AND MERCANTILE COMPANY IN
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B - Section 2
(Exceptions) Our Order No. VCTU36
The policy or policies to be issued will contain excepiom to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 13. 1943 IN BOOK I27 AT PAGE 563.
15. RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO GAS FACILITIES. INC. IN INSTRUMENT
RECORDED FEBRUARY 17,I966IN BOOK 182 AT PAGE I49 AND IN BOOK I!I2 AT PAGE
161 AND RECORDED MARCH 9, 1966 IN BOOK I92 AT PAGE 203 AND AT PAGE 207.
16. EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN INSTRUMENT
RECORDED APRIL 7. 1966IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE 365.
17. TERMS, CONDMONS AND PROVISIONS OF NONEXCLUSTVE UNDERGROTJND RIGHT OF WAY
EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC. RECORDED JIJNE
08, 19% IN BOOK 642 N PAGE344.
18. HgSTING LEASES AND TENANCIES.
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note: Pursuant to CRS l0-l l-122, noice is hereby given that:
A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County
Treasurer's authorized agent.
C) The information regarding special districs and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from
the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
Note: Effective September |, 1997 , CRS 30-10-406 requires 0rat all documents received for recording or filing
in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom
margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that
does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms
on which qpace is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every
title entity shell be resFronsible for all matte$ which appear of record prior to the time of recording
whenever the title entity conducts ttre closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal
documents resulting ftom the transacLion which was closed". Provided that r ^nd Title Guarantec
Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the
legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title
Policy and the lrnders Policy when issued.
Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion
of Excqrtion no. 4 of Schedule B, Section2 of the Commiment from the Owner's Policy tobe
issued) upon compliance with the following conditions:
A) The land described in Schedule A of this commiment must be a single family residence which
includes a condominium or townhouse unit.
B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of
construction on the land described in Schedule A of rhis Commiment within the past 6 monlhs.
C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed
mechanic's and material-men's liens.
D) The Company must receive paymeff of the appropriate premium.
E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased
within six months prior to the Date of the Commiment, the requirements to obtain coverage
for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial hformation
as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; palm.eff of the appropriate premium fully
executed Indemdty Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements
as may be necessary after an ex:mination of the aforesaid information by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured
has contracted for or agreed oo pay.
Note: Pursuant to CRS l0-11-123, notice is hereby given:
A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise
conveyed ftom the suface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party
holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without {he
surface owner's permission.
This notice applies to owner's policy commiments containing a nineral severaoce inskument
exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2.
Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages
refened to herein unless the above conditions are firllv satisfied.
Form D I SCLOSURE
JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY
' Ildelity National trinancial Group of Companies/Chicago Title Insurance Company and
Land fitle Guarantee Company
July 1' 2N1
We recosnize and respect the orivacv exDectations of todav's consumers and the requirements of apnlicable federal and
state priiacy laws. We believd that inkfnq vou aware of liow we use vour non-oublic personal infoimation ("Personal
Inforinatiod'), and 3o whon it is discloserf.'will fonn the basis for a r6lationshiir of tnist between us and the'public
that we serve. This Privacy Statement provides rhat explenacion. We reserve th6 right to change this Privacy -
Statement from time to tinie consistenfwith applicabldprivacy laws.
In tbe course of our business, we may collecf Personal Information about you from the following souroes:
* From applications or other foms we receive from vou or voru authorized reDresentative:
I lrom yi:iur uansactions with, or from the services 5eing performed by, us, our affiliates, or others;' From our lnternet weD $rcs:* From the public records maintained by governmental entities that we either obtain directly from those
entities. oi from our affiliates or otheisiand+ From consumer or other reponing agencies.
Our Policies Regarding the Protection of the Confidentiality and Security of Your Personal Information
We maintain ohvsical. electronic and orocedural safesuards to Drotect yggs pgl5enel Information from unauthorized
access or innirsibn. We limil rccess ri the Personal liformatioir onlv to those employees who need zuch access in
connection with providing products or services to you or for other l6gitimete busine5s purposes.
Our Policies anil Practices Regarding the Sharing of Your Personal Information
We may share your Personal Information with our affiliates, zuch as insurance companies, agents, and other real
estate sbttlemerit service providers. We also may disclose your Personal Informatiori:
* to agents. brokers or reDresentatives to orovide vou with services vou have reouested:* to tfird-party contractois or-service pro'viders who provide servicds or perfomi marketing or other
functiorft on our behalf: and* to others with whom we efi€r into joiil marketing agreements for products or services that we believe you
may find of iDt€rest.
In addition. we will disclose vour Personal Information when vou direct or give us Dermission when we are required
bv law to do so. or when we Suspect fraudulent or criminal acfrvities. We alio mav ^disclose your Personal
hiformation when otherwise peniritted bv aoolicable orivacv laws such as. for exainple. wheir disclosure is needed
to enforce our rigbts arising 6ut of any agr6Snenr, trinsaction or relations:hip with y-ou.
One qf th9 important reqponsibilities of some of our affiliated companies is to record documents in the public
domain. Such documens- may contain your Personal Information. -
Riglrt to Access Your Personal Information anil Ability to Correct Errors Or Request Changes Or Deletion
Certain states afford you the ripht to access yoru Personel lnformation and. under certain circumstances, to find out
to whom your Persodal Infomltion has beeir disclosed. Also. certain states afford vou the right to request
correctiori amendment or deletion of your Personal Information. We reserve the rilht, where pernitt6d by law, to
charge a reasonable fee to cover the qjsts incurred in responding to zuch requests. -
All requgss submitted to the Fidelity National Financial Group of Companies/Chicago Title Insurance Company
shall bE in writing, and delivered to-the following address:
Privacv Comoliance Offi cer
Fidelitv National Financial. Inc.
4050 Ca[e Real. Suite 220
Santa Barbara. CA 931l0
Multiple Products or Services
If we provide you with more tban one financial product or service, you may receive more than one privacy notice
from ris. We afologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
FOTM PRIV.POL.CHI
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department ol Community Development
December 10, 2001
A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternalives for the
development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as
"Mountain Bell'7an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Fronlage Rd./ to
be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Local Housing Authorily, represented by Odell Architects
Allison Ochs
il.
pESCRTPTTON OF TflE REQUEST
The applicant has requested this worksession with the Planning and Environmental
Commission to consider alternalives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village.
The applicant will be formally applying to the Department of Community Development at
a later date and will be scheduled for review at such time. The purpose of today's
worksession is to continue discussions regarding the direction lhe applicant is moving
since lhe previous worksession, identify potential issues, and clarify the direction of the
design of Middle Creek Village.
On September 24, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the
major subdivision, rezoning, and land use plan amendment for the site. On November
12, 2001 , the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposed
development plan for the site in a worksession format. The Planning and Environmental
Commission gave specific direction which the applicant has attempted to address. The
applicant has requested this worksession today to receive additional Planning and
Environmental Commission input ol the developmenl plan before formally applying.
Slaff has identified potential issues and provided recommendations regarding the design
of lhe site. These discussion items are listed in Section V of this memorandum.
ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and
Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development and then by the Design
Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and sile planning.
Planninq and Environmental Commission:
Action:The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final
approval/denial of a development plan in the H district. The Planning and Environmental
Commission is responsible for prescribing the following development standards:
1. Setbacks2. Site Coverage3. Landscaping and Site Development4. Parking and Loading5. Lol area and site dimensions.6. Building height.
7. Density control (including gross residential floor area).
In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for reviewing the
application for compliance with the following:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing
and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the
surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are
designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site,
maximize opportunities for access and use by the .public, provide
adequale buffering between the proposed uses and sunounding
properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space
and recreation areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulalion system designed to provide safe,
efficient and aesthelically pleasing circulation to the sile and throughout
the development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in
the projecl's environmenlal impact report, if not waived, and all necessary
mitigating measures are implemenled as a part of the proposed
developmenl plan.
F. Compliance with the Vail Gomprehensive Plan and other applicable
plans.
Desion Review Board:
Action:The Design Review Board has no review authority on a development plan in the
H district, but musl review any accompanying Design Review Board applicalion. The
Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the proposal for:
1. Archilectural compatibility with other structures, the land and
surroundings2. Fitting buildings into landscape3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the
topography4. RemovaUPreservation of trees and native vegetation5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site6. Acceptability of building malerials and colors
7. Acceptability of rool elements, eaves, overhangs, and olher building
lorms8. Provision of landscape and drainage9, Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures10. Circulation and access 1o a site including parking, and site distances11. Localion and design of satellite dishes12. Provision of outdoor lighting13. The design of parks
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requiremenls are provided and
plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also
advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a slaff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff
evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates
the review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmenlal Commission maybe
appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether
or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with
approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modificalions, or overturn the board's
decision.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As this is a worksession, slaff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time.
The applicant has requested this worksession to receive input from the Planning and
Environmental Commission prior to submitting the developmenl plan for Middle Creek
Village.
IV. SITE ANALYSIS
Lot Area: 6.673 acres / 290.676 sq. ft.
Buildable Area: 4.573 ac. / 199,200 sq. ft.Hazards: Moderate Debris Flow, Medium Severity Rockfall, Slopes in excess of
40o/o
Proposed Use: Employee Housing, Early Learning Center
Develoomenl Standard H zone district Prooosed
Density (duibuilable acre) prescribed by PEC 21.3 dulbuib. Acre
GRFA prescribed by PEC 81,376 sq. ft.
Setbacks.Norlh 20 tt. 0 ft.South 20 ft. 0 ft.East 20tt. 5 ft.West 20 tt. 48 ft.
Parking (12-10) 243 spaces required 243 spaces proposed
Full Size 182 allowed 134 spacesCompacl 61 allowed 109 spaces.Deviations are allowed to the 20 ft. setback with PEC review
V.DISCUSSION ISSUES
According to Section '12-6-1 of the Town Code, the purpose of the Housing zone district
is:
The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing
which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be
adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other
residential zoning districts. lt is necessary in this district to provide development
standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to
achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for
the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses,
which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the
District. The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing
permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs
of residents ol Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate
light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of
uses.
The intent of the Housing zone district is three{old:1. To provide sites for employee housing,2. To provide for flexibility in the development standards,3. To ensure that lhese sites are sensitively designed and compatible with the
Town's objectives.
Stafl has identified the following discussion items:
1. Density
The applicant is currently proposing 142 units. The proposalincludes 64 studio
units, 18 one-bedroom units, 18 two-bedroom units, and 42 three-bedroom units.
The Land Use Designation for this site is 'High Density Residential" which is
defined as:
The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored
structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre.
Other activities in this category would include private recreational
facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as
churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities.
For Middle Creek, the current density proposed is 21 .3 dwelling units per
buildable acre. Al the last Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, lhe
applicant was proposing 148 units. In the Housing zone district, the Planning
and Environmenlal Commission prescribes allowable density. Staff has provided
densily comparisons of olher projects:
Develooment
Timber Ridge
Pitkin Creek
Vail Commons
Rivers Edge
The Tarnes
Zoninq
SDD
SDD
cc3
not in Tov
not in TOV
4
Number of Units
198
156
71
101
130
Timber Ridge, located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd. West / Lots
C-l through C-5, Lion's Ridge Filing No. 1:
In 1979 the Town rezoned Lots C-1 through C-5 from Residential Cluster to
Special Development District No. 10. Timber Ridge was developed as a renlal
employee housing project and received deviations from the design guidelines
and density requirements. The density for the site is 19.6 dwelling units per acre.
Zoning: SDD No. 10 (no underlying zoning)LUD: High Density Residential
Lot Size: 10.08 acres / 439,084.8 sq. ftUnits: 198 dwelling unilsDensity: 19.6 du/acre
Pitkin Creek Park, located at 3971 Bighorn Rd. / Pitkin Creek Park:
Special Development District No.3, Pitkin Creek Park, was adopted in 1974. The
underlying zoning is Medium Density Multiple Family. Pitkin Creek Park was
developed as an affordable housing project, with commercial elements, and
received deviations to lhe design guidelines and density requiremenls. The
affordability provisions expired after 7 years, and the units are now sold at market
rate.
Lot Size: 8.29 acres / 361,112 sq. ft.LUD: Medium Density ResidentialUnits: 156 dwelling unitsDensity: 18.8 du/acre
Vail Commons, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. West / Vail Commons:
Vail Commons was developed under Commercial Core 3 zoning and was
approved in 1995. lt is a mixed-use project, wilh major commercial uses and
deed-reslricted employee housing including 53 for-sale units and 18 rental unils.
Lot Size: 6.568 acres / 286,082 SFLUD: Community CommercialUnits: 71 dwelling unitsDensity: 10.8 duiacre
Parking
According to the Housing zone district, the parking requirements as outlined in
Chapter 12-10 must be met. However, the Housing zone district does allow for a
reduction in the number of required parking spaces, subject to Planning and
Environmental Commission review of a parking managemenl plan, Section 12-
618: Parking and Loading, states:
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this
Title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required setback
area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission,
variations to the parking standards outlined in Chapter 10 may be approved
during the review of a development plan subject to a Parking Management
Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking
requirements based on a demonstrated need tor tewer parking spaces than
Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for
a reduction in the required parking could include:
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transporiation
including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle seruices.
B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of
cars for each unit.
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to,
rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or
staggered work shifts.
Parking spaces are allocated based on size of the units. Chapter 12-10 requires
1.5 parking spaces for units less than 500 sq. ft.;2 parking spaces for units 500
to 2000 sq. ft.; and 2.5 parking spaces for units over 2000 sq. ft. As proposed,
the parking requirement would be as follows:
Number and Tvoe of Unit Parkino ratio Total Soacest
w,t6IL\ ,,
0Y+ w
64 studio units
18 one-bedroom units
1.5
1.5
96
27
18 two-bedroom units 2
42 three-bedroom units 2
Total
Jb
84
243
3.
The applicant is proposing 243 parking spaces, meeting the parking requiremenl,
as prescribed by Chapter 12-10 of the Town Code. However, a deviation to the
parking requirement is required for the type and configuration of the parking
spaces. As currently proposed, lhe spaces are configured as follows:
128 tandem spaces (53%)
1 15 single spaces (47%)
109 compact spaces (45%)
134 full-size spaces (55%)
153 covered spaces (63%)
90 surface spaces (37%)
Design of Parking
The applicant has increased the percentage of enclosed and covered parking.
Previously, the applicant was proposing to enclose 36% of the proposed parking.
With this current submittal, the applicant is proposing to enclose 63% of the
parking. The applicant is proposing to provide tuck-under parking, a 26-car open
garage, and approximately I 2-car freestanding garages. Statf believes that this
is an appropriate percentage of enclosed parking for this site. The remaining
surface parking must be screened with site walls, berms, or landscaping. Stafl
believes that combining some of the freestanding garages would be beneficial.
Grading and Retainage
Grading and retainage must be minimized to the extent possible. Staff
recognizes thal the grades on the site will require some retainage. However,
4.
5.
staff is recommending that the buildings be used for a large portion of lhe needed
retainage. This will minimize site disturbance, eliminale the need for extensive
retaining walls, and provide for a better design for the si!e.
According to the Design Guidelines of the Town ol Vail:
The location and configuration of structures and access ways shall be
responsive to the existing topography of the site upon which they are to
be located. Grading requirements resulting from development shall be
designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or fills
shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend with the existing natural
undisturbed tenain within the property boundary.
No retaining walls over 6 ft. in height are allowed without a variance. The current
proposal indicates some walls exceeding 6 ft. Staff believes that it is important to
keep retaining walls under 6 ft. in height.
Setbacks
The setbacks in the Housing zone district shall be 20 ft. According lo Section 12-
6l-5: Sefbacks:
The setbacks in this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone
district. At the disuetion of the Planning and Environmental Commission,
variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of
a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance
with the following criteria:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between
buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light,
air and open space.
C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with
buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or
other public benetits that could not otherwise be achieved by
conformance with prescribed setback standards.
Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines
adjacent to HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance
is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to
Chapter 17 of this Title.
Building setbacks are proposed as follows:
Setback
North
South
East
West
Prooosed
70 ft.
0 tr.
1 10 fr.
70 fr.
However, the Housing Zone District does not allow for parking lo encroach inlo
any setback. Parking on the north and easl of the property would be within 1 ft.
of the property line. Parking on the west is located within 45 ft. of the propefi
line.
6. Provision of Open Space
Development must include useable open space for the residents of the site. Staff
believes that with any high-density development, adequate, useable open space
must be provided. This includes, but is not limited to, flat green areas for
recreation, common gathering spaces, and more formal recrealional amenities.
7. Hazard Mitigation
Stalf continues lo have concerns about the hazard mitigation required for the
site. Staff is recommending that plans which indicate how the hazards will be
mitigated be reviewed by the Planning and Environmenlal Commission as early
as possible, and that a sile specific analysis be provided for the alternatives. The
analysis shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 12-21 of the Town Code.
Staff believes that this criterion should weigh heavily in the decision making
process and review of the development plan.
8. Pedestrian Connection
The pedestrian connections to the Village and Lionshead are important design
considerations for the developmenl of this site. A pedestrian connection to the
east, into the roundabout, has been indicated. In addition, a pedestrian
connection to the pedestrian overpass to the west should also be a design
consideration.
9. Early Learning Center
Additional information is required regarding the early learning center. The early
learning center is a relocation of the ABC/Learning Tree use currently on the site.
lnformation regarding lhe number of students, number of teachers, etc. must be
provided for staff to analyze the use.
10. Snow Storage
The Town Code slates:
All required parking and access areas shall be designed to accommodate
on-site snow storage. A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the
paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved area and designed
to accommodate snow storage. Turt areas and other areas without trees
may be utliized for this purpose. lf driveways are heated,'then the
minimum snow storage area may be reduced to 10% of the required
parking and access areas.
The applicant has nol yet indicated snow storage on the site plan, but staff has
concerns regarding this requiremenl. n 30% snow storage area cannot be
achieved, a variance will be required.
REVTEW CRTTERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN rN THE H ZONE pTSTRICT
12-61-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:
The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed
development plan. lt shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate thal the
proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria:
vt.
A. Building design with respect to
orientation is compatible with the
neighborhood.
architecture, character, scale, massing and
site, adjacent properties and the surrounding
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a
functional development plan responsive lo the site, the surrounding neighborhood
and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to
preserve and enhance the natural fealures of the site, maximize opportunities for
access and use by the public, provide adequate buflering between the proposed
uses and surrounding properlies, and when possible, are inlegraled with existing
open space and recreation areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, etficient and
aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development.
E. Environmenlal impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmental impact report, il not waived, and all necessary mitigating
measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan.
F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans.
Eg
q.
E
at,
o
E
.E
To
Eogttp
=
oa
@
(,.o
EIoz
fJ
{I.
rt
ss
$*
3$$\t*
lli,|i,'tv/ /,'/ l
/,,
;//'l
Ii,,
:I
,'!
ffi
Wffi
""iiwN
2l;;'t:,
ii/ti:t,t
i'/^9,iN/.'
ff,i/,
i/i///
ir/tt4''itti\
'r','/l
;ifll
tr\\\
i\\
l,l
,,,,,!'
l( RECD NOy Z 6 Z00t
ii
!t
!i il/
it
I
I
2:\*==-+
J-t_it-l-.-
tt,
ooGI
F'tlll
illt
i(?)N:,
' 2:j
Y,rsPi/i
8
5
d
E6o
U
tu
J
s
b
E
z
Jo-
2o
vats
!+ t)Eo
9=lu
86
=ts2
=J
IUEo-
.'
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Memorandum
Planning and Environmental Commission
Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator
12110,01
Housing Zone District
12-67-1: PURPOSE:
The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for deed restricted employee housing
which, because ofthe nature and characteristics ofemployee housing, cannot be adequately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is
necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each
development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 ofthis
Title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional
uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District.
The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is
appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with
surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate
to the allowed types of uses.
With the adoption of the Housing District the Town of Vail acknowledges the need for additional
employee housing within the Town boundaries. With over 47%o of Vail households being renters
the need for maintaining and creating additional rental housing within the Town of Vail is only
exacerbated. Additionally, according to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000
Update renters are more likey to be "cost-burdened" (pay more than 30% of their household
income for housing) than owners. Compounding the issue is the State's estimate that Eagle
County consistently has the lowest vacancy rate in Colorado.
Date:
From:
Re:
To:
ODELL ARCHITECTS P C
December 7, 2001
Bridget Venne, Odell Architects, P.C.
Middle Creek Project- unit and parking counts
Allison Ochs, Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
Here are the current unit and parking counts for the Middle Creek project:
64 Studios in fwo configurations, some perfectly stacked, some
under 2 bedroom units.
One Bedrooms, perfectly stacked
Two Bedrooms, some stacked over studio units.
Three Bedroorns in two configurations, perfectly stacked.
Total Units
The parking count breaks down as follows:
243 total spaces
14 child care soaces
128 tandem spaces
I 15 single spaces
109 compact spaces (45% compact)
17 single-car garage spaces
28 tandem open gamge spaces
100 tandem tuck-under spaces
8 single-car tuck-under spaces
153 covered spaces (63% covered)
18
l8
42
t42
ao parking mcmo l2-7
ARTICLE t. HOUSTNG (H) DTSTRTCT
SECTION:
12-61-1 : Purpose
1 2-61-2: Permitted Uses
1 2-61-3: Condilional Uses
12-614: Accessory Uses
12-61-5: Setbacks
12-61-6:Site Coverage
12-617: Landscaping and Sile Developmenl
12-61-8: Parking and Loading
1 2-61-9: Location of Business Activity
'l 2-61-1 0: Other Development Slandards
12-61-1 1 : Development Plan Required
12-61-12: Develooment Plan Conlents
1 2-61-13: Development StandardVCriteria for Evalualion
12-61-1: PURPOSE:
The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which,
because of the nature and characleristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts.
It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed
for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section
12-1-2 of this Title and 1o provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidenlial uses are
allowed as conditional uses, which are inlended lo be incidenlal and secondary to the
residential uses of the District. The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee
housing permitted in the Dislrict is appropriately localed and designed to meet the needs
of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and lo ensure adequate light,
air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses.
12-GJ-2: PERMITTED USES :
The following uses shall be permitted in the H District:
Deed restricled employee housing units as further described in Chapter 12-13 of this
Tiile.
Passive outdoor recrealion areas, and open space.
Pedestrian and bike paths.
12-61-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H District, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permil in accordance with the provisions ol Chapler 16 of this Title:
Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the Planning
and Environmenlal Commission ) to the use of employee housing and specifically
serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with employee
housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject 1o a conditional
use permit:
Banks and financial institulions.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Health clubs.
Personal services, including but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and
barbershops, tailor shops, and similar services.
Relail stores and establishmenls.
Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be
evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission:
A. Dwelling unils are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee
housing on the property and;B. Dwelling units are not lhe primary use of the property. The GRFA for
dwelling units shall not exceed 307" of the tolal GRFA constructed on the
property and;C. Dwelling unils are only created in conjunction with employee housing and;D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on
the sile and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent
properties.
Outdoor patios
Public and private schools and educational institutions, including day-care facilities.
Public buildings and grounds.
Public parks.
Public utililies installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment.
Type Vl employee housing units, as lurther regulated by Chapter 12-13 of this Title.
12-61-4= ACCESSORY USES :
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the H District:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Minor arcades
Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming
pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitled residential uses.
Other uses cuslomarily incidental and accessory 1o permitted or conditional uses, and
necessary for the operation thereof.
12-61-5: SETBACKS:
The setbacks in this districl shall be 20'from the perimeler of the zone district. At the
discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback
standards may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to the
applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and
riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensilive
areas.
B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open
space.
C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and
uses on adjacent properties.
D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public
benelits thal could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed
setback standards.
Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to HR,
SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title.
1 2-61-6: SITE COVERAGE:
Sile coverage shall not exceed fifty-five percent (55%) of the total site area. At the
discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, sile coverage may be
increased il 75% ol the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus
reducing the impacls of surface paving provided within a development, and that lhe
minimum landscape area requirement is mel.
12-61-7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least thirty percent (30%) ol the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum
width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a
minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet.
12-61-8: PARKING AND LOADING
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No
parking or loading area shall be located within any required setback area. At the
discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the parking
standards oullined in Chapter 10 may be approved during the review of a development
plan subject to a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall provide for a
reduction in the parking requiremenls based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking
spaces than Chapter 10 of this tille would require. For example, a demonstrated need
for a reduction in the required parking could include:
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but
nol limiled to. oublic transit or shuttle services.
B. A limilation placed in lhe deed reslrictions limiting the number of cars for each
unit.
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limiled to, rideshare
programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts.
12-61-9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY:A. Limitation; Exception: All conditional uses by 12-61-3 of this Article, shall
be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except lor permitted
loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be
unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods.
B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area lo be used for outdoor display must be
located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and
entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building
entrances and exits, d.riveways and streels shall not be obstructed by
outdoor display.
1 2-61-1 0: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development
standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as
prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adopted on the
approved development plan:
A. Lot area and site dimensions.
B. Building heighl.
C. Density control (including gross residential floor area).
12-0h11 : DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED:A. Compatibility With Intenl: To ensure the unified developmenl, the
proteclion of the natural environment, the compatibility with the
surrounding area and lo assure that development in the Housing District
will meet the intent of the District, a development plan shall be required.
B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan shall be
in accordance with Section 12-61-12 of this Article and shall be submitted
by the developer to the Administrator, who shall reler it to the Planning
and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a
regularly scheduled meeting.
C. Hearing: The public hearing belore the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title.
The Planning and Environmental Commission ma!, approve the
application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or
modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Planning and
Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Jown Council in
accordance with Section 12-3-3 of this Tille.
D. Plan As Guide: The approved developmenl plan shall be used as the
principal guide for all development within the Housing District.
E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan
will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-9A-1 0
ol this Title.
F. Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and any
subsequent amendments thereto shall require the approval of the Design
Review Board in accordance with lhe applicable provisions of Chapter 11
of this Title prior to lhe commencement of site preparalion.
12-61-12: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS:A. Submit With Application: The following information and malerials shall be
submitted with an applicalion for a proposed development plan. Certain submittal
requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator if it is
demonstrated that the materialto be waived or modified is not applicable to the
review criteria, or lhal other practical solutions have been reached.
1. Application form and filing fee.
2. A written stalement describing the projecl including information on the nalure
of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans.
3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indiqating existing conditions of the
property to be included in lhe development plan, including the location of
improvemenls, existing contours, natural leatures, exisling vegelation,
watercourses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel.
4. A title report, including Schedules A and 84.
5. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans,
elevations, etc.), if applicable.
6. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development
including a square foolage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces, etc.
7. A sile plan at a scale not smaller lhan one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'),
showing lhe location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buibings
and structures, all principal site developmenl features, vehicular and
pedestrian circulation systems and proposed conlours and drainage plans.
8. Building elevations, seclions and lloor plans at a scale not smaller than one-
eighth inch equals one loot (1/8" = 1'), in sufficient detail to determine floor
area, circulalion, location of uses and scale and appearance of the proposed
development.
9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvemenls in relalion 1o all
adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than one inch equals lifty feet (1" =
50').
10. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating
the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property
in the vicinity of the proposed developmenl plan.
11. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficienl to depict the proposed
development in relationship lo existing development on the site and on
adjacenl parcels.
12. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1"
= 20'), showing existing landscape features 1o be retained and removed,
proposed landscaping and other site development fealures such as
recreation lacilities, paths and trails, plazas, walkways and water features.
13.An environmenlal impact report in accordance with Chapler 12 of this Title
unless waived by Section 12-12-3 of this Title.
14. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by Administrator.
B. Copies Required; Model: With the exception of the model, four (4) complele
copies of the above information shall be submitted at the time of the application.
When a model is required, it shall be submitted a minimum of two (2) weeks prior
to the first lormal review of the Planning and Environmental Commission. At the
discretion of the Administrator, reduced copies in eight and one-half inches by
eleven inches (8 112" x 11") format of all of the above information and additional
copies for dislribulion to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design
Review Board and Town Council may be required.
1 2-61-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:
The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed
development plan. lt shall be the burden of the applicant lo demonstrate that the
proposed developmenl plan complies with all applicable design criteria:
A. Building design with respect to architeclure, character, scale, massing
and orientation is compalible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.
titiF.;.
Buildings, improvbments, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the
surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the communily as a whole.
Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are
designed lo preserve and enhance the natural features of the site,
maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide
adequale buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding
properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space
and recreation areas.
A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe,
etficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout
the development.
Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in
the project's environmental impacl report, if not waived, and all necessary
miligating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed
development plan.
Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
plans.
c.
D.
E.
F.
6*,,+r,,+
ffifl $!'.",n4,n,4 ,,fu^rad [d
NnL {tr win" L,N\'A +l u",t tn
tfitrunq ktl^Whnq '
4h- fC, hq d l,'hhvh,ol
,1
{t\il.f ryw,l il hrmrt
',fliltr5
,fr/ouft'tu*
I\tqttrd*gd'Mnv!@" u'ttri,dffiMNmMqv({?
Nnrli q t Ut'* l*'l,WilW nU ilun l N Vryflk,trfr- w*"
wr,
ffurffu, rW + wl mor,rw
**1, @'n'? @'[ *U b&, 46nyw,,
-gr'niW^dt.$,- f*&,
fthn{At.,il-t, . dil rttlrrqfi allro
Ar*( W,'1' {,41-+,4t^r' q ktV*mrj & *, h,kt't{?, m.*\J n[r11nr'ntgl6r6"r\{' tunrrrl,^' t **n1'
6w ,r.,"awv.lr**rt
\* fr\l( tilnll,
ffir',t \\ft [*r-1,r,0 Ai W r,*"t ildn.^'t4 *N,'4'
ililon't'*uV h a, {" fu''rYA'')" 1ntr,} ondl wr1"
ru mmill o W+"+, I{ld, nl^4 ,wfu^ M,
i"t fu,e {r.*H- &t - w,^ l* \rrl.y\
drrt"l.,lk r$q \^r\{&rq aro,lfunllg'nt U 1, .frr+-T+*
t4-^i dnl hd"'il rnt/nl'fna
,frild;ilYn nffi,tm- & h*{ ut.Ah^y
'l,D flrq wrry,
{t^1 Ct, wnth'1 *,fu h vw -f^^*-
@o * a+'4N #
NOVEMBER 2OO1
Date:
Frorn:
Re:
To:
ODELL ARCHITECTS PC
November 26, 2001
Bridget Venne, Odell Architects, P.C.
Middle Creek ProjecF unit and parking counts
Allison Ochs, Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
Here are the current unit and parking counts for the Middle Creek project:
Studios in two configurations, some perfectly stacked, some
under 2 bedroom units.
One Bedrooms, perfectly stacked
Two Bedrooms, some stacked over studio urits.
Three Bedrooms in two configurations, perfectly stacked.
Total Units
64
l8
l8
VLE
r42
The parking count breaks down as follows:
243 total spaces
14 child care spaces
128 tandem spaces
115 single spaces
109 compact spaces (45% compact)
17 single-car garage spaces
28 tandem open gange spaces
100 tandem tuck-under spaces
8 single-car tuck-under spaces
153 covered spaces (63% covered)
ao pa*ing memo I l-26
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance wilh Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on November'|.2, 2001, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A requesl for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the developmeni plan of
\/Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of
Eqoperty, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision..-f> ' ''-t ' Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell ArchitectsPlanner: Allison Ochs
A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 to allow for the
conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional
use permit, to allow for Type lll employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East
Meadow Drive/Lots M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1"'Filing.
Applicant: Daymer CorporationPlanner: Allison Ochs
A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 ("Setbacks"), Vail Town Code, at the Lion's
Square Lodge located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1"r Filing.
Applicant: Lion's Square LodgePlanner: Bill Gibson
A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-6G9 (site coverage), Vail
Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166
Columbine Drive/Lol 18, Bighom Subdivision.
Applicant: Timothy ParksPlanner: George Ruther
A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage) and 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail
Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature ai the Mountain Haus,
focated a1292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1"' Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Frilzlen Pierce ArchitectsPlanner: Bill Gibson
A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 (Lot Area and Site Dimensions), a minor
subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to relocate a common property line and
a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Two-family Primary/Secondary zone
district to Single-family zone district and setting forth details in regard thereto, located ai 1784 &
1794 South Frontage Road WesVLots 2 & 3 Vail Village West, Filing No. 2'
Applicant: Philip HagermanPlanner: George Ruther
A requesl for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow for the replacement of
an existing retaining with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located at 1467
Greenhill CourULot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant; Ellenore Joint Venture/Richard & Diane Cohen
Planner: George Ruther
The applications and about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project s office, located Et the Town of VailCommunity Developmcnt
. The public is invited to attend prcject orientation and the site
in the Town of Vail Community Development D€partmenl.
Sign language interprelation
2356, Telephone for thi Het
upon request with 2+hour notilication. Please ceil 479.
lmpaired, for information.
Community Development
Published October 26. 2001 in
t,
,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Departmenl of Community Development
November 12,2001
A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the
development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as
"Mountain Bell'7an unplatted piece of property, located at '160 N. Frontage Rd./ to
be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by OdellArchitects
Allison Ochs
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant has requested this worksession wilh the Planning and Environmental
Commission to consider alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village.
The applicant will be formally applying to the Departmenl of Community Development at
a later date and will be scheduled for review at such time. Adjacent property owners
have been notified of today's meeting. The purpose of today's worksession is to
consider various site plans, identify potential issues, and clarify the direction of the
design of Middle Creek Village.
On Septembel 24, 2001, the Planning and Environmenlal Commission reviewed the
major subdivision, rezoning, and land use plan amendment for the site. The Planning
and Environmental Commission requested that the applicant provide multiple alternalive
site plans for consideration of the development plan for Middle Creek Village. The
applicant has provided one alternative which is attached lor reference.
Staff has idenlified polential issues and provided recommendations regarding the design
of the site. These discussion items are listed in Section V of this memorandum.
ROLES OFTHE REVIEWING BOARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and
Environmental Commission for impacts of use/development and then by the Design
Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning.
Planninq and Environmental Commission:
Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final
approval/denial of a development plan in the H district. The Planning and Environmenlal
Commission is responsible for prescribing the following development standards:
1. Setbacks2. Site Coverage3. Landscaping and Site Development
4. Parking and Loading5. Lot area and site dimensions.6. Building height.7. Density control (including gross residenlial floor area).
In addition, the Planning and Environmenlal Commission is responsible for reviewing the
application for compliance with the following:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing
and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a functional development plan responsive to the sile, the
surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aeslhetic, are
designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of lhe site,
maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide
adequate buflering between the proposed uses and surrounding
properties, and when possible, are inlegraled with existing open space
and recreation areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe,
efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout
the development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in
the projecl's environmenlal impact report, if not waived, and all necessary
mitigaling measures are implemenled as a part of the proposed
development plan.
F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
plans.
Desion Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a development plan in the
H district, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The
Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the proposal for:
1. Architeclural compatibility with other structures, the land and
surroundings2. Fitting buildings into landscape3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the
topography4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation5. Adequale provision for snow storage on-site6. Acceptabilily of building materials and colors7. Acceptability of rool elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building
lorms8. Provision of landscape and drainage9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures
10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances'l'1. Location and design of satellite dishes12. Provision of outdoor lighting13. The design of parks
Staff:
The statf is responsible for ensuring thal all submittal requirements are provided and
plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also
advises lhe applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
Statf provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a statf
evaluation of the project wilh respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates
the review process.
Town Council:
Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe
appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluales whether
or not lhe Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with
approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modificalions, or overturn the board's
decision.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As this is a worksession, slaff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time.
The applicant has requested this worksession to receive input from the Planning and
Environmenlal Commission prior to submitting the development plan for Middle Creek
Village.
IV. SITE ANALYSIS
Lot Area: 6.673 acres / 290,676 sq. ft.
Buildable Area: 4.573 ac. / 199,200 sq. ft.Hazards: Moderate Debris Flow, Medium Severity Rockfall, Slopes in
excess of 40Y"
Proposed Use: Employee Housing, Early Learning Center
Development Standard H zone district Proposed
Density (du/builable acre) prescribed by PEC 32 du/buildable acre
GRFA (approx.) prescribed by PEC 88,816 sq. ft.
Setbacks.North 20 ft. 0 ft.South 20 ft. 0 ft.East 20 ft. 5 ft.West 20 ft. 48 ft.
Parking (12-10) 257 spaces required 236 spaces proposed
.Deviations are allowed to the 20 ft. setback with PEG review
V.prscussroN rssuEs
The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the applicant provide
various allernalive site plans for consideralion of the development plan at the September
24,200'1, meeting. The applicant has provided staff wilh one alternative to the original
design. Staff has identified the following discussion items:
1. Density
The applicant is currently proposing 148 units. The proposal includes 61 studio
units, 18 one-bedroom units, 24 two-bedroom units, and 45 three-bedroom unils.
The Land Use Designation for this site is "High Density Residential" which is
defined as:
The housing in this category would typically consist ot multi-floored
structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre.
Other activities rn fhls category 'would include pivate recreational
tacilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as
churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities.
In the Housing zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission
prescribes allowable density. Statf has provided density comparisons of other
projecls:
Develooment
Timber Ridge
Pitkin Creek
VailCommons
Rivers Edge
The Tarnes
Zonino
SDD
SDD
cc3
not in TOV
not in Tov
Number of Units
198
156
71
101
130
Timber Ridge, located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd. West / Lots
C-l through C-5, Lion's Ridge Filing No. 1:
In 1979 the Town rezoned Lots C-1 through C-5 from Residential Cluster to
Special Developmenl District No. 10. Timber Ridge was developed as a renlal
employee housing project and received deviations from the design guidelines
and density requirements. The density for the site is 19.6 dwelling units per acre.
Zoning: SDD No. 10 (no underlying zoning)LUD: High Density Residential
Lot Size: 10.08 acres / 439,084.8 sq. ftUnits: 198 dwelling unitsDensily: 19.6 du/acre
Pitkin Creek Park, located at 3971 Bighorn Rd. / Pitkin Creek Park:
Special Development Districl No. 3, Pilkin Creek Park, was adopted in 1974. The
underlying zoning is Medium Density Multiple Family. Pitkin Creek Park was
developed as an affordable housing project, with commercial elemenls, and
received deviations to the design guidelines and density requirements. The
affordability provisions expired after 7 years, and the units are now sold at markel
rate.
Lot Size: 8.29 acres i 361,1 12 sq. ft.LUD: Medium Density ResidentialUnits: 156 dwelling unitsDensity: 18.8 du/acre
Vail Commons, located at 2109 N. Frontage Bd. West / Vail Commons:
Vail Commons was developed under Commercial Core 3 zoning and was
approved in 1995. lt is a mixed-use project, with major commercial uses and
deed-restricted employee housing including 53 for-sale units and 18 rental units.
Lot Size: 6.568 acres / 286,082 SFLUD: Community CommercialUnits: 71 dwelling unitsDensity: 10.8 du/acre
Parking
According to the Housing zone district, lhe parking requiremenls as outlined in
Chapter 12-'l 0 must be met. However, the Housing zone districl does allow for a
reduction in the number of required parking spaces, subject to Planning and
Environmental Commission review of a parking management plan. Seclion 12-
618: Parking and Loading, states:
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this
Title. No paking or loading area shall be located within any required sehack
area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission,
variations to the parking standards outlined in Chapter 10 may be approved
during the review of a development plan subject to a Parking Management
Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking
requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than
Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for
a reduction in the required parking could include
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation
including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle seruices.
B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of
cars for each unit.
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to,
ideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle seruice, or
staggered work shifts.
Parking spaces are allocated based on size of the units. Chapter 12-10 requires
1.5 parking spaces for unils less than 500 sq. ft.;2 parking spaces for units 500
to 2000 sq. ft.; and 2.5 parking spaces for units over 2000 sq. ft. As proposed,
the parking requiremenl would be as follows:
Number and Tvoe of Unit Parkino ratio Total Spaces
61 studio units
18 one-bedroom units
1.5
1.5
91.5
27
48
90
257
61
18
48
90
19
236
The applicanl is proposing 236 parking spaces, a deviation of 21 parking
spaces or 8%. The applicant is proposing a parking management plan
which would allocate parking according to the following:
Unit Tvpe Number ol Assioned Spaces Total Soaces
24 two-bedroom unils 2
45 three-bedroom units 2
Total
Studio
One-bedroom
Two-bedroom
Three-bedroom
Excess'
Total
1
1
2
2
3.
'Available tor short-term parking, monthly rental to lenants, guesls, etc.
Staff has concerns regarding the limited number of visitor/shorl term parking
spaces. The applicant has stated that the site will be designed to encourage the
use of alternative mode$ of transportation. However, staff has concerns
regarding the accommodation of "parked" cars, even with the use of alternative
transportation modes. The applicant has provided a parking management plan,
which has been included for reference.
In addition, staff has concerns regarding the parking for the early learning cenler.
There are approximately 19 spaces proposed. Prior to delermining if this is an
adequate parking provision, additional information will be required regarding the
program of the early learning center. In addition, the drop off and loading for this
use should be considered. Parking for this use is prescribed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission.
Design ol Parking
Surface parking area musl be minimized and screened. Parking must be
incorporated into the buildings (example: Vail Commons). This will minimize
surface parking, making snow storage and snow removal more efficient. A
parking struclure, as indicaled in the preliminary design of the site, is not an
efficient use of land, and incorporating parking into the buildings will likely nol
signilicantly increase cost. lt will also free up addilional land for green spaces or
additional building sites. Staff is recommending that Middle Creek Village
encfose at least 75Yo ot the required parking within the main building or buildings
ol the site. All remaining surface parking shall be screened by a landscape berm
or landscaping. Currently, the applicant is proposing to enclose 84 parking
spaces,,or 36% of the proposed parking. Approximately 13 parking spaces,
dedicated to the housing component, are located adjacent to the early learning
center parking. Approximately 27 parking spaces are localed along the exisling
Mountain Bell access road and will be directly adjacent to the property boundary,
4.Grading and Retainage
Grading and retainage must be minimized to the extent possible. Slaff
recognizes that the grades on the site will require some relainage. However,
staff is recommending that the buildings be used for a large portion of the needed
retainage. This will minimize site disturbance, eliminate the need for extensive
retaining walls, and provide for a better design for the site.
According to the Design Guidelines of the Town of Vail:
The location and configuration of structures and access ways shall be
responsive to the existing topography of the site upon which they are to
be tocated. Grading requirements resulting from development shall be
designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or fills
shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend with the existing natural
undisturbed terrain within the property boundary.
Building Design
Buildings must be designed wilh sensitivily to the site. Specifically, staff believes
that there are a variety of shapes (t-shaped or horseshoe-shaped) which could
provide for differing orientations, more relief in the fagade, a less linear
appearance, vertical variation in the rool forms, elc. Staff believes that the
buildings should be more staggered, and more articulation should be found in
each building.
Height
Height in the Housing zone district is prescribed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission. With the introduction of enclosed parking, the
buildings have increased to 4 stories. Staff believes this is an acceptable height.
Setbacks
The setbacks in the Housing zone district shall be 20 ft. According to Section 12-
6l-5: Sefbacks:
The setbacks in this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone
district. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission,
variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of
a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance
with the following criteria:
A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between
buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other
e nviron m ental ly sensitive areas.
B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light,
air and open space.
C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with
buildings and uses on adjacent propefties.
D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or
other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by
conformance with prescribed setback standards.
Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines
adjacent to HB, SFB, R, PS, and BC zoned properties, unless a variance
5.
6.
7.
10.
11.
is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to
Chapter 17 of this Title.
Buibing setbacks are proposed as follows:
Setback
North
South
East
West
Prooosed
70n.
0ft.
110fl.
70 fr.
However, the Housing Zone District does not allow for parking to encroach into
any setback. Parking on the north and east of the property would be within 1 ft.
of the properly line. Parking on the west is located within 45 fl. of the properg
line.
Provision of Open Space
Development must include useable open space for the residents of the site, Staff
believes that wilh any high-density development, adequale, useable open space
musl be provided. This includes, but is not limited lo, flat green areas for
recreation, common gathering spaces, and more formal recreational amenities.
Hazard Mitigation
Staff continues to have concerns about the hazard mitigalion required for the
site. Statf is recommending that plans which indicate how the hazards will be
mitigated be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as early
as possible, and that a site specific analysis be provided for the alternatives. The
analysis shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 12-21 of the Town Code.
Statf believes that this criterion should weigh heavily in the decision making
process and review of the development plan.
Pedestrian Connection
The pedestrian connections to the Village and Lionshead are important design
considerations for the development of this site. A pedestrian conneclion to the
east, into the roundaboul, has been indicated. ln addition, a pedestrian
connection to the pedeslrian overpass to the west should also be a design
consideration.
Early Learning Cenler
Additional information is required regarding the early learning center. The early
leaming center is a relocation of the ABC/Learning Tree use cunenlly on the site.
Information regarding the number of sludents, number of teachers, elc. musl be
provided for staff to analyze the use. The fire department has expressed a
concern regarding access to the early learning center. Specifically, the proposed
turnaround is not adequate for fire truck turnaround. ln addition, staff has
concerns regarding the number of parking spaces (19 spaces) and the drop-
offlturnaround for the early learning center.
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT
12-61-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:
The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed
developmenl plan. ll shall be the burden of the applicant to demonslrate that the
proposed development plan complies with allapplicable design criteria:
A. BuiHing design with respect 1o archilecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation is compalible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding
neighborhood.
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a
functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood
and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to
preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for
access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between lhe proposed
uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing
open space and recreation areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and
aesthetically pleasing circulation 1o lhe site and throughout the development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmental impact report, if nol waived, and all necessary mitigaling
measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan.
F. Compliance wilh the VailComprehensive Plan and other applicable plans.
o
!
o
=
o
E
o
o!e
.9oo
3I
trl6l
o.l
gl
ol
6l
=lololt,lclolol
2t?
ai,aIl
irOJrii!I i.ii
tl--
:I:t
t
d,jI)€at,
=oest
so-
j
qrb
ggEgggi$iEiigtrgSgg*
gg ggEE
$g
gggi
igi FtIE i* iiii gg
i
G.
(o
d
so.E
o
c)a,€(,'t
uto
so
.St4
oI
g(,tq
eiEoo
ot
.Ss
E
.=
s
o
s
P
so
(!
:(!
lu
e
.s
o
'tro
b
E
€st!
an
so
Ea.eo
oa
,
o;
:
0
E
a.o
e
-9oo
T
.DO-:=
EgI+EiEIfi*EgEE
;E;EggEgEagigg
EEEgEIE gEE
E;qe€EE 5u-a Iegg
E*EEs*; E*g *tEE
lttE;Ee;ii*g;5gi
EEIgEg€
gEEgEFgEEEEEEEiEE
EiaEggligEtg*aEg
sob.gs(,
at,oa
o
q
oa
s
.gsIo
=
o
U'
=oass
so-
6;
o
a
(t,
o
o!t!
-9oo
I
o
aa
=oto
.=a!
So-
EpFE=E.e Efi- E A a- resEe €r; g E E EtHi'g gfr: E= ; i 2gi+Ee rEfi Es g g e;F$: 'E[ FE E g. EIeSE E:u et n o*g :-6s*E gsE EE E nE Eg5.eE }Fg eq E HE sgEPE E8E :* p"' HS EPF=s i:E EE E* Eg :iEE E :
*Es E;E 5g 6g ;E gfiegE Fat Eg E{ }: E"
Egg gE I gE EE gg EsH!i a;E t$g gi *x EE qieE iE# $eE nE ss ;g lt€E gESS E9[ ;Fq EH 19 EE EE*F --EI Ee; E? =:E f€ i;E.B E;s Et= :E. Eg :E *FEg EiE *EE E; E'E TH F;RF E*s EEn $e CE
=E
EE3g EEE EHi ;E se =eB eiE* +3E ;i;: sE E+ Et :gls s€* EaE, #u g$ Eg 5if;i e;€ e;:E flH se EE E*en EEE FFEE [; == iE Ft=E ;Eq Eias [E EE gE E=gF =+E ig;3 gg €f; 3€ E="P ge iF :EBu fis*g gt
=E€
ga a*=E EE EE Eg H* a$ Fi€ r E =9BB; E;:g EgE*E gIE iEE EEi EEFE
5 $igEg FEEgE giE gE a 3eE gEE;
9
o
J
3
U'
oo
a!
cIo-
I
I
I
\tdI,i op
cl
6o
s
l\F
f
J
zl
I
,
I#
/
gfe
o :- -jF; -c,
FFEEo rD p 'cl
DE oi:
Ebe:
EE Hg
*csf.l' <t ll o
ge I sEE.tF(\| (! o
;:ufg*i;a,Eie
E;e Ec ci :ii a;'u
;saFt=+t*+*EetE;
u,
o\
r!tr
o
ca
o
,
0
E
otto
-9ooI
i{
oiEg,
=oosI
so.
$
$
[*
ocf
$.
l
Eo-
o
-l0)+f(o.tt
tr
=
zo
o
3go
f\)
NOo
I
,-_-:',:jlltill
w$
N(\i Itrli
iiiti
tliti
lhf
tl\l
{il
llttt
trtll
illllr
l$$
)
',:,,:':,,1,,,il
Vitlli
l:,lf:l',1//ffi
Wl/i,,%,,ffi,
ill[:
W
il I lt I I t lt / i I I ililllt ;
'w!,ffut
'll:ui
ililr\{r
(M#
,lK
;.,\\h .\,
n^'-*'
t'fi',i
tr'//:[ttllttLt
,
W ltllt
VA
:&
,rr,rr1
"rr't,ll
'/,'/r'
lt
itt!t
itt!tI
$i
'l,il,,'
,,(l|i
iiiiir
,,llii,
'/ Jil
'.. /l/22
"fuH:
W
?,
77r,
N
'//,r,r,
'ti,h,
tiit
Ii't
$}$
,,,11
,,,,&
/,'/,'
ili
{i
T'i,i
lili
$li
"lil,
ii(ii
tljl'/t /.it
n
[ti
titl
tllt
ttltttl
iltttt
/tttt'/ll'
| ),
'[!
i,,,,
'Nlr,7
'rrr/iZ
Wi
Wffi
1"',,
ii(i
li'i{t
tl tti' t I j
./-a
tti4
W
i//:
'l;trtll
[/,11fl
/!/ffi
W'&,
ttti:
ttti!
,,i,il,t,r,
/i
tittr
irlrt
i!i/rri
Wn
'Ki!'
fiil
Ui
l)),
'ltl i
2),,
'r2a
riiI
int
ilii
liKl
';ll(ll
m
iiitt
r.ril,,///
/./ ,'
i::
,'a
itiit
w
w#i:
'., ,' ,l ,t ,
?il'
tii,
#
Tfp,
H]-E],H]H]
EEEE
IE}ffEi f,El rui
#1J i_- r-:1J r:.l-J
lE hffi tffi Iffi
tal
E] H] E] H]
t
I
I
aa*f
E
,E'g
E],8] E] E]
E] E} H} E]
l-----5----rt4. ,..t ta., .rit 14. .ct l*. ...1T-t- T-T 'l-l' .l---f
J:trFfl[i$ltHrrbiliHl:
I[ffiIffiIffiIffi
l",} ,. I l'4 .. I ++ .. I .1.{+ ,, I
i1+'
Middle Greek
Parking Management Plan
Overview
Middle Creek is a to-be-built affordable rental housing project located at the Mountain Bell site
in the Town of Vail. The development is subject to a Master Deed restriction which will give
priority to residents who are employed by businesses located in the Town of Vail. As such, most
or all of the tenants will be traveling short distances to work, and are expected to be able to reach
many of their destinations by foot, bicycle, or bus.
In addition to providing parking for automobiles on site, the Middle Creek development has been
designed to encourage and accommodate the use ofpublic transportation. l,ocated within the
Middle Creek site will be a new Town of Vail bus stop. This bus stop will accommodate both
eastbound and westbound buses and will be located immediately in front of Middle Creek's
managemenVleasing office. The leasing office is the site of the central mail boxes for the
project, a cyber cafe, laundry facility, and common area. As such, it is intended to be a
convenient and athactive place for tenants to wait for the bus.
A bike path/pedestrian path will also be constructed along the southern boundary of the property
which will integrate with and feed into the existing bike path. The current roundabout on the
north side of the highway at the main Town of Vail exit is already desigrred for pedeskian and
bike use and it only crosses traffic at this roundabout at the westbound on-ramp to the I-70.
Automobile Parkinq
Middle Creek proposes to implement a plan that combines assiped parking for each resident
unit with financial incentives to tenants who do not use their assigred space(s).
The current site plan reflects a total of 236 parkine spaces. of which 84 (or 3670 of the
total) are intended to be covered tuck-under spaces in both a single and tandem
configuration. All buildings on the site that have a general easUwest orientation will have
tuck-under parking. The overall site plan reflects a parking ratio of approximately ljparkins spaces per unit.
Each unit will have an allocation of assigned spaces, at no charge, which space(s) will be in close
proximity to the tenant's unit. All tenant vehicles will have a parking tag or sticker that must be
displayed on the vehicle at all times to allow for appropriate monitoring. This allocation of free
spaces shall be according to the following schedule:
Number of Free
Unit Tvpe Assisned Spaces Comments
Studio
I Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
(t)
Tandem configuration
(l ) Each 2 bedmom unit will hav€ I assigned space, at no charge, and access to a 2- assigned space for $25.00* per month.
Financial Incentive Plan
Any tenant who elects NOT to use its assigned parking space will have $75.00* per month
deducted for its unit rental rate, or $900.00* per year. This is intended to provide a significant
financial incentive for tenants to use public transportation in lieu of automobiles. The spaces
will then be made available to other residents, at a minimum charge of $75.00* per space per
month.
Visitor/Guest Parkinq
In addition to the parking provided pursuant to the assigned parking schedule above, Middle
Creek will have 19 additional parking spaces. Some of these will be limited to short term
parking, some will be available as short term rental spaces for visitors to residents at Middle
Creek, and some will be available for monthly rental to tenants at Middle Creek. Use of any of
these spaces (except those dedicated to short term parking) will be limited to individuals who
have registered their vehicle with the Middle Creek leasing/managernent office and made
whatever appropriate payments are required.
Parkinq Reduction Request
The Town of Vail pa*ing requirement for the proposed unit configuration is 257 spaces. The
site design at Middle Creek allows for 236 spaces, or I .6 spaces per unit. This represents an 8%
reduction in the required number of parking spitces versus the current Town of Vail requirement.
* AII charges indicated herein are subject to adjustment over time, based on market conditions and demand
Nkl/d nl.,l
lllt
ti,,i!il
Wrt
'/ ./
. t{r
,'r,l
\l
ltI'
||/
fj
illl
.lJt
l!lr,
iri
ill/
;'iil
Y/il,'//,'/
I,
I
a$
EF
HEF
ln d trl
gsfi
pd
TEI
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, November 12, 2OO1
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME
fu+
l2:00 pm
fr,oa
hillat
illqfrnl
MEMBERS PRESENT
Galen Aasland
Chas Bernhardt
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Brian Doyon
Doug Cahill
Dick Cleveland
Site Visits :
MEMBERS ABSENT
12:4{i pm
1. Hagerman residence - 1784 & 1794 S. Frontage Rd. West
2. Cohen residence - 1467 Greenhill Court
3. Lions Square Lodge - 660 West Lionshead Place
4. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive
5. Parks residence - 4166 Columbine Drive
Cgc nearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearino - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm
Applicant: Daymer Corporation
Planner: Allison Ochs
Allison Ochs presenied an overview of the staff memorandum.
Connie Dorsey indicated that the existing building does not have a sprinkler syslem, only
smoke detectors. He also indicaled that the units will have microwaves for cooking and that
62 rooms are available for rent. He said that there will be 56 units (beds), since some rooms
will consist of joint rooms for a single tenant. He also indicated that there are 50 exterior and
42 interior parking sPaces available.
Allison Ochs indicated that sufficient parking is available.
1. A requesi for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the
conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a
conditional use Permit, to allow for Type lll employee housing units,- localed at the Vail
Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M,N anri O, Block 5O, Valt Village 1"r Filing.
Driver: Brent
NOTE: lf the
2.
Connie Dorsey clarified that the parking spaces specifically reserved for Craig's Market are
not counted as part ofthe available spaces.
Doug Cahill questioned if any of the rooms will be used for common areas or facilities.
Connie Dorsey indicated that no common areas are being proposed.
Galen Aasland expressed concem about the elestrical system and fire safety of the building.
Joe Stauffer replied lhat the entire building was rewired as part of an addition in 1978. He
indicated that he is a property owner in each phase of the projeci and that the owners
agreed a filled building is better than a vacant building.
Dick Cleveland agreed that people should be in the units, rather than having the building be
empty. He said he would like to see a 56-unit maximum placed on the proposal.
Bryan Doyon agreed to a.maximum of 56 units, but wants to be sure that the Type lll EHU
stindardj are being met and if the square footage for units does not meet the minimum
sizes, a dormitory design should be used.
Chas Bemhardt had no additional comments.
Doug Cahill recommended a one-year limit with follow-up Fire Deparlment inspection'
Diane Golden asked what assurances are being taken to ensure lhat parls of rooms are not
going to be sublel. She also indicated a concem about parking in front of Craig's Market.
Connie Dorsey indicated that this will be controlled by the lease agreement and that
approximately 30o/o of the tenants don't have cars.
Galen Aasland indicated that his greatesl concem is for life safety.
John Schofield motioned to approve lhe amendment to the SDD, in accordance with the
staff memo.
The molion was seconded by Chas Bernhardt.
The motion passed bY a vote of 7-0.
John Schofield motioned to approve the conditional use permit, in accordance with the staff
memo.
A request for a variance from Seciion 12-7H-10 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, at ihe Lion's
Square Lodge, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1d Filing.
Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge
Planner: Bill Gibson
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 26, 2OO1
A request for a variance from Sections 12-74-9 (Site Coverage) and 12-7A-6 (Setbacks)'
Vail iown Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain
Hius, tocateO ai ZgZ e. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vdil Village 1"t Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
3.
Planner:BillGibson
Bill Gibson gave a staff presenlation and stated that the purpose of the project is to create
an entrance statement on the front of the building and conditions included that an easement,
or a revocable right away be created.
Tom Debois, an architect from Fritlzen Pierce Architects, rePresented the applicant and
there was no presentation by the applicant.
Doug Cahill asked about the relationship of posts to support the awning in relationship to the
right-of-way and whether there would be heated Pavers.
Tom Debois said there would be heated pavers.
The pEC then discussed, with the applicant, how guesls currently park to check in and how
loading and delivery works on the site.
Doug Cahill stated that the overhang will further reduce parking and loading and delivery on
the site.
stephanie Lord Johnson, also of Fritzlen Pierce, stated the applicant wanted to do an
entiance in conjunction with other public road improvements to improve vehicular and
pedestrian access.
John Schofield staied he was opposed to the use of public land to resolve the Mt' Bell
problem and felt that the propoijt would reduce safety on the site. John thought this would
be a granl of special Privilege.
Diane Golden said that the entrance on the west side looks great, but was afraid that the
proposal would create an unsafe condition.
Dick Cleveland stated ihat the proposal would be detrimenial to the safety of the site and
believes that this should not move forward until the Town and ihe Vail Mountain Lodge move
forward.
Brian Doyon agreed with Dick Cleveland, but was concerned with how the Mountain House
is piecing the project together. He also agreed that this needs to be part of a
comprehensive plan for the site.
Chas Bemhardt asked what Greg Hall comments were on the site'
Bill Gibson reviewed Greg Hall comments.
Chas Bemhardt is opposed until Greg is completely satisfied with the proposal and
recommended taUtingj fte project until all safety issues can be resolved with Public Works.
Galen Aasland agreed with Brian's comments that the project is piece-mealed. He said he
liked the idea of i cantilevered cover, but he was concerned that there would be increased
safety issues on the site.
Stephanie Lord Johnson stated that she believed she was headed towards a denial- She
asked if the pEC would consider tabling the application until some of these issues have
been resolved with Greg Hall. She stated that there is no overall master plan for the site,
that the Mountain Haus has approached improvements in a different way. She stated that
public Works has stated that ihe public improvements they originally proposed were not
acceptable by Public Works. She believed that they are in a Catch-2z'
John Schofield stated that they are in a Catch-22 and that because the building is located so
close to the property, this is a difficult site.
Brian Doyon stated that this problem has arisen because this project is so maxed out on the
site and stated that his primary concem is the safety.
Galen Aasland stated that if they would like to table the item, they would reconsider the
project.
Dick Cleveland stated that this is a tough circumstance and there may not be an easy
solution. He then made a motion to table this to the first meeting in December.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vole of 6-1 , with John Schofield opposed'
4. A requesi for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 (Lot Area and,Site Dimensions), Vail Town
code. a minor subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village west, Filing No. 2, to relocate a
common property line and a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Two-
Family primary/Secondary Zone District to Single-Fami[ Zone Dis]rict and setting forth
detaili in regard thereto, located al 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road WesULots 2 & 3 Vail
Village West, Filing No. 2.
Applicant; PhilipHagerman/AllisonOchs
Planner: George Ruther
Allison Ochs gave a presenlation of the requesls and reviewed the criieria for lhe requests.
The applicant, Phil Hagerman, thanked staff for their help. He commented that the site has
challenges with the floodPlain.
There was no Public comments.
Dick Cleveland had concems about changing the size of the lot in relationship to the bike
path.
Mr. Hagerman believes that he can safely create a 3O-foot buffer from the bike path. He
believei that the site dislance is fine and will allow safe egress onto the Frontage Rd and
across the bike road and also that the driveway would also be flat to improve safety.
Dick cleveland asked if the reason for the proposal is lo create a bigger home.
Mr. Haggerman said he would like to create a house that is consistent with Vail.
Dick Cleveland said he was concemed about adding additional floor area, bul overall said he
feels that this application would increase the conformance of the lot and would also reduce
the density of ihe site.
Brian Doyon asked Allison about the developmenl potential today, versus the proposal.
Chas Bemhardt generally supported the proposal.
Doug Cahill also supported the proposal, but had quesiions regarding the bike path.
Mr. Hagerman said that they will work with Public Works on the bike palh crossing.
John Schofield said that the PEC has approved similar variances in the neighborhood and
was generally comfortable with the application.
Diane Golden wanted to clari! thai the applicani would nol be able to back out onto the bike
path.
Mr. Hagerman assured the PEC that they would be able to tum around and do head out
parking.
Galen Aasland asked again about the grade of the bike path, in relationship to lhe driveway.
John Schofield made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to change
the zoning.
Diane Golden seconded the molion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7- 0.
John Schofield moved that the PEC grant approval for a minor subdivision, in accordance
with the condition in the staff memo.
Dick Cleveland seconded.
The motion Passed bY a vote of 7-0'
John schofield moved that the PEC grant approval for the variance as requested.
Diane Golden seconded the molion.
The motion Passed bY a vote of 7-0'
5. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, lo allow for the replacement
of an existing retaining wall with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located al 1467
Greenhill Court/Lot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Ellenore Joint Venture/Richard & Diane Cohen
Planner: George Ruther/Allison Ochs
Allison Ochs gave the staff presentalion
Art Abplanalp complimented slaff and described why they needed to create the wall as
proposed.
paul Macklin, from Yenler, emphasized that the current wall will fail in the very near future
and he also explained how the wall would be constructed'
There was no Pubic comment
Doug Cahill asked what alternatives were examined.
paul Macklin said that they looked at regrading and other wall materials and further
explained the details of the proposed design.
John Schofield recommended that the applicant and the DRB examine the use of a stone
veneer on the ProPosed wall.
Dick Cleveland said he supports the request, however, he expressed a concern that the wall
be miligated from the view of the neighbors'
6.
Brian Doyon supports the requesi, however, he expressed concerns for the disturbance from
lhe access road and the elimination of trees. He would like to see all trees and shrubs
replaced on an inch-per-inch caliper basis. He would also like to see the disturbance to
vegeiation and grading as parl of the survey.
Chas Bernhardt is satisfied with the application as proposed.
John Schofield moved to approve the proposed variance request, in accordance with the
staff memorandum and amended to change the required DRB resubmittal daie to January
14,2002.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion'
The motion for approval was passed by a vote of 6-1, with Brian Doyon opposed.
A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of
Middie Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mouniain Bell'/an unplatted piece of
property, localed at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum.
Galen Aasland asked slaff to provide the PEC with GRFA calculations for other housing
projects.
Russ Forest indicated that to achieve a covered parking rate of 75%, it would require 93
additional parking spaces, costing approximately $2 million'
Mike Coughlin indicated that they have met several times with staff to discuss revisions to
the proposed design, prior lo this re-issuance.
Otis O'Dell presenled an overview of their site analysis and the most recent proposed design
for Middle Creek.
Clark Atkinson spoke regarding the cul and fill required on the site, including the significant
reduction with the currenl site plan.
Otis Odell presented the olher major points of the current plan, including snow storage,
landscape area, elc.
Clark Atkinson, with Shaw Consiruction, stated that they have built over 5,000 units of
housing. He presented an overview of housing projects. He stated that Middle Creek is
considered a land-constrained housing. He stated that Lake Creek provided covered
parking due to the lot area availability and that the enclosed parking at Lake Creek is
covered within freestanding garages. He also stated that a housing project in Aspen is
subsidizing the enclosed parking on the site with $25,000 per unit. He also discussed the
cost of surface parking ($1800-2200 per space) versus structured parking and thai tuck-
under parking is approximately $12,500, takes away a unit, increases the cost of the building
and increases the cost of housing. He stated that they are trying to strike a balance
regarding affordable housing and good planning. He continued to talk about ihe difficulty of
making the project a north-south orientation.
Brian Doyon asked about cuFfill.
Clark Atkinson stated that they are estimating a cut of 27,000 sq. ft.
Galen Aasland requesled that Otis Odell bring out various sile plans thal have been
considered in the past.
John Schofield asked about ihe access agreement with Mountain Bell'
Jim Ellerbrook, Peak Engineering, clarified the communications that have occurred with
Mountain Bell. He stated that they have been generally open to some changes to the
Mountain Bell site.
Brian Doyon said he doesn't like the tuck-under parking on the front b.uilding, that too many
doors are visible right off the roadway, but he really likes the tuck-under parking on the back
buildings.
Galen Aasland said he sees merit in the site plan presented today, because some of the
older versions look more like Timber Ridge.
Brian Doyon asked about why the early learning center had to be located on the eastem
fortion oi the site, instead otine lag area of lhe site. He asked about the parking lot being
bn fill. He then continued to ask about relocating the early learning center to lhe western
portion of the lot.
John Schofield presented an allemative to the sile plan, which included the learning center
on the west portion of the site.
Chas Bernhardt discussed his primary concern, regarding parking on the site. He stated that
we should eliminate all of the surface-parking, which would allow for more lot area for
housing. He then stated that he wanted a Town parking siructure in lhat location'
Nina Timm, representing the Housing Authorily, stated that parking is not the purview of the
VLHA.
Allison Ochs clarified the enclosed parking requirement.
Doug Cahill staled he did like the clustering of the buildings, but is supportive of the density'
ne siiO he still has concerns regarding the building on the western portion of the site'
specifically breaking up the building which could eliminate some units. He siated that we
need to maximize the density on th! project. He said he liked the bus stop location and use
of the site. He expressed @ncern regaiOing snow storage and that underground parking
would eliminate that need. He stated that he would like to see the best plan possible, with
no money considerations, lhen work down-ward from there to cut budgeiary items. He said
he likes t-he minimizing of grading and retainage. He said he likes the idea of clustering the
buildings to get rid ot lne tinear look of the western building. He said he wanted more
informition rigarding bulk and mass and he had no comments on the setbacks. He said he
had a huge co-ncernibout walking through the roundabouls for the pedeslrian connection'
He said ne tiXeO the Early Leaming Center on lhe eastern end and lhe seParation of the
uses and he appreciates the hard work that has gone into the project'
John Schofield stated lhat he would like to start fresh. He stated that maximizing the site for
density is the direction to go, as long as parking is considered. He said to go up as high as
you wint and that parking must be iesthetically pleasing and well screened. He further
!t"t"O tnat the life-cycle iost of the project need lo be considered, instead ofjust up-front
costs. He is okay with deviaiions to the setbacks, bui we need to look at the noise on those
adjacent to the Fiontage Rd. He said that once the design is finalized, open space will fall
intb place. He said nJnaO concerns aboui the pedestrian connection use through the
roundabout or interstate and suggested possibly a shuttle service to the transportation
system. He said he was not concerned about which end the Early Leaming Cenler goes on,
as he believes that it is acceptable at either location.
Diane Golden stated that she appreciated all that the applicant has done what they've asked
them to do. She expressed a concern that they have not given the parking silualion more
consideration. She suggested possibly a Parking slructure on the site, instead of just
housing.
Dick Cleveland stated that he was happy that he is on this side of the table. Dick staled that
he does have concerns regarding the densily on the site. He stated that with the parking
lrouble, locating buildings on there, etc, he believes density should be redubed. He was
pleased to see the reduction to 148 units, but believes thal we need to take another look at
bensity. He stated that less density would mean less parking and he said he would be ok
with more surface parking if density and total parking numbers are reduced. He said he likes
chas,s idea regarding a parking structure, but realized lhat won' be happening any time
soon. He said he will not accept hazard mitigation if it is visible across the Valley. He said
the Early Leaming Center can go wherever. He said that the HDMF Zone Districi has a
maximum height of 48 ft. and he wants the height at 36 io 40 ft. He said the setbacks are
not a big issue. He said regarding the pedestrian connection, that the roundabouts are nol
pedestriln friendly, and they are charged with getting them to the roundabout.
Brian Doyon stated that he believed Odell is doing a good job on this project and that the
pEC is looking for quality. He stated that the location of the school is a concern of his. He
is also concemed about the building on the west, specifically the line of garage doors along
the Frontage Rd. He said he wants more density, but it has to fit with the site. He said we
have lots ol toys, and so covered parking is hugely beneficial. He said even earth covered
parking that is open to the exterior, will hold close to the 75%. He said that site disturbance
is of atoncem to him. He said to go as high as we can, or 48 ft. and he is okay with the
retaining walls being taller. He said that open space depends on densi$ and if you can see
hazard mitigation it is wrong. He said regarding the pedestrian connestion, that we have to
get them to the roundabout and to the pedestrian bridge. He said he wants to see the Early
Learning Center on the west side, but is ok with it on the east and wants to see a
tumaround/drop-off.
Chas Bernhardt stated that he would like to maximize the use of ihe property. He stated that
he believes the leadership of the Town needs to steP out of the box and to consider
maximizing the use of the site. He said he wanis as much density as possible and wanls to
see the mijority of parking underground. He said he likes the tuck-under parking, and said
there cannot be a sea of parking, as it is a waste of space and could be used more
efficiently. He said he was also okay with taller walls and wants the height 48 fl. or higher.
He had no issue with ihe setbacks and since they were surrounded by open space, ihere is
no need for a park. He doesn't want to see hazard mitigation at all. He said, regarding. the
pedestrian connection, to get them to the roundabout, or provide more public transit. He
said he would like the Early Leaming Center moved to lhe west side.
Galen Aasland stated that we've come so far, but we've got so far to go. He said he was
okay w1h lots of density on this site. He said the westem building is loo linear and you can'l
line up 36 doors in a row, so some number may need to be eliminated and if you can see an
ocean of parking, that is wrong. He said regarding the grading and retainage, that you can't
just level ihe site, that you must work within a set of guidelines. He said the building design
merits to the Earty Leaming Center on both sides, and so is up io the applicant. He said he
thinks that the delign tums its back on the Mountain Bell tower. He said he is fine with 48 ft.
height and setbacks and that the hazard mitigation should not be seen. He said he needs to
see more about the pedestrian connection'
Allison Ochs asked about the provision of parking on the site and whether or not a reduction
would be allowed for the Project.
Mike Coughlin presented an overyiew of the parking management plan and the reasons for a
reduction on the site.
John Schofield said no to a parking a reduction, and there is a need for visitor parking'
Doug Cahill said he was ok with a reduction, but wants to see a plan get as close as
possible and would recommend designing it to meet the requirement'
Diane Golden said no to a reduction in parking.
Dick Cleveland said an 8% deviation in parking was too much, but if he could be shown how
similar projects work, he may be open to about a 5% reduction with a stringent parking plan.
Brian Doyon said he would hold this to the letter of the law and there was a need for all the
parking required, specifically guest parking.
Chas Bemhardt said he does not support a reduciion in parking'
Galen Aasland said he could support a 5olo reduction in parking and grass pavers would be
acceptable.
Kay Ferry suggested that the discussion today is in the wr.ong location' she said she
believes that more should be given to the developer to build affordable, i.e., more height'
more density, and less Parking.
Chuckogi|byaskedforc|arificationregardingtheheightrequirement.
Doug Cahill, Diane Golden, John schofield, Brian Doyon, chas Bemhardt, and Galen
Aasland were amiable to additional heighl, but they said it must be sensitive to the site and
lhe design of the building. Dick Cleveland said he is nol willing lo concede to too much
height.
Mike Coughlin asked about the parking structure and the direction that Council would lake
regardingltructured parking for'the enlire Town and if they said no, if this issue could be put
to bed.
The planning and Environmental Commission stated that ihey would be willing to drop that
issue if lhe Council chose not to move that direction.
John Schofield made a motion to table this until December 10'2001'
Brian Doyon seconded the motion
The motion Passed bY a vote of 7-0'
7 . A requesl for a variance from Sections 12-6GO (Setbacks) & 12-6Gg (Site Coveragg), Y9'! -
Town Code, to allow for the construciion of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166
Columbine Drive/Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision.
Applicant: TimothY Parks
Planner: George Ruther/Allison Ochs
John Schofield made a motion to table this until December 10' 2001 '
Chas Bernhardl seconded the motion.
- The motion passed bY a vote of 7-0.
I
E: Approval of October 22, 2001 minutes
Dane Golden mado a motion to approve as reed.
Chas Bemhardt secondcd the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of $0, with John Schofield and Brian Doyon abstaining.
9. Information UPdate
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspeclion during
regular'office hours in the proiect planne/s office located at the Town of Vail Community
De.-velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 47$2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour nolification. Please call 47$2356'
Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Developrnent Deparlment
l0
Page I ofl
Alllson Ochs - Prelininery Parking Info
From: Kris Friel
To: Allison Ochs
Date: lltD2t200l4:llPM
Subjec& Prcliminary Parking Info
CC: CoughMPC@ol.com;NinaTimm
Allison -
The pa*iag fuures I received from Andy Gunion at V,A. (Corum is no longer manrging these projecb) are:
RiversEdge
l0l tmits
235 pa*ing spaces (approx .75 ratio of spaces to beds)
TheTames
130 units
176 parking spaces (approx .5 ratio ofspaces to beds)
Andy said ttat anecdotal information indicates that tbere is enough parting at RiversEdge, but not at the Tame&
I have a call in to Clrum to get perking figures for Lake Creek Village and Eagle Ben4 for comparison.
Kris Friel
Tom of Vail Housing
75 SouthFrontageRood
Vail, CO 81657
kfriel@ci.vail.co.us
pbne:970.479.2454fa* 970.479.2452
l\-.%'
".
fi le://C:\Windows\temp\GW) 00005.HTM rv05/2001
Page I ofl
Allison Ochs - Re: Preliminary Parking Info
From: <CoughMPC@aol.com>
To: <kfriel@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 11102120014:51 PM
Subject: Re: Preliminary Parking Info
CC: <aochs@ci.vail.co.us>
Thanks forthe info, Kris. lf Allison expresses any concerns or has comments about this, will you please let me
know.
For comparison purposes, we are looking at something like 236 spaces at Middle Creek, and 305 beds, which
is.77 parking spaces per bed (whlch seems okay based on what VA told you about Flvers Edge.)
I get the bed account using the following method
61 - studio units x 1 bed per studio = 61 beds
18 - 'l bedroom units x 1.5 beds = 27 beds
24 - 2bedroom units x 2.5 beds = 60 beds
45 - 3 bedroom units x 3.5 beds = 157.5 beds
That should be a grand lotal of 305.5 beds.
The parking spaces per unit (on 148 units) is 1.6 parking spaces per unit.
For the heck of it, I will send you our preliminary parking managemenl plan under separate cover.
I will see you on Monday before noon with the Initial Project Program in hand (God willing and the creek don't
rise). I am also going to be the courier for the submission to Allison.
Have a good weekend. - Mike
Michael Coughlin
Coughlin & Company, Inc.
(303) 863-1900
tt/05t200rfi le://C:\Windows\temp\GW) 00005.HTM
ocroBER 2001
WFTLAI{D DELINEATION REPORT
MOUNTAIN BFTT 5IT9
VAIL.COI.ORADO
w
i
5i:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I.INTRODUCTION
PACE NUMBER
il. VICINITY AND CENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION.--.-..*.-..*--..-*.-. I
J: III. WETLAND DESCRJPTION
A HYDROLOCY
B. SOLS
TV. METHODS USED
V. RESOURCES
_ APPENDICES:
i prcunes
L FTCURI I - SITE VrCINrTy, WEST V:A|L, COLOR-{DO, USCS 7.5 MTNUTE QUAD
FICURT 2 - O\€R-ALL SITE PLAN
f FICURE 3 _ WETLANDS ADJACENT TC SOUTH END MIDDLE CREEK
i FICURE 4 - WETLANDS ADJACENT TO NORTH END MIDDLE CREEK
. PHOTOCRAPHS
- DATA FORMS
L
r\\\ \i (\,":
',1iil
'iliil ,
iii l \!r i
i / \ ,;-s
(
N
iIJI
l,[,1
'iJtjL
7iiai
,r\:\\,((
, \:$i+
{t++r)
,b!i,l
t,:,'Ii(
i')i(,',
,Ni\-jru
/^\a
^Fl N|,,J'- IL+u: o<J i->-rl O
"/!-Jr-^
=
427=a9s>4
'-r- > t /.,., h (,Y) {)-n
-\J--a ri\-/
r'J
I
ly
-1ry.\,,r r- ){t-. )^ r 1
r-r L! .f2>*<74
!1>X(\ '.J
(n(1
%
i\
$s
---t--\-------- \'
--\'--.- ,-.,);-\\-:y'^1
=\S=2iM
)/16
i r,' /-:
'1,'.=<\l\
'/4t llll,7a/////,
-., // ///1.2Ni'-S
w),m
,,
WETLAND DELINE{TION R.EPORT
MOUNTNN BELL SITE VAIL
EA.GLE COLINTY. COLOR-\DO
i-
INTRODUCTION
Montane Environmental Solutioru, Ltd. (Montane) was reained by Odell Architects, (Client) to
identifi jurisdictional wetlands that may occur on the 'Mountain Bell Property' adjacent to the
North Frontage Road in Vail, CO. The Site is proposed for an affordable housing community.
The detailed description of the property is th€ SE /+ of Secrion 6, Township 4 South, Range 80
West, West 106 ZZ' 49", North 39' 38' 46' (Site). It i^s accessed from the main Vail lnterchange,
west on the North Frontage Road {or approximately 200 yds, then fhst right on Mountain Bell
Road, signposted for a day care center.
The delineation was conducted on September 27 and October 15, 2001 as part of planning efforts
to dwelop an affordable housing community for the Town of Vail.
il. VICINITY AND GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION
The 67 acre property is situated on south facing slopes overlooking I-70 and the main Town of
Vail. Due to its southerly aspect the surrounding slopes are generally dry with sagebrush and
stands of aspen. The property, known locally as the 'Mounain Bell' Site is the existing home of
the US r07est radio tower (to remain) and a small day care center (to be incorporated into the new
development)
Native vegetation in the vicinity is sagebrush on the dry south facing slopes, however Middle Creek
runs along the north and west property boundary. The creek, combined with evident seeping from
the steep slopes above has created riparian cottonwood forests over much of the west end of the
Site. The East end of the site is significantly drier with sagebrush and open aspen woodlands,
il. WETLAND DESCRJPTION
The entire Site was visited and any wedands identified, excqpt for the parcel west of the US west
tower and north of the acces-s Road (identified as QWest on FIGLIRE 2). This area is a moist
riparian cottonwood forest and may have areas of wetland. It is not proposed for construction as
part of this proiect.
Wetlands were found only in the immediate viciniw of Middle Creek. In the lower stretches of
Middle Creek, near the {rontage road, up to where the access road swings au'ay from the creek,
(FIGURE 3) wedands are very narrow fringe riverine, with steeply incised banfts likely due to the
road building.
Middle Creek was not delineated to the west of the US West building until the north end of the
building where the US \(/est property meets the site of potential boulder retention site, nortfi of
1_
Wctbd Dthncatun - M&ry.ain B.l Stt4, Voil t.r
the tower (FIGURE 4). Wedands norttr of the US Vest tower are narrorv fringe in places but have
a better dweloped floodplain with less steeply incised banks that the lower stretches adacent to
the roads. There are side channels from the creek however they appear to be active for insufficient
time or fiequency to have dweloped wetland vegetation.
Sample point I was taken in cononwood woodlands at the south,west comer of the site between
Mounain Bell Road and the Frontage Road. No wedands were identified.
A FIYDROLOCY
The narrow fringe riverine wetland is supported by the high water flows of the creek and its
alluvial aquifer.
Middle Creek is a low order perennial creek originating on the rnountain slopes above the
Site. A gaging station is located on the stretch adjacent to the Frontage Road. USGS
hydrological data indicates that Middle Creek peaks in June with average daih discharges
of approximately 70cfs.
B.SOLS
There are no soil maps available for the Vail area. Sampled soils were sandy clay loam with
moderate chroma. In the upper reaches of the creek, deep pockets of duff are evident of
rich soils associated with the riparian woodlands.
C VEGETATION
The wetland is a mosaic of riparian and wetland species. Narrowleaf cottonwood (Po|ulas
angustifoha) woodlands dominate the west portion of the Site, Srading into drier Aspen
(PopaLa vemilaidcs\ woods and then finatly into open sagebrush (Saipfudium uidenwum).
'Ifetlands were very narrolv fringe adjacent to Middle Creek with a poor herbaceous
understory. Some of this could be aaributed to the late season delineation.
WETTAND VECETATION UPLAND VECETATION
Acoritm columbiannum Amelanchiq alnifolia
,\lnus wvifoha Powlns uemuloidrr.
Distigea involuqau Prunus arFtniana
Heraclcumlanaum Rosa groodsi
Merertsia ciliata
Po|ulas anwtifolia
SaLr sp
Swida seilcea
i,
t
tl
!
'Walord Dcknca*n - Mo. si Bcn Snc, Vdil 1t.2
rtt
ir
I
i-
L
N. METHODS USED
The wedand delineation methods used were in accordance with the U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers
'Wedands Delineation Manual, January 198?, A routine on+ite inspection for'fueas Equal to or
I-ess than 5 Acres in Size'was per(ormed.
The data for the sampling poine included vegetation and hydroloey indicators. Soil pits were dug
in the different vegetative communities to a depth of 16' inches. They were used to identifr the
presenc€ ofreduced soil conditions; d.pth to saturated soil, and depdr to free water.
Wedand bounderies were determined by the percentage cover of hydrophytic plant species
(obligate, facultative wet, and facultative), in&cators of wetland hydrology, the prasence of hydric
soils, and topography.
V. RESOURCES
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineen (1987), Wetland Delineation Manual.
2. U.S. Fish and'Wildlife Service (1988), National List of Plant Species that Occur in lVedands
Region 8).
3. Weber, WA (2001) Colorado Flora:0lUestem Slo'Del 3d Ed Colorado Associated Univenity
Press.
wdatd.D}bnc/tun - Morntain Bcn Sitc. Vail t3
!r
I
\?i
\.
\r'\
\
a
-\
II
I
ffiffiffi*,
#wlt"i
=
rll(
!-:.:L;1:4,: Il . -' I I Ilrir;?iS-i i/ i J I I ;-l'r,FiiJ / t/ t ) I::tlt rfii- . 7ail+/-tl,,r -x.- )hi;l:i,'!!ii " -
ffi
J!6.tliT I A' ,..,ii|R7//.,1 I J >-fl,&Q;lil -' N 4[
-::.f ! | I | | ,t-lltrl;3ii t'. I :r] /l.inltlll?r ,5 6X
{//l/t=
)
)lr
tit'
lil
[N\
a6sgE\\N
]t I , r,\\\\
iH5g5\"\l
*l3E
)l\
'=9lll;1il
Lttittfl\\l
llllrl\\\\
iltl
tl
Iltl
tl
ll
4\
all
4tr
I
e
U
.-
f,
E
lllt
ELEV. : 8223.6'
OUT ELEU = 8214-6'
rN (s) ELEV = E21a.9l
s9r)r) -- tt''g
----EfiEF
RIM ELEV,
INV OUT EtEV.
v rN (N) ELEV.
NV-rN (E) ELEL
\-\-__.__\--\---.----"\\--------S\\-..-.....----
ue
8214.7'
8203.5
8203.9
8203.8
FIGURE 3 WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SCUTH END MIDDLE CREEK
(\,ER)' NARIIOW FRINCE RNTERNE)
INV OUT ELEV. =v lN (N) ELEV. :
'E) STUB ELEV. =
3=
10/39/3001 l1'56 FAtr 970{768616
8?43.4
8228.6
8236-3
8228.
FICURE 4 \\ETLANDS ADIACENT TO NORTH END MIDDLE CREEK(NARIIOW TO WIDER FRINGE RIVERINE)
,-h$s-
PHOTOCR-A,PH I AND 2
MIDDLECREEK
LOWER STRETCH
NE{R FRCNTACE ROAD
!:-
I
t.
l1
:
L,,
PHOTOCRAPH 3
MDDLECREEK
UPPER S]RETCH
BEH[.'ID US WEST BLDC
MOREO\,/ERCROWN
PHOTOCMPH 4
RJPARJAI.,J WOODLAND
ADJACENT TO CREEK
WITH SIDECHANNEIS
DATA FORIT/i .
--houtiNE rvETr^ilD DElEnrilunoil.
11887 COE Wrdtndr Drtincrum ltrrrurtl
[ :d"$ ifl ffi ffi t"ffi#.?H,ri3, *;;mls tha rrcr r potlndrl problcm Arrri-
rrr nirJau, ;;;ffi;; ,"v..,c.r Y.' {d
Comrrunttv lD: ?alAa
Tnnsrgt lD:...-
,,-JJ,AJ-
VEGETANON
Dorinrm ltm Eardrr l!1g4, ldicnor
T-I -:t D_urr'rrrr tr'..t.. orr ,. O ,. FACW r FACIrrGhrdihg FAC.|.
HYDRdLOGY
II
DATA FONTIi .
aolmilE wETl.AltD DErBritn tnoil.
11987 COE Wodendr thtinrrdon Urrrrrrn
HYDBOLOGY
tn
I
r
\rJv\'L(t t a
Do Normel Circumsgncat rrist on ttro rhr?lr thc ritc rignitiently disturbcd tAtypicrl Situerjonl?ls thc rrca r potcntial Problam Arar?
lll nccdsd, rxplrin on rrvcrn.t
),ito-
ffi
Gorununlty lD:
Tnruest lD:'
VEGETANON
Prrorm of Dqrlmn tpodr ttrn n OBt ?ACly l iAG
irmrrtr:ve(V lo f.e
' tcl-oui'f1
sealo\,L he, bacaovs yp61e tato. 'f-r.> cL fi ^.,:/! lo
' iroodrd Dro lDrtcr0e h ilru*rl:
_ l!\r!t|, ll,r, l ll!1 S;g91
_ ArA{ ?horogrpb
-
Othrr
-Xo
iroorJtd Dnc Avjrbn
Wrdri |l|frhgtldlirrlftnrVttcrqr: .:
-hdtr.d_trtntla h $p ll hCrr
_!Ult.?ktt
-DirlJr--lrfnaDqrdtr-hr3oh.rrhWdrdrl.3acl-y Ho.t'' tl -rrr ?'$rk dl!
-S:d
iat Clrr*h llpf.' lSbhrr
_W.tr.3r*JL'r
-L.dtd3ritD.ta-G^gilrrtrJT-
-OtttrCt.*rhh:lrl
Fl.ld Obr.wrdom:
Drprh of turf.*r Wrrn
:
D.pdr r. Frre Wrrr hllr
Drpth to Smtrtrd SoN:_ 'hl
_hJ
8(}tut
ffTUdtth. ^^.'. r IfSr-rrrd?rrr.t, l\O \0\lS W\AO1(C\ ' fJgff1-
Profih Drrorlotlon:6'il- lfiutr colo llcdr c"on
rnchrrr . tldrn- elrrx.$c{ttL @!dll69i!l-
CIQ- Av P't(-e/z'
llYdb&lltdc|txil
l{rurc
. - tlrdo ltF.dql
- rrncr ocl
- L- l/brlrl irgnr-
- igt'ttr t-'rd!'lr
Icrqoit"r<-tu-'rccm
Cffrgr
- }*;-ot![r C..td'!r attE lrrrr h Srdv St'ir
-Ccrrlt-r-trlv'd'-LI-nt..- TrFr'-"-
-tt c cr fleirj fit|. t'- Utr
]ocE 9-r l irrrrtr
irrrrlllt
' (C|drl
b dfr SrrVfng tCr $nujn ' W'Uttdt Y ( fo 'l
ltt*?hvd.Vrset.dm;rrrrrt lr;15a'|c|*tw.ti'r$ta"w frr*ntl Yr
ryfilo$?rrrratl ' Yr
irnrts
(lPilvtcttt t00od lel,ra'( , lr o
. "l
. | . r't ,. .. ^ - 'r J \
SQasc+a 'loi:ttr f '1{{ f"t"f{ e ../!'ii! "'
(lore! al'wt v1n'+1l t'o#C PUr I
-.. I
t,rq1 li.,ricri " (^ill rni; tc"It
J ' ._.1
Iro,..^r a c,k'^ v+- lW of 6; C""1rt"'*-
r,, Cr b c,t"r :it,a-o t^J oocl I c' r''rd '
lJbt udr tam.
lSrrimrilhal:- IhirrjrCtat
Ersflr-lrrqdsirl.O.Pth lLurr co'ot
linchorl . tlsdu- !d$$i!ld9i|lL
f -u c Jrrtff
/ - tc OA to>r;-z,lLZL-l---
lfitlc 8.1 lnd..|!t l
llato.oa
]n.uo tplprdm
ldlHl. Oat
- Aarn llhrr3;r irgrl'' - igt ano crttDar
-or.vl i torctn casr
CdE tdr
- l|ldr-ort-i. Corcr'h &da lrvrr ln Srriv Scr
- Otm f ra-ilrr arft t'-'
- t brra cn Lord ttrarlr ld' rh
- urd cl tLdtl frar t* Urt
lolrr tlba*rh i.'trd'l
irutr: , ! \t(
n l.t ii).1( ,-, t
lg/rol'l
b rilr trrpfrrg ?Cnr Wlrfln r Wrdrrdl 'fo( llo )
]lftnphVdc Vrgrrrdon ?tlrrlit Yr
WrOrf 'ff$origy tt.rnrt Yl
lfrydrlo Sorr ?nrnrl Yr
irnl*r
'.'.. late ftAtC/tl SUw\-l Slcti' c,{.,r-q.rtittls 1UQ"t a.teft' a1,t!ti'^-ttuli'-:
y161 g.oir,.f fti rrt€'67rsra;1 -f.'r"'''r io pn>o\t-to hq,l ,'rpl'''1f cvfiz'tat1o"\
Date:
To:
Re:
From:
Remarks:
RtcD 00T 26 2:'- '
ODELL ARCHITECTS PC
October 26,2001
Allison Ochs
Planner
Departrnent of Cornrnunity Development
Town of Vail
75 Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Phone I g7o-4jg-2369
Fax Phone:
lO/25 Site Plan - Mountain Bell
Site & Parking lUlanagement Plan
- Job O{2O
Lee Mason / Mike Goughlln
Odell Architects, P.C.
32065 Castle Court Suite 150
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
Phone:303.670.5980
Fax P h on e : 303.670.7162
For Your Use I For Your Review !Please Comment I Urgent I
Allison, I have been told we have a preliminary meeting set up for Tuesday at 2PM
to review this plan and staff input. I think this interation addresses the issues we
discussed early this week, and creates a site plan that has some design strength. Of
note, I flipped 2 ofthe buildings in the "cluster" at the east side so that the parking
is accessed from the back side, allowing us to create building mass as the view
from the sout[ rather than looking at the parking carports. The grading is straight
5% and we have created a single access point that is also the bus turn around.
There is some additional parking located to the west of the daycare. By separating
the east and west buildings, I think we can create some diversity ofdesign, helping
to minimize the apparent density of the project. Basically I think this could read as
three separate projects, the daycare, the east site "cluster", and the west site
buildings which would have the comnunity center and bus stop. I have enclosed
Mikes' parking managernent plan as well. Any questions, give me a call.- Lee
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vaif will hold a public hearing in accordance wilh Section 12-3-6 ot the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on October 22, 2001 , at 2:00 P. M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A reguest for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (site coverage) , Vail
Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166
Columbine Drive/Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision.
Applicant: Timothy ParksPlanner: George Ruther
A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of
Middle Creek Village, localed at the sile known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of
property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represenled by Odell ArchitectsPlanner: Allison Ochs
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Developmenl
Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site
visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign fanguage interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published October 5, 2001-in the Vail Trail.
oc\ \'(, l@ \
.3,
TOWN OFVAIL
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Yail. Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FztX 970-479-2452
wwwci.vail.co.us
October 4.2001
Otis Odell
OdellArchitects, P.C.
32065 Castle Court, Suite 150
Evergreen, CO 80439
Fax: 303-670-7162
RE: Middle Creek Subdivision
Dear Otis,
I have compiled comments and suggestions from Fire, Public Works, Planning, Planning
and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board regarding Middle Creek
Subdivision and the design for Middle Creek Village. Some of these we have discussed
previously, but I wanted to make sure that you have all of the comments and concerns in
writing.
Fire
1. Entrance grade should not exceed 6%.
2. Parking structure is inaccessible
3. Parking areas shall require fire truck turnaround.
4. There are no staging areas that will meet fire department standards.
5. The buildings closest to the frontage road are roughly eighty feet from pavement.
access and staging areas would be required for these buildings
6. Parking spaces should be 21'as opposed to 19'.
7 . Fire sprinkler/alarm/ and standpipe systems shall be required in all buildings.
8. Hydrant location and water main size need to be agreed upon.
9. Fireflows will be a problem. The current main supplying this area will be challenged
should we require large flows that may be associated with a fire in a project of this
size.
Public Works
1. Please show the limits of the proposed sidewalk extending to the North Main Vail
Roundabout to connect with the existing walk, and the western limits to extend a
distance, to be determined, to the Red Sandstone School Pedestrian Overpass.
Show proposed sidewalk at a minimum width of 10'.
{g *unouor run
2. Provide Curb and Gutter along north side of Frontage Rd for length of proposed
attached sidewalk, match to existing in Main Vail Roundabout.
3. The standard cross section of roadway improvements will need to be as follows
(North to South): 10'bike/pedestrian path, 2.5'curb and gutter, 12'turn lane,12'
westbound through lane, 16'left turn lane, 12'eastbound through lane and a 6'
paved shoulder.
4. All above street improvements shall be built for a minimum length of the entire
frontage ofthe parcel and extend as necessary for required taper lengths beyond the
property limits. All costs for these improvements including landscaping, retaining
walls, storm sewer and drainage systems and lightening will be the responsibility of
the applicant.
5. The project limits for the traffic study needs to examine an area of influence from Vail
Road/South Frontage Road to the pedestrian overpass of l-70. Trip distributions
should be broken down by type of mode and direction. Address LOS of roundabout,
entry roadways and pedestrians in this area.
6. For each additional trip generated in the P.M. Peak Hour, a $5000 impact fee will be
assessed. The total fee may be offset by any street improvements constructed.
7. A bus stop must be provided for eastbound traffic as well as westbound. Please
modify stop as per discussions on Thursdays meeting. This includes providing an off-
street full bus stop for both east and westbound buses, providing standard TOV bus
shelters, required lighting and pedestrian connectors.
8. All necessary permits will be required for any work in the creek to extend existing 72"
culvert.
9. Please provide a drainage plan showing all necessary inlets, sediment pond, sand/oil
separators, culverts, swales etc. Positive drainage away from all structures must be
provided at all times.
10. Show snow storage areas.
11. Show all wall elevations (TOW, BOW). Provide wall details as well.
'12. An Erosion Control Plan will be required for this project.
13. Construction fencing and limits of disturbance will be required on the site plan.
Design Review Board
1. Grading will be an important issue for this site and will need to be reviewed at a very
preliminary stage by the DRB.
2. They liked the pedestrian corridor and encourage making it even more European by
making is more wandering.
3. They thought that some sort of historical nod to the old school ouse would be
desirable for the schools.
4. They expressed a concern about the location of the parking and its proximity to the
units.
5. They liked the smaller scale buildings (1,2, and 3) and found that the larger ones are
too overpowering.
6. The gable ends should be in another material, perhaps some sort. of wood pop-out.
7. They emphasized the importance of the malerials - stone, stucco, and wood.
8. They encouraged a change in materials for various buildings to give individual
homes more of an identity.
9. They requested a cross-section to the Frontage Rd.
Planning and Environmental Commission
I have attached the minutes from the meeting on September 24,2001. They will be
approved by the PEC on October 9, 2001.
Town Council
Ordinance No. 29 was passed on first reading (rezoning Lot 1 to Housing Zone District)
and Resolution No. 6 was passed (amending the Land Use designation to High Density
Residential) on October 2,2001. The Town Council, specifically Rod Slifer, expressed a
concern regarding the density on the site.
Planning
1. The multiple hazards on the site are of a concern to the planning staff. How the
hazards will be mitigated and how this will visually effect the site must be part of the
development plan submittal.
2. Grading and retainage will be issues for this site. Staff recommends that these be
worked out at an early stage.
3. The parking requirement should not be reduced from the requirements of Chapter
12-10.
Middle Creek Village is scheduled for a worksession with the Planning and
Environmental Commission on October 22,2001 . I would recommend that you evaluate
the suggestions made by the Planning and Environmental Commission at their
September 24, 2001 , meeting and present design options for the site, including pros and
cons of the various designs.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-479-2369.
As you get closer to submitting for development plan approval, I would highly
recommend that you set up an additional pre-application meeting with Planning, Public. Works, and Fire. Please let me know when you would like to meet, and I would be glad
to set something up.
Si^ncerelyr.
^J\lt.- il,lll,
l.tl llrl. \lJltlruwwv v\/t ^
Allison Ochs. AICP
Planner ll
Town of Vail
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS/MINUTES
Monday, September 24, 2001
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT
Galen Aasland
Chas Bemhardt
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Brian Doyon
Doug Cahill
Dick Cleveland
Site Visits :
MEMBERS ABSENT
1:00 pm
1. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District - 5186 Black Gore Drive2. Balas Residence - 5047 Ute Lane3. Middle Creek Village - 160 North Frontage Road4. Timber Ridge - 1260 N. Frontage Road
Driver: Brent'n Wear Good HikingEoofs*
NOTE: lf the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearinq - Town Gouncil Chambers 2:00 pm
1. An appeal of an administrative determination regarding the procedural requirements for an
application for subdivision of "the Fallridge Parcel,' a Part of Lol 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3 / a
portion of land adjacent to the Vail Golf Course Townhomes in the 1600 block of Golf
Terrace. A graphic map description is attached for reference. Specifically, the appeal
involves a staff determination that the subdivision of land within a recreational easement
requires a Major Special Development District Amendment to the Fallridge Special
Development District.
Appellant Fallridge Community Association, represented by Berenbaum, Weinshienk
and Eason, P.G.Planner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum.
Larry Eskwith and Mike Miller (representing the Fallridge Association), testified that the land which
they wished to subdivide was not part of the dedicated recreation area from the original Special
Development District #8.
John Schofield asked where the legal descriptions came from.
' Brent Wilson indicated that the legal descriptions came from the Fall Ridge Condo Association
decfarations and not from any easement instrument recorded in 1977.
Larry Eskwith indicated that the SDD did not include records of the location of the recreation area.
John Schofield asked if legal descriptions for the properties were legally recorded.
Mike Miller indicated that they can provide that information.
Mike Helmer, surveyor with Johnson & Kunkel, testified as to the recorded location of the recreation
area described in the Fallridge Condominium Declarations. He indicated that the property
proposed to be subdivided was not part of the recorded recreation area described in the
declarations.
Brian Doyon asked if there was a title report for the proposed subdivided property.
Larry Eskwith indicated that there was one available.
Brent Wilson indicated that there are two separate and distinct issues: where the property legally
described with the condo declarations is located and where the property encumbered for recreation
under the SDD is located.
Brent Wilson indicated that the recorded easement from 1977 has not been found.
Larry stated that a separate easement was never recorded with the original SDD, however, the
declaration indirectly created the recreation easement area.
John Schofield indicated that the original SDD did not require the recreation area to be contiguous
to the SDD, which leaves doubt as to the location of the recreation area, but also indicates the
property could have been removed some distance from the Fallridge building.
Dr. Hawkins asked if the purpose of this was to allow for future development of the property.
Brent Wilson indicated that future development of the property is a possibility, however, today's
discussion regarding the appeal deals only with procedural issues.
Dick Cleveland asked if something different was filed in 1977, than 1978. He indicated that further
documentation is needed before he can make a decision.
Brian Doyon indicated that there is not enough information for him to make a decision.
Chas Bernhardt agreed.
Doug Cahill agreed.
John Schofield stated that the legal description for the land contiguous to the building, needed to be
confirmed. He said a legal description of both parcels is needed and record of ownership for both
parcels of land, at the time of SDD #8, needs to be verified.
Diane Golden asked why staff made their decision.
Brent Wilson indicated that repords from 1977 are not complete and the proposed area to be
subdivided did have a recreation easement in place on the property. The SDD Ordinance required
recreation areas and staff believes that the propefi in question was part of that requirement. Brent
stated the site plan presented also indicated both areas were encumbered with a recreation
easement.
Galen Aasland agrees with the other Commissioners. He is comfortable that the area around the
building docs meet the "approximately 2 acres" requirement, however, there is still not enough
information for the Commission to vote on this item.
Galen Aasland asked that if the appropriate information can be found, would this item need to come
back to the PEC.
Brent Wilson indicated that if the appropriate information is not available, that this item may have to
return to the PEC. Brent agreed to conduct the title research at the Clerk and Recorder's Office to
retrieve all relevant items.
Pursuant to the PEC's authority in the Vail Town Code, the PEC decided to continue this item until
additional information is received.
John Schofield made a motion to table this item until October 8, 2001.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
2. A request for a conditional use permit and a request for Planning and Environmental
Commission review of grading and landscape modifications within the 100-year floodplain,
to allow for the modification of an existing raw water intake and pump station facility, located
at 5186 Black Gore Drive / Lot 8, Heather of Vail Subdivision.
Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation DistrictPlanner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum.
Galen Aasland asked if the PEC is being asked to make a single decision, or two separate
decisions.
Brent Wilson asked the PEC to make one motion for the conditional use permit, since the proposed
findings include conformance with floodplain grading requirements.
Dick Cleveland asked if the landscaping required DRB review.
Brent Wilson indicated that it did.
Lynne Schorr, (ERWSD), submitted a letter from their registered Professional Engineer indicating
that there will be no change to the existing flood plain.
Tom Kassmel indicated that his review indicated that there is no grading in the 1O0-year flood plain
and if there is no grading in the 1OO-year floodplain, then changes to the plans and a letter of
verification are required.
Lynne Schorr indicated that excavation would occur in the floodplain, however, no changes to the
floodplain will occur. Lynne indicated that ERWS has an existing 404 permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers.
George Ruther stated that in the past the PEC has required existing topographic surveys and as-
built topographic surveys.
Boyd (ERWSD) indicated that there will be some minor changes to the creek bank.
Doug Cahill stated that this is an improved application.
John Schofield asked if notification was given to neighbors and if the landowner, (Heather Vail), has
.
signed the application.
Brent Wilson indicated that notification was given, however, the applicant has not signed the
application. Staffs recommendation included a condition of approval be that the landowner sign a
letter of approval prior to DRB review.
Diane Golden had no comment.
Dick Cleveland had no comment.
Brian Doyon asked if this was a complete application.
Brent Wilson asked if Lynne can secure a signature from Heather Vail within the next two weeks.
Lynne Schorr asked if the PEC would require the signature as a condition.
Chas Bernhardt is comfortable with the proposal and allowing staff to review the project after the
Heather Vail signature is submitted.
Galen Aasland agreed with the other Commissioners and commented that no further paving should
occur adjacent to the pump station.
Dick Cleveland expressed that by requiring a signature of the property owner may in etfect bar the
installation of a public utility within their easement.
John Schofield made a motion for approval, per the staff memo and that a signature of the property
owner be submitted and a topographic surveys of existing and constructed conditions be submitted.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
3. A request for a variance from Section 12-1 1-3(C), Vail Town Code, to allow for the
continuance of nonconforming building materials, and setting forth details in regard thereto,
located at 5O47 Ute Lane, Unit B/Lot 33, Vail Meadows Filing 1.
Applicant Robert Balas, represented by Rob KrumholzPlanner: Bill Gibson
Bill Gibson made a staff presentation per the staff memorandum,
Rob Krumholz indicated that he believed that the requirement causing upgrading the entire duplex
structure should not apply.
Bill Gibson described the intent of the regulation.
Dick Cleveland stated that he interpreted that the regulation applied to this request. He stated that
with duplex struciures, this situation could be expected. He did not believe that duplex structures
were intended to look different.
Brian Doyon agreed with the comments of Commissioner Cleveland. He believed that the
regulations apptieO, as stated in the Zoning Regulations. He felt the request, if approved, would be
a grant of special privilege.
Chas Bernhardt agreed with his fellow Commissioners.
Doug Cahill felt to approve the request would be a grant of special privilege.
John Schofield did not believe that the variance could be approved and presented several
suggested options to consider.
Diane Golden had no further comment.
Galen Aasland had two issues. First, the elevations were incomplete and needed to be finalized.
Once finalized, he felt that the siding on the adjacent unit would need to be replaced. Second, he
believed that this would be a grant of special privilege.
Brian Doyon moved to deny the request.
Dick Cleveland seconded.
The motion passed 7-0, per the staff memorandum.
4. A request for a preliminary plan review for a major subdivision, a request to amend the Vail
Land Use Plan to change the designation from "Open Space'to "High Density Residential",
and a request for a rezoning from "Natural Area Preservation District" to "Housing Zone
District" to allow for the developrnent of employee housing at the site known as Mountain
Bell, located on an unplatted piece of property at 160 North Frontage Road. A complete
metes and bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community
Development.
Applicant: Town of Vail Housing Authority, represented by Odell ArchitectsPlanner: Allison Ochs/Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum.
Russ Forest indicated that the PEC will review the specifics of the development plan at a future
date.
Otis O'Dell, O'Dell Architects, representing the Vail Housing Authority, indicated that this application
was submitted prior to the PEC's introduction to this project. He stated that they are working to
incorporate the PEC's initial comments into the final development plan. He presented several
conceptual ideas for changes to the final development plan that fit within the physical limits of the
proposed subdivision.
Russ Forest noted that there are physical constraints on the site.
Otis O'Dell presented the details of the physical limitations for development on this site.
Galen Aasland asked about the cottonwoods identified in the environmental report.
Otis O'Dell indicated that they have an environmental specialist examining wetlands issues on this
site.
Mark Bristow stated that Otis O'Dell has represented the views of the Housing Authority.
Kay Ferry stated that employee housing has a significant financial impact on Vail. She indicated
that the business community is 100% behind this project. The business community would like to
see the highest density possible on this site and request that the name be changed to not include
the word "village."
Nina Timm reminded the PEC that this item is for preliminary approval and will be before the PEC
again.
Doug Cahill stated the importance of employee housing. He asked if there are options to construct
housing on top of a parking structure. Development on the steep slopes should be considered. He
wants to keep an open mind and to consider all possibilities for development on this site. He likes
that the development is clustered and that the daycare is separated from the housing. He stated
that the hazards on the site should be mitigated. He stated that the zoning is appropriate.
John Schofield stated that he is generally supportive of the project as a whole. He still has
concerns about the final development plan. He doesn't want this prolect to turnout like other Town
projects where details are being revised at the end of the review process instead of at the
beginning. He stated that the specifics of the site layout should be revisited - a north/south
orientation is preferred. The surface parking will be very visible to guests from Vail Mountain and
subsurface should be considered. He would like to see comoarison charts to further describe the
proposed densig on the site. The setbacks and bus stop layout need to be further examined. The
plat should identify the legal descriptions of the property.
Diane Golden stated her support for the project as a whole, but details of the final development
plan need to be finalized before the PEC moves forward.
Dick Cleveland asked about the reduction of one building in terms of density and heighVsize of the
buildings.
Otis O'Dell indicated that the density remains the same, but the buildings become larger.
Dick Cleveland stated concerns about density. Employee housing is important, but he is concerned
that too much is being put into one location. He's concerned about the views from Vail Mountain.
He's also concerned about giving preliminary approval when the lots are not fully defined. He's
reluctant to change the zoning from medium to high density, but understands the need and is
supportive. He feels that the transportation studies are appropriate, however, they may not reflect
the realities of traffic flow and how people will walk to and from this site.
Brian Doyon stated that he is in favor of the project as a whole. He asked if the applicant has
completed a specific site inventory and analysis. He wants to know why the site is being platted the
way it is being proposed.
Otis O'Dell and Jim Ellerbrook, Peak Land Development, explained the site conditions and the
reasoning for the proposed subdivision layout.
Brian Doyon is concerned about the location of the northern property line.
Otis O'Dell stated that they wanted to the have enough property within this lot to provide adequate
area for hazard mitigation.
Brian Doyon stated his concern about a lack of open space and a large amount of site coverage.
He is also concerned about providing adequate parking and storage. He is also concerned about
site disturbance and being sensitive to the site.
Chas Bernhardt indicated that he doesn't have any problems with changing the zoning and land
use designation. However, he does feel that the site can be developed in a more efficient and
aesthetically pleasing design. He recommended the use of structured parking.
Galen Aasland stated his support for the project and agrees with Kay Ferry that a high density is
required. He acknowledged the differing opinions of the Commissioners and the public. He feels
that the area of the site being used is appropriate. He is in favor of the change in land use
designation and rezoning, however, he is not supportive of approving the subdivision at this time.
He stated his support for some elements of the site plan, but he wants to see further revisions and
development to the site plan. He recommended the use of a central green space and a north/south
orientation to the site. He stated his concern about the location and access to the bus stops. He
also feels that there is a lot more potential for development on this site.
Mike Coughlin stated that they hear the Commission's concerns and will be analyzing those
concerns and incorporating as many items as they can. They are currently examining other layout
options.
Nina Timm stated that the Town Council established the boundaries for this project with the RFP for
this project.
Brian Doyon stated that the steep slopes are not allowed to be developed and these areas should
not be used for open space only because it is inconvenient for the applicant to provide it elsewhere.
George Ruther and Russ Forest expanded on this issue.
Doug Cahill asked if there are options to develop with the Mt. Bell site.
Nina Timm and Otis O'Dell explained their attempts to work with Qwest.
John Schofield asked if Qwest has signed the application and if the property has a legal
description.
Brent Wilson and Otis O'Dell stated that Qwest has submitted their approval and a legal description
have been established
Brent Wilson clarified the review process and procedures for this project. He explained that all of
the applications are tied to the PEC's approval of the development plan and that if the PEC decides
to deny the development plan at a later date, the rezoning, land use plan amendment and final plat
do not go through. He stated the primary objective with the preliminary plat is to identify a suitable
building area and the adequacy of the proposed frontage and access to infrastructure. He said
since the hazard locations and steep slopes will not change, he recommended the PEC allow the
applicant to move forward.
Dick Cleveland stated that many of his questions have been answered and is prepared to move
forward with a decision on the entire application.
Nina Timm and Otis O'Dell stated that they are prepared to move forward with the process and will
revise the development plan per the PEC's comments.
Doug Cahill stated that he is comfortable with the delineation of the lot lines.
John Schofield asked how this preliminary plan could be modified in the future.
Breni Wilson indicated there is some flexibility, since the final plat will not be finalized or recorded
until the development plan is approved by the PEC.
Galen Aasland stated that he disagrees with portions of the Environmental lmpact Report.
Dick Cleveland stated that the Environmental lmpact Report reads like a sales pitch for the project.
Mike Coughlin and Otis O'Dell asked if there could be a condition of approval for a supplement to
the ElR.
Brent Wilson stated that specific development plan issues should be addressed later with the
development plan application, rather than at this stage with the preliminary plat. Brent said the PEC
could reject the portion of the EIR that references a specific development plan if the PEC feels the
remainder of the EIR is sufficient to evaluate the impacts of the request.
Otis O'Dell noted the portions of the EIR that do not refer to the specific building layouts.
Galen Aasland asked when the applicant can return with revisions to the plans.
The applicant indicated that they plan to submit revisions prior to the October 29, 2OOl submittal
deadline.
Mike Coughlin stated that they want to examine the feasibility of the project options prior to
submitting development plan revisions.
Dick Cleveland stated that he is ready to move forward.
Brian Doyon stated that a revised EIR that will probably be biased and will not be necessary.
Chas Bernhardt agreed.
Doug Cahill asked if it was appropriate to proceed without the ElR.
Brent Wilson indicated that if the PEC feels the rest of the geologichazard, floodplain and
environmental information they have received is adequate to assess the impacts, the PEC can
move forward while rejecting the portion referencing the development plan.
John Schofield is comfortable with proceeding, but has concerns.
Diane Golden agreed with John Schofield.
Chas Bernhardt asked if structured parking would require a rezoning.
Brent Wilson stated that the Housing Zone District allows for public buildings and grounds similar to
a municipal parking structure.
Maior Subdivision
Doug Cahill made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum.
Dick Cleveland seconded the motion.
Galen Aasland recommends a condition that the updated EIR and revised site development details
from October 29,2001 be presented to the PEC at its second meeting in November.
Doug Cahill amended the motion.
Dick Cleveland seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-2 (Schofield and Doyon opposed).
Land Use Plan
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0.
Rezonino
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum, with a
modification that Condition #1 shall read 'rezoning" instead of "land use plan amendment."
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of6-1 (Doyon opposed).
5. A request for a rezoning from "special Development District No. 10' to "Housing Zone
District" located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd. West / Lots C-1 through C-5,
Lionsridge Filing No. 1.
Applicant Town of VailPlanner: Allison Ochs
John Schofield made a motion to table this to the Ostober 8, 2001 meeting.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7{.
6. Approval of September 10, 2001 minutes
Chas Bemhardt made a motion for approval as read.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The minutes were approved by a vote of 6-0-1, with Brian Doyon abstaining.
7. Information Update
Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn.
Dick Cleveland seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0.
RESOLUTIONNO.6 ORIGINAL
SERIES OF 2OO1
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF VAIL LAND USE PLAN,
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "OPEN SPACE"
TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" FOR LOT 1, MIDDLE CREEK SUBDIVISION,
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Section 3-2-6 of the Municipal Code of lhe Town ol Vail provides that the
Planning and Environmental Commission shall make and adopt a Master Plan for approval by
the Town Council for the physicaldevelopment of the town; and
WHEREAS, conditions and policies in the Town of Vail have changed since the Vail
Land Use Plan was originally adopted in 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission oJ the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of this amendment at its September 24,2001, public hearing, and has
submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, lhe Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare to amend the Town of Vail Land Use Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
1. The Town Council finds lhe procedures for amending the Land Use Plan, as set
forth in Chapter Vlll, Seclion 3 of the Land Use Plan, have been satisfied,
2. The Town Council hereby amends the Land Use Plan to Change the Land Use
Designation from "Open Space" to "High Density Residential" on Lot 1, Middle
Creek Subdivision (property more particularly described on Exhibit A).
3. This resolution shalltake effect on such dale that the Final Plat of Middle Creek
Subdivision has been filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle
Coung, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2001.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
Attest:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
OON
$N
!-
c)
-oEo
o-oa
.o5'c
0).(.,H
-o hldt-+aaF'AH
'X ln O-td2E5Fdro[trI
* H /=)\.-I"x/HH .:1
/EH ,/
t
-gE
Tt'df-c
EEid
EFfrnE 5ooA:O.iro
-E1'c
-5
VAIL TOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
Middle Crcek Village Market Assessment
Ocbber 2OO1
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page l of 75
TABLE of COI{TENTS
The Housing Collobonotive, LLC.Poge 2 of 75
M roole CneexVrllcoe - Manxer AssessueHr
Overview
The Vail Local Housing Authority is proposing to develop the Middle Creek Village site
for rental housing. According to the Request for Proposal, which sought a candidate to
be the developer for this site, the goal was 'to design a project that establishes a new
benchmark for employee housing design." Multiple goals were identified for the project
including:
. A primary focus to provide affordable rental housing for seasonal renters
maintained in perpetuity;
. A secondary goal was to provide housing suited to long-term renlers within the
Town of Vail;. To provide an early childhood learning center meeting the needs for 65 full-time
students with a five-day-a-week operation from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on site.
Purpose of Market Assessment
The primary purpose of the market assessment is to assess the demand for rental
housing within the Town of \hil, including:
. An estimate of the number of renter households in Eagte County;. An estimate of the number of renters, by household size, household type
and income distribution;. An estimate of the number of renters with incomes that meet tax credit
guidelines; and,. An estimate of the number of renters employed in the Town of Vail.
In addition, the market assessment focuses on comparable properties located
throughout Eagle County. This includes an assessment of the number, bedroom
configurations, square footage, amenities and rents of below market-rate units that are
available in the area. Because Middle Creek Village proposes to house both seasonal
and long{erm workers, projects that provide housing to either or both populations were
reviewed. Also, there are peculiarities in the performance of seasonal worker housing
and longer-term employee housing that are specific to resort communities. These' include the length of leases, number of roommates allowed for different bedroom
configura'tions, parking requirements, unit sizes and potential conflicts between seasonal
and longer-term employees. Because of this, projects located in resort communities
outside of Eagle County were also contacted. These included:
. Big Billie's in Telluride;r Marolt Ranch in Aspen;. Maroon Creek in Aspen;. Breck Terrace in Breckenridge; and,r Tenderfoot in Keystone.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 3 of 75
Consultant Qualifi cations
This market study was undertaken by RRC Associates, Inc. on behalf of The Housing
Collaborative, LLC. The Housing Collaborative consisb of three firms that specialize in
market studies, housing needs assessments and housing poliry analysis, and program
design and implementation. All members of The Housing Collaborative were involved in
the preparation of this study and include:
Kathy N,bcormick, principal of McCormick and Associates, Inc. has been concentrating
on housing market analysis studies during the past three years. She was responsible for
the primary analysis completed for the Middle Creek Village Market Study. The lirm has
also conducted and participated in seven comprehensive housing needs assessments,
through which primary research was used to evaluate the needs of various.population
segments. Ms. McCormick has completed several market studies for affordable housing
projecb, including Aspen, Brighton and a project proposed for the Stapleton
redevelopment site. Prior to forming her own firm, she worked with the City of Boulder
and the Housing Authority of the City of Boulder for over 13 years. During her tenure,
she oversary the acquisition and development of affordable housing for the special
populations as well as mixed income rental housing.
Rees Consulting, Inc. is an established market analysis firm that specializes in rental
housing. Over the past 10 year, the firm's principal, Melanie Rees, has completed
numerous market studies in Colorado for both free'market and incomerestricted
projects. Clients have included private developers, municipal and county govemments,
housing authorities and non-profit development groups. She has completed several
market studies in resort communities and provided insights about potential market
performance for Middle Creek Village. Ms. Rees was the primary author of the 1999
Eagle Coun$ Housing Needs Assessment.
Chris Cares of RRC Associates, Inc. is highly experienced in creating housing projects
and policies that respond to the special opportunities found in resort communities. The
firm of RRC Associateq Inc., of which Mr. Cares is a staff member, conducted the
Housing Needs Assessmenl survey for Eagle County and provided the information from
that study for the Middle Creek Village Market Study. Mr. Gares conducted focus groups
for the Mountain Bell site (a precursor to the Middle Creek Village development). His
firm was the primary contractor for this project.
The Housing Colloborofive, LLC.Poge 4 of 75
Information Sources
. The primary source of information for preparing this report is the Eagle County
Housing Needs Assessment that was mmpleted in July 1999. This information
is based on a distribution of 3,600 household surveys to Eagle Coun$
residents. Of this number, 794 were returned for a22o/o response rate, with
'information received on 1,046 adults. In addition, information about seasonal
employees was obtained through an employer survey that was conducted as
part of this Housing Needs Assessment;
e Information from the 2000 Census has been used to supplement the information
obtained through the household and employer surveys obtained for the Eagle
County Needs Assessment;
o Information obtained from the Colorado State Department of Labor; and,
o Interviews conducted by McCormick and Associates, lnc. and RRC Associates,
lnc.
Sources of information are noted on all tables or applicable sections. Tables' references
to "household survey' refer to the information that was obtained through the survey of
households that was completed as part o-f the 1999 Eagle County Housing Needs
Assessment.
It is important to note that the under-representation among renters and seasonal workers
is likely for both the Census and Eagle Gounty Housing Needs Assessment. The
Census was conducted in the spring, which is traditionally a time when seasonal workers
leave the area. In our experience, seasonal workers, renters and low income
households are less likely to respond to household surveys.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 5 of 75
Pno.lecr Descruplol
The Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) will develop Middle Creek Mllage. The VLHA
was recently named by the Town of Vail Council to further local efiorts to produce
housing that would be affordable to employees in the Town of Vail. Middle Creek Village
will be the first development that will be undertaken by this group. Coughlin and
Company was selected as the developer for this project.
As proposed, this project will consist of 156 units that will offer studios, one-, two and
three.bedroom units. This project will be built at the "Mountain Bell' site, located north of
Interstate 70. The site cunently houses a day care center and is steeply sloped. There
is one primary access to the site at this time.
As proposed, 64 of the "alcove studio" units and 14 one-bedroom units will be developed
with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), with rents that are affordable to
households earning 60% of the AMl. The balance of the units will be deed-restricted per
Vail requirements. The following chart indicates the proposed bedroom configurations,
square footage and rents for this project. These rents do not include utilities.
Proposed Program
Number of
Units
Bedroom
Configuration
Finance Program Proposed
Rent
Square
Footage
Studio LIHTC - 60% of AMI 364 $693
364364Market $850
'14 lBRY1BA LIHTC-60% of AMI 480 $733
lBRY1BA Market 480 $975
26 28FYlBA Market 728 $1,350
38FY2BA Market 900 $1,765
As proposed, this project would offer 270 bedrooms. Studios and one-bedroom units
would be targeted to employees who remain in the area year round, whereas the two
and three-bedroom units may be targeted to workers who come to the area to work a
season. This project is targeled to unrelated roommates, single persons and couples. lt
is not expected that the families with children would be drawn to this site.
44
The Housing Colloborotive. LLC,Page 6 ol 75
Number of Bedrooms
Bedroom
Configuration Number of
Units
Total
Number of
Bedrooms
68
1BR
2BR
3BR
Total
It is anticipated that surface parking will be offered. As part of this market study, efforts
to determine the value of assigned parking and/or covered parking were assessed. In
addition, the need for storage, laundry services, unit size and site amenities were
reviewed. This was done in anticipation of further refinements to amenities and overall
site design.
Project Location and Services
Middle Creek Village will be located on the west side of lnterstate 70 in Vail, Colorado.
This site is commonly referred lo as the "Mountain Bell site", because of a 70-foot,
monolithic structure that provides some form of telecommunications for the Vail Valley. lt
is quite noticeable from the highway and serves as a landmark for the area. The tower
would remain after the development of this site. Currently, a day care center exists at
the site. As planned, the day care center would be re-built adjacent to Middle Creek
Village.
A road curently leads up to the site, and it is anticipated that improvements would be
made to accommodate a heavier volume of traffic due to the development. Other
improvements and requirements are still under negotiation with the Town of Vail.
There do not appear to be many other uses sunounding the site, with the exception of
some larger residential homes. The parcel is wooded and steeply sloped and has a
tranquil feeling. The parcel faces south toward the Vail Ski Resort, offering good views,
and the northern exposures look up a mountain that is also wooded.
There are not any primary services, such as shopping, located immediately adjacent to
the site. lt is well located relative to employment, as the primary resort area, which
includes skiing, retail shops, restaurants, the Ski Museum and other services, is north of
the site, across Interstate-70 and less than two miles away. A drawback is that there is
not any pedestrian access to this area, although the public transportation system
provides good service to all areas of Vail and would be extended to include this project.
This means that residents will be able to use public transit and as parking is at a
premium in Vail, it is likely that their cars will remain parked at the site most of the time.
't818
26
1324
156
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.PageT of 75
Primary grocery shopping is located north of Interstate'70, less than five miles west of
the site. This includes both City Market and Safeway. There are numerous small
convenience stores located in Vail Village. The hospital is less than three miles from the
site, as are other primary medical services. Several banks are located in Vail as well.
Recreation abounds in the Vail Valley and includes skiing, both downhill and cross-
country, golf, tennis and numerous hiking trails. There is an ice skating arena and
athletic club that could be used by residents.
Services ln Vail
Amenities
All of the units will have dishwashers, microwave ovens and exterior storage that is
located adjacent to the front door of each unit. Walkin closets will be provided in the
studios, one-bedroom units and at least one bedroom in each of the two and three
bedroom units. Covered parking will be provided for an additional fee.
Site amenities will include a Town of Vail bus stop, outdoor open space and recreation
areas, a central barbeque area and a common area within the building that features a
cyber caf6 and room for residents to use for parties, meetings and related func{ions.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.PageB of 75
Market Area Definition
The primary market area for the proposed project is Eagle Gounty, with the Town of Vail
providing a more narrowly defined market area. For this study, it was decided to
consider all of Eagle Coung rather than focus sole! on employees in the Town of Vail.
This is because Eagle County is a "regional market" as far as those seeking housing are
concemed. Information is presented on renters within the entire County, with a subset
offered for those who are employed in the Town of Vail at the end of the report. In this
way, the VLHA can make decisions regarding preferences for renters who cunently live
and/or work in the Town of Vail.
There is also a secondary market for the proposed development consisting of workers
cunently mmmuting to work in the Vail Valley from the Lake County/Leadville and
Garfield County areas. lt shoirld be noted that this market study focuses exclusively on
the primary market area in analyzing demand for housing. Because it does not quantiff
demand from the secondary area, it is a conservative analysis of likely demand for
Middle Creek Village. Additional demand is likely to be generated from households
currently living in Lake and Garfield Counties who commute to the Vail area for
employment.
Market Area
The Housing Colloboroiive, LLC.Poge 9 of 75
Genenn- C rnnacrenrsrcs Op Txe M lnxer Anea
The following sections provide a review of the population in Eagle County and the
demographic profib of renters. This includes:
. Number of p€rsons in renter households;. Household type;. Age and gender;r Household income;o Amount paid for housing;. Type of unit and number of bedrooms in units occupied by renters; and,. Employment,
The primary sources of information for the following sections were the 1999 Household
Survey conducted as part ofthe Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment and the
2000 Census. When available, 2000 Census data was used.
Total Population
According to the 2000 Census, there were 41 ,306 persons living in 15,148 households in
Eagle County, as well as 353 living in group quarters, for a total population of 41, 659.
Of this number,4,518 people were located in 2,165 households in the Town of Vail, with
an additional 13 in group quarters, for a total population of 4,531. Given the fact thatthe
Census was conducted in April 2000, it is likely that these tigures do not include a
number of seasonal employees who are typically found in these areas of Colorado.
Unrelated roommates accounted for 21.1o/o of all households; however, this number is
probably low due to the under-representation of renters and seasonal employees overall
in the 1999 household survey.
Population - 2000 Census
Eagle Gounty Town of Vall
Population 41,659 4,531
Households 15,148 2,165
The average household size was 2.73 persons in 2000.
Owners and Renters
The 2000 Census found that 36% of Eagle County households were renters. In the
Town of Vail, 48o/o oI households were renters. The average household size of renters
was 2.67 persons, and 2.76 persons among those who owned their home.
The Housing Colloboroiive, LLC.Page lO of 75
Renters and Owners - 2000 Census
Eagle
County % of HH Vail % of HH
Total:15,148 100o/o 2,165 1O0Yo
Owner occupied I,Atg u% 1,133 52Yo
Renter occupied 5,499 360/o 1,032 48Yo
Number of Persons - Renters
Approximately 43o/o of renters in Eagle County consist of twqperson households, with
another 18% made up of one-person households. About 38o/o consist of three or more
persons. The average size of renter households was 2.54, with a median of two persons
reported.
Household Size of Renters - Eagle County
# of Persons Percent 2000 Gensus
18.4%1,010
42.9o/o 2,357
15.6%
16.3%897
4.1o/o 224
2.0To
7+0.7Yo
Total 100.0%5,499
. Source.' Household Su,ley
Household Type
According to the household survey, 48o/o of renter households in Eagle County consist of
couples (23.8o/o) and couples with children (24.5yo).
Household Type - Renters
Household Type Y'otHH #ofHH
Adult living alone 17.7Yo 972
Single parent with children 6.8%374
Couple 23.lYo 1,309
21.1To
Family members and unrelated roommates 4.8Yo 262
Other 1.4% 75
Total 5,499
112
37
Unrelated roommates
Source; Household Survev
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.
100.0%
Page 11 of 75
Age
According to the 2000 Census, over half of renter householders in Eagle Cqlnty are
under the age of 34 (57%). In Vail, 66% of renter households are under the age of 34. lt
is important to note that renters in the area tend to be younger, particularly in the Vail
area.
Age of Renter Householders
Eagle County Vail
#ofHH %ofHH #ofHH %ofHH
Renter occupied: 5,499 l0oYo 1,032 1@%
15 to 24 years 918 17oh 216 2',tYo
25 to 34 years 2,22'l 40o/o 473
35 to 44 years 1,220 22o/o 170 160/o
45 to 54 vears 14Yo lOYo
55 to & years 233 4% 51 5%
65 and older 144 3%21 1o/o
Source: 2000 Census
Gender
Over half (59%) of renters in Eagle County are females and 41o/o are males.
Gender of Renters
Source: Household Swvey
Household lncome
The average household income of renters in Eagle County was $51,538 in 1999, with a
median of $50,000. In Eagle County, the average household income for a// households
was $85,889 and the median was $65,000. In 1999, the median household income for
Eagle County was very close to the 1999 median family income estimate of $621,300
provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 12 of 75
The distribution of household income among renter households shows clustering
between $20,000 to $60,000, with about 9% below $20,000 and 160/o above $80,000.
Household lncome Distribution - Renters
L6fin ll0,0o Pq,m $T,0o 140,m
110,0m b 19,999 bA,SS b39,999 b49,990
Sour@: Housohold Suwey
$0.m t70,0m |s,(tro
b6g,s9 b79.99 b899S
Household Incomes by
Percent and Number of Households: Renters
Annual lncome % of HH # of HH
Less than $10,000 5% 267
$10,000 - 19,999 4o/o 229
$20,000 - 29,999 't2% 649
$30,000 - 39,999 14% 7U
$40,000 - 49.999 13%
$50,000 - 59,999 17% 9s5
$60,000 - 69,999 12% 649
$70,000 - 79,999 382
$80,000 - 89,999 5o/o 267
$90,000 - 99,999 5% 267
$100,000 - 149,000 47o 229
2% 114
f50,0(x)
5s9,9S
190.m0 9rm,0d) 1150,0m
b99.999 b149.0q) and.boro
Tolal
Source.' Household Survey
The Housing Colloborotive. LLC.Page 13 of 75
Area Median lncome
In 1999, approximately 17% ot renter households in Eagle County earned less than 50%
of the Area Median Income. Assuming that there were not substantial changes in
household income, it is estimated that 17% of the 5,499 renter households (943
households) earn less than 50% of the AMl. Another 550 renter households earn 50%
to 607o of the Area Median Income. This suggests that there are approximately 1,493
renter households in Eagle County with incomes that would qualify them for some form
of housing assistance, including rental units produced using Low Income Housing Tax
Credits.
1999 Area Median Income- Eagle Gounty
lPHH 2PHH 3PHH 4PHH 5PHH
<3070 AMI $ 13,500 $ 15,450 $ 17,3s0 $ 19,300 $ 20,850
3070 TO 50% AMr $ 22,500 $ 25,700 $ 28,950 $ 32,150 $ 34,700
51Yo TO 60o/o $ 27,000 $ 30,840 $ 34,740 $ 38,580 $ 41,640
61% to 8070 $ 33,450 $ 38,2s0 $ 43,000 $ 47,800 $ 51,600
80% to 100% AMI $ 45,000 $ 51,400 $ 57,900 $ 6,4,300 $ 69,400
10070+ $ 54,000$ 61,680$ 69,480$ 77,160$ 83,280
% of Renter Households
1999 Area Median lncome
o/o of Estimated
Renter HH Number of HH
Under 30o/o AMI 8.60/o 471
30 - 50o/o AMI 471
50 - 600/o AMI 't0.00/o
60 - 80o/o AMI 10.0Yo
80 - 10070 AMI 22.1o/o 1,217
100o/o+ AMI 4O.7o/o 2,238
Total 100.0%5,499
Source: Household Survey
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 14 of 75
The following chart provides a more refined estimate of the number of renter households
whose incomes fall within various Area Median Income Categories, adjusted by
household size. Using these estimates suggests that roughly 1,494 renter households
earning 0% to 60% of the Area Median Income in Eagle County.
Renter Households by
Area Median lncome and Household Size
61% to 80%142 t81 154 577
81% to 100% AMI 369 215 169 314 150 1,217
TOTAL 924 825 518 446 3,288
Source: Household SuNey
Unrelated Roommates and Family Members with Roommates
It was acknowledged that there could be persons who are currently living in roommate
situations who would prefer to live alone, if affordable and suitable housing were
available. To better understand the potential number of single persons, the information
for household types was further refined to consider the number of persons living as
unrelated roommates or with family members and unrelated roommates. The number of
households in this section is slightly different from previous household estimates due to
further stratification. lt is within 2% of previously reported numbers and is considered to
be statistically valid.
There are an estimated 2,418 households that consist of adults living alone, unrelated
roommates, family members and unrelated roommates, and other households. The
remaining 3,004 renter households consist of couples with and without children and
single-parent households.
Number of Households by Marital Status/Adults in Household
Adult living
# of Adults alone
Family members
Unrelated and u n related
roommates roommates Other Sub-total
975
663
156
Total HH's 936 1,209 195 78 2,418
Source: 1999 Household Suvev and 2000 Census
74'l
?o
1PHH 2PHH 3PHH 4PHH SPHH Total
30% TO 50% AMI
510/o TO 607o
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 15 of 75
There are an estimated 4,914 adults living in these renter households, of which 3,198
are adults who live in unrelated roommate households. Of these, 41% are found in two
person households, with 29% found in four-person households.
Among family members and unrelaled roommates,468 live in three-person households.
This tends to support the perception that couples and one unrelated person are sharing
a home in Eagle County.
Number of Persons by Marital Status and Adults in Households
Famlly members
Unrelated andunrelatedroommates roommatesOtherSub-total
1326 1482
# of Adults
Adult llvlng
alone
't170
1092
195
Total HH's 3198 117 4914
lncome of Single Persons
The income of individuals was also examined to make a determination of the number of
persons who may have incomes that would qualify for the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit program. lt appears that there are 2,729 persons living who earn less than 60%
of the Area Median lncome (shaded area). Another 1,482 persons eam 60% to '1007o of
the AMl.
Number of Individual Adults by 1999 AMI Category and Marital Status
Family membersUnrelated &
roommates roommates Other Sub-total
Under 307o AMI
30 - 50o/o AMI
50 - 60o/o AMI
60 - 80% AMI 122
80 - 100% AMI
100o/o+ AMI
Total 3.198 624 117 4.914
It is not surprising that most of the individuals who eam less than 600/o of the AMI are
unrefated roommates. Another 325 are adults who cunently live alone and267 are
found with family members and unrelated roommates. No single persons live in the
"other" category who also earn incomes in this bracket.
156
195
1999 AMI
Adult
nq alone
89
17841
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page t6 of 75
Approximately 58% (1,301) persons live orwork in Vail. Close to52o/o (1,162) work in
Vail and only 32% lived in Vail at the time of the survey. Around 26% both live and work
in Vail. This suggests that most of lhe potential single-person renters will be those who
work in Vail and live elsewhere.
Summary of lndividual Adults by AMI Category and Marital Status
Adult Unrelated Familv members and
alone roommates unrelated roommales Olher Sub-total
- 60% AMt 325 1,U7 267 0
of 30 - 600/o AMI who live OR work in Vail: 58.1%
of 30 - 60% AMI who work in Vail: 51.9olo
of 30 - 60% AMI who live in Vail: 32.1olo
of 30 - 60% AMI who live AND work in Vail: 25.9%
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.PogeLT of 75
Ururr Tvpe nno ArronoaBtLtrY
This section examines the types of units currently occupied by residents, what they pay
for rent and what they also believe they could afford.
The percent of adults living alone who occupy apartments is consistent with the number
of one-person households who also occupy apartments. Among couples, 26% occupy
apartments and another 26% indicated they live in condominiums. Among couples with
children, 34o/o aE in apartments and another 20% live in single-family homes. Unrelated
roommates are fairly evenly distributed among apartments, condominiums and town
homes/duplexes.
Household Type by Unit Type
Adult Couple
living Slngle parent with Unrelated
alone with children Couple children roommates
Family members
and unrelated
roommates
Apartment 690/o 20o/o 29lo Uo/o
Condominium 12Yo 20Yo 260/o 11%14o/o
Townhouse 30Vo 14Yo 14Yo
Mobile home
Single-family house
Accessory/caretaker unit
12o/o 3%
1ffiYo 1007o 1mo/o 1004/0 1400k lCDYo
Source: Household SuNey
Consideration was also given to the number of persons in a household by the number of
bedrooms in the unit in which they lived. A majority of tweperson households (58%) live
in twobedroom units. About half of four-person households lived in three-bedroom
units, with 68% of five-person households living in three-bedroom units. This information
documents the sharing of bedrooms among larger sized households.
Bedroom Configuration by Number of Persons in Household
One
Person
Two Three
Persons Persons
Four Five
Persons Persons
One Bedroom 19o/o 5o/o
Two Bedrooms 17%
Three Bedrooms 21Yo
Four Bedrooms 17o/o 17%
100%
Source: Household Survey
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.
100Yo 100%1mo/o 100%
Page LB of 75
Unrelated roommates are most likely to live in twobedroom units (59%). About 56% of
couples with children live in three-bedroom units. Couples without children are more
likely to be living in twobedroom units (44%), although aboul?9"/o are living in three-
bedroom units.
Number of Bedrooms by Household Type
Adult Single
living parent withalone children
Couple
with
Couple children
Family members
Unrelated andunrelated
roommates roommates
One Bedroom 80o/o 24o/o 3o/o
Two Bedrooms 44o/o 59%50%
Three
Bedrooms 56%21%
Four
Bedrooms 3Yo 304 14Yo 't7Yo
1@Yo 1@Yo 100o/o 100%100o/o 100%
Source.' Houseiold Suley
The Housing Colloborofive, LLC.Poge 79 of 75
EuplovueHr
The 1999 Housing Needs Assessment for Eagle Coung examined employment pattems
through a household survey and employer survey. The following sections examine
information gleaned from these studies that may be useful in defining populations for
whom the Middle Creek Village development could be targeted.
Number of Jobs
In 1999, there were an estimated 34,936 jobs in Eagle County according to the Colorado
State Demographer. This included approximately 5,893 jobs attributed to sole
proprietors, with the remaining 29,U3 attributed to wage and salaried positions.
As might be expected, there is seasonal fluctuation of jobs in Eagle County. Based on
2000 ES202 data, the lowest number of ES202 jobs was reported for May 2000
(24,565), compared to the prior winter peak of 29,951 jobs in March 2000, with the
highest number of jobs found in December (30,753). This is a difference of 5,386 jobs,
which are attributed to seasonal employment.
Job Holding
Both the household survey and information from the State Demographer's Office
indicate that the residents in Eagle County hold an average of 1.2 jobs. Applying this
estimate to the number of jobs in the area provides some indication of the number of
jobs that are filled by seasonal workers.
Seasonal Employees
Several steps were taken to determine an estimate of the number of employees in Eagle
County who may only be in the area seasonally. First, it was assumed that many year
round residents are employed in seasonaljobs, as well as positions that are held year
round. Forecast information provided through the Colorado Demographe/s Office Jobs
and Labor Force estimated 36,623 jobs in Eagle County for 2000. According to the
forecast, approximately 7,085 persons commute into the county for employment and
2,000 residents work outside of Coung boundaries.
We estimate that approximately 2,245 to 2,830 seasonal wokers are employed in the
Vail Valley each winter. The derivation of these estimates is shown in the table below.
In briel the steps in the estimate are as follows:
. Monthly ES202 data shows that there was a difference of 5,387 ES202 jobs
between the winter peak of 29,951 ES202 jobs in March 2000 and the shoulder-
season kough of 24,564 ES202 jobs in May 2000. This provides a measure of
the number of winter seasonal jobs in the County (under the assumption that
May employment represents a base line of year-round employment in the
County).
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 20 of 75
We assume that roughly 50 percqnt of these seasonal jobs are filled by year-
round local residents, while the remaining 50 percent are filled by seasonal
residents. This implies that approximately 2,694 seasonal ES202 jobs are filled
by seasonal residents. This estimate is based on conversations with a prominent
local employer which has indicated that approximately half of its seasonal hires
are local residents. Additionally, this finding is supported by the 1999 Eagle
County Housing Survey, which showed higher levels of employment and multiple
jobholding in winter (average of 1.2 jobs / person) than at other times of year
(average of 1.1 jobs / person).
Taking into account the winter multiple jobholding rate of 1.2 jobs per worker
leads to the mnclusion that there are 2,245 seasonal residents who fill the 2,694
seasonal jobs described above. This provides a lower-bound estimate of the
winter seasonal worKorce in the County.
It should be noted that ES202 jobs only account for approximately 79.3 percent
of all jobs in Eagle County, according to estimates by the Colorado State
Demographer, Sole proprietors account for most of the remaining jobs. The
seasonality of proprietor jobs, and the degree to which they are filled by seasonal
residents, are unknown. However, if it is assumed that a pro-rata share of
proprietor jobs are filled by seasonal residents, an upper-bound estimate of 2,830
seasonal resident workers is estimated
The average of the two seasonal worker estimates is 2,538 seasonal workers.
This provides a "middle-ground" estimate of the number of seasonal workers
employed in the County.
Further analysis of the ES202 database (as of fourth quarter 1996) shows that
over 90 percent of the County's employment is in the Vail Valley, while the
remainder is in the Roaring Fork Valley or is undetermined. Moreover,
essentially all of the winter seasonal variation in employment in the County is
mncentrated in the Vail Valley portion of the County. Thus, the estimates of
seasonal employment and seasonal workers contained in this discussion are
specifically applicable to the Vail Valley portion of the County, and are thus
applicable to the estimation of seasonal housing demand in the Vail Valley.
As of fourth quarter 1996, roughly two thirds to 70 percent of seasonal
employment in the Vail Valley was estimated to be concentrated in the Town of
Vail area. Given the increasing level of winter tourism activity downvalley over
the past four years, this percentage may have since dropped. Nonetheless, the
Vail area is likely to still account for the substantial majority of seasonal
employment in the Valley.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 2l of 75
Estimation of Winter Seasonal Workforce Employed in Eagle County, 2000
March 2000 85202 Labor & Em - Labor Mkt lnfo
2000 Es202 - Labor Mkt lnfo
Seasonal difference in ES202
Measure
Assum€ 50o/o of winter seasonal iobs are filled by
seasonal residents
Conversation with several local employers;
1999 Eagle Co Housing Survey results
showing greater multiple jobholding in winler
than other
seasonal residents
RRC 1999
Number of seasonal workers, 2000
(assume gg proprietor jobs are filled by
asa%oftotal Colo State 1999 data
Number of seasonal workers, 2000 (assume
oro.rala share of proprietor jobs are filled by
seasonals
Average of above two seasonal worker
Commuting
According to employers responding to the employer survey completed as part of the
housing needs assessment in 1999, about 14% of employees commute from outside of
Eagle County. Applying an estimate of 14o/o to the 29,951 jobs available in the Vail
Valley at peak season suggests that 4,193 people commute into the area for
employment. Almost half live in Leadville/Lake County and just over one-fifth live in
Glenwood Springs/Garfield County. Another 12o/o live in Summit Coung.
Most commuters (&lolo) worked in Vail and about one-fmh were employed in the
Avon/Beaver CreeldArrowhead areas.
Almost half of all commuters live in households composed of couples with children.
Slightly under one-fifth of commuters live in households composed of couples and about
the same percentage live in households composed of family members and unrelated
roommates.
About half of the commuters would prefer to live in Eagle County. These results were
impacted be Leadville residents; approximately 60% of the commuters who live in the
Leadville area would prefer to live in Eagle County. When asked about their housing
preference type, the majority indicated they would prefer a single family home or mobile
home; however, of those interested in living in apartments, close to 4Qo/o were from the
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page22 of 75
Leadville area. Commuters tended to be employed in constrUction (27o/o) and
maintenance/housekeeping and service jobs (37%). Another 10% work in restaurants.
The following table provides an estimate of "commuter households" who would be
interested in moving into the Vail area. Of the 4,193 commuters, about haf (2,097)
indicated they wanted to live in Eagle County. Assuming that the household pattern of
these individuals was consistent wilh all commuters, approximately a0% (839 persons)
would be living as couples, family members living with roommates and roommate
households. These are the household types that are most likely to be attracted to a
rentaf housing development. Applying the average household size of 2.76 persons to the
estimate of those living as couples and with roommates yields an estimate of 3M
households that could be included as part of the market for Middle Creek Village.
Estimate of Gommuter Households Interested in Living in Eagle Gounty
Commuters 4,193
Prefer Eagle County 2,097 50%
Couoles and Roommates 839 40o/o
Households
2.76 Ave HH304 Size
Length of Residence or Employment
Among renters, almost half have been in the area from one to six years. Approximately
9% had been in the area for less than six months and about 8% had been in the area for
six months to one year.
Length of EmploymenUResidence
Among Renters in Eagle County
Less than 6 months 9.Oo/o
6 months - 1 year 7.9%
More than 1 up to 3 years 24.3%
More than 3 up to 6 years 25.40lo
More than 6 up to 10 years 13.0%
More than 10 years 20.3%
Total 99.9%
Source: Household Su|ev
According to the household survey, approximately 95% of renters live in the area year
round, with 57o reporting they were in the area for the ski season only. lt is expected
that these estimates are low, due to under-representation of renters in general and
seasonal workers specifi cally.
Ihe Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 23 of 75
Job and Population Growth
According to forecasts provided by the Colorado Department of Labor, appro<imately
10,000 new jobs are projecled for Eagle County fom 2000 to 2fi)5 or an annual average
change ol 4.9o/o. The populaton is expected to grow fom 41,888 (assumed an
undercount in population) to 48,667 for this same period, for an averag€ annual increase
of 3%.
ProJected Grovytr in Jobs and Populaffon, Eagb County
' Averagc2000 2005 Annual Growdr
Jobs 36,623 46,6O{ 4.9%
Popuhtion 41,888 48,667 3.0%
Source: @loracto &p*tmantot La,or
The Housirg Collobonotive, LLC.Poge 24 of 75
Vell ReHreRs aHo WoRxens
Consideration was also given to renters who are employed in the Town of Vail, as it is
likely that these households will be given a preference for living at the Middle Creek
Village development. An estimated 1,032 renter households live in Vail based upon the
2000 Census.
Tenure - Renters
Eagle
County % of HH Vail% of HH
Total:15,148 100o/o 2,165 10QYo
Owner occupied 9,649 Mo/o 1.133 52o/o
Vail Employees
This section focuses on the 29% of renters who work in Vail. According to the
household survey, approximately 29% of eastem county (Vail to Gypsum) renters work
in Vail. Over onethird of renters work in Avon/Beaver Creek/Arowhead.
Location 7o of Renters
Vail
Edwards/Homestead/Singletree 10olo
Avon/Beaver Creek/Arrowhead 36%
Eagle 12o/o
Eagle-Vail
Gypsum 3%
Minturn/Red Cliff 4Yo
Total 100%
Source.' Househol d S u rv ey
Of renter households living in Vail, approxim ately 41o/oconsist of two persons. Fewer
single persons are in the area than other household sizes (17o/o). Overall, the household
sizes found in Vail closely follow those noted for all of Eagle County with one exception;
no households of more than four persons were reported through the household survey.
48o/oRenter occuoied
Source: 2000 Census
The Housing Colloborotive. LLC.Poge25 of 75
Percent of Renters By Household Slze
HH Slze Percent
't7.0%
41.4eYo
22.0%
19.5%
Total 99.9%@sts
lncome of Vail Renters
The mean incomes of renter housaholds working in Vail ($48,610) are slighty belonr that
of renters throughout Eagle County ($51,538), although the median income is
equivalent,
Household Income of
Renters Worklng in Vall
Mean Median
The income distribution among renter households in Vail is uneven. Close to 2O% ot
renters earn $75,000 to $100,000. Slightly wer 12o/o eam $25,000 to $29,999.
Income Dlstributlon - Vail Renters
375.qlo - 09,900
170.000 . 7t.999
$8s.000 - 69.9s9
160.000 - 6i1,999
955,0{X} - 59,S9
150,0q' - 54,999
s45.000 - 49,9€0
S,to.oo(l - a4,Sg
135.000. 39,m0
330.qro - 34,9e9
t25.0(l0 - 29,sss
f20,000 - 2a,sgg
lr5,{x)o - t9.999
gt - l,l,90o
Sourc€: Houseltold Suvey
$ 48,610 $ 50,000
Swtte: House,hdd Swvey
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page26 of 75
Length of Time in Area
The percentage of renters who work in Vail and have resided or been employed in the
area for six or fewer months is less than found in all of Eagle County. This percentage
increases for those in the area for six months to one year. In other words, the data
suggest newcomers to the area are especially likely to find housing down valley.
Length of Time in Area
LBss lhan 6 6months-1
months yeal
More than 1, up Mor6 than 3 up More than 6, up More lhan 10
to 3 y€ars to 6 y€ars lo 10 y6ars y€ars
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 27 of 75
HousrNe Goruortoxs
This section of the report provides a review of comparable properties that are located in
Eagle County. This includes an in-depth review of selected properties that includes
location, target population(s), rents, unit sizes and bedroom configurations, amenities
and absorption rates. This section also includes a description of comparable properties
located in other resort @mmunities that were contacted for this assessment.
Afthough an in-depth review of properties located in other resort communities is
included, the rents were not analllzed as they are from a different market area.
Overview
Within Eagle County there are a varieg of rental housing options that appear to be
targeted to different populations. For example, Vail Resorts owns, manages and
master-leases a significant amount of rental property in the area that is primarily targeted
toward housing seasonal workers. Generally, there are workers that come into the area
to work one season, and then leave. Many of these workers return each year to work
another season. In addition to Vail Resorts, several other employers also master lease
and/or own properties that they make available to employees. These include hotels,
local governments, transportation services and area restaurants. Some of these units
are designated specifically for seasonal workers, whereas others are provided for year-
round employees.
Other affordable housing is also available and being developed in Eagle County. These
include several tax credit projects, the majority of which are targeted to housing families
and unrelated roommates who live in the area year round. The further south one moves
along the F70 corridor, the greater emphasis there is on offering housing to couples and
households with children. Several for-sale projects have been developed and are
proposed that are targeted to households eaming 80% of the Area Median Income.
Employer Housing
Employers responding to the Employer Survey for the Eagle County Housing Needs
assessment provided an indication of the number of employees for whom they provided
housing. Of the 42 employers responding to the survey, half indicated that they cunently
provide housing or renUmortgage subsidies to an average of 68 employees per
employer. This percentage may be overstated since larger employers tended to
respond to the survey more than smaller employers. Based on the responses, these
employers provided housing for 1 ,364 employees in 1,172 housing units in Eagle
County.
Seasonal Workers
In conducting the interviews among different property management entities, a pattem
began to emerge that influences the programming considerations for the different
developments. This information may be useful in further refining the program for Middle
Creek Village. Some of the primary observations include:
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 28 of 75
. -There are different types of "seasonal workers". Some are younger who come
into the area to work one season and play. This worker fits the profile that most
people associate with a "seasonal worked'as they are primarily in the area to
ski/hike/bike and party. This type of resident prefers to live with roommates and
is willing to share a bedroom;
. The second type of "seasonal workef is one who reiurns to the area year after
year to work. Ski patrol, ski school employees, medical staff-including nurses
and lab technicians-were cited as examples. These workers would prefer to
have their own unit, although they will share a unit if they have their own
bedroom. They do not want to live in the same building as the above-described
seasonal worker who intend to be in the valley for a single season; and,
. Single persons and couples who remain in the area year-round and want to live
in their own place, without additional roommates. These households also do not
want to live with the more transient seasonal workers.
Number of Occupants Per Bedroom
There is an emerging trend to limit occupancy of seasonal worker housing to one person
per bedroom. This reflects the desire of most people living in rental housing to at least
have their own bedroom. lt also avoids additional conflicts among roommates who may
have shared a room in the past. Retuming seasonal workers and those who live in the
area year-round may have people with whom they are comfortable sharing an apartment
if they can have their own bedroom within that apartment. Managers of housing for
seasonal employees reported that about 75% of the bedrooms are shared. Returning
seasonal workers are given a priority to have their own bedroom, whereas seasonal
workers who are new to the area often have to share with another person.
First time seasonal workers prefer to live in a unit with others, as that is a way to meet
people. Although they do share a bedroom, there are conflicts that occur with the forced
sharing of a sleeping area with someone of the same sex. First lime and returning
seasonal workers would also preferto have a separate bedroom and not be forced to
share a room. Couples, on the other hand, would share a bedroom and are an
appropriate group to target for the one- bedroom units proposed a Middle Creek Village.
It appears that these people seek studios in seasonal housing developments first, and if
not available, will live in a shared housing arrangement where they can have their own
bedroom.
Management Trends
Most of these developments provide on-site management. lt was noled that on-site
management is important to minimize conflicts among residents and to resolve
enforcement of infringements on the lease before they become major problems.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 29 of 75
Comparable Projects
The projects that would be the most comparable to Middle Creek Village are located
along the F70 Corridor. The following map indicates the location of the comparables as
well as other projects financed with Low lncome Housing Tax Credits.
Comparable and Tax Projects ln the Market Area
Project Descriptions
Lake Creek Apaftments is located in Edwards and offers 270 units that are ananged in
34 eight-plex buildings. This is an attractive project that was built in 1994 and offers a
mix of one, two and three-bedroom units. About half of the twebedroom units are
master-leased to area employers. The project offers one-car garages for each unit, for
an additional $50 per month and includes one additional surface parking space per unit.
In the past, parking was a problem at this project because of the number of visitors and
because residents were using the garages for storage and not the parking of cars.
Stricter enforcement of a requirement to use the garages for cars has minimized parking
problems on the site.
This project provides housing for seasonal and long-term workers; however the
emphasis is on attracting the long.lerm worker to the site. One- and twobedroom units
were the first to lease up, with thre+bedroom units taking longer. A mix of couples,
couples with children and unrelated roommates have chosen this location. Most of the
unrelated roommates are people who have known each other previously and are
choosing to live as roommates rather than be assigned lo an apartment.
Rents vary according to the location of the apartment. Units that are in close proximity
to the highway are the least expensive, those in the common area are in the mid-range
and those close to the river are more expensive. There is about a $100 per month
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 30 ol 75
difference in rent between units located close to the highway and those that are next to
the river. In addition to the base rent, the cost of utilities, cable and garages are added
on. These fees range from $160 for a one-bedroom unit lo $120 per month for a two
bedroom unit and $130 per month for a three-bedroom unit. A 12-month lease is
required.
Vail Associates owns and manages or contracts for units at a number of properties in
Eagle County that are focused on providing housing for seasonal employees. These
include the Sunbird, The Tarnes and Rivers Edge. Vail Resorts has recently taken over
the management of Rivers Edge and The Tarnes from Corum Real Estate.
The pricing structure varies somewhat from property to property, although the guidelines
established by Vail Resorts generally apply to all of the units. These rentals are devoted
to employees of Vail Resorts during the winter season. ln the summer and shoulder
season, other employees may rent these units, but are required to leave by October 1Srh.
Vail Resorts requires a $200 deposit from its employees to lease a unit and $400 if a
person is a not a Vail Resorts employee. Leases are for six months; however, a daily
rate is computed and a person may get out of the lease at any time without a penalty.
For the most part, employees are expected to share a unit with a roommate. This may
include sharing a bedroom, although some units allow employees to have their own
bedroom. Employees who return to work each season usually wanl their own bedroom,
whereas employees who are new are more willing to share a bedroom.
Generally, Vail Resorts charges $410 per person to share a one'bedroom unit or $350 to
share a bedroom in a twobedroom unit. In all of the properties that it owns and
manages, at least 75% of the one or more bedroom units have at least one shared
bedroom. Studios house single persons and/or couples, with returning seasonal
workers given a priority to have a studio. A private bedroom in a two to four bedroom
unit costs about $425 per bedroom. During the winter months, occupancy hovers
between 96% to 99%. In the summer months, occupancy drops to 60% to 70%. In the
recent past, extensive efforts were made to attract others to lease these units. The
focus was on construction, landscaping and golf murse employees. lt was noted that it
appears that many families may move into these units for the summer. These are
families that may live in Eagle County in crowded conditions during the winter months,
as well as families who commute from other areas during the winterto work. lt is not
known if Vail Resorts will mntinue to market to these groups to lease vacant units in the
summer months.
For the purposes of this assessment, three of the properties operated by Vail Resorts
were selected. These include The Tames and Rivers Edge, wlich have been combined
in the project comparisons as the unit size, rents and bedroom configurations are the
same. Timber Ridge Village Apartments are also included, as Vail Resorts master
leases the majority of these units.
The Tarnes is a 76-unit complex with 202 beds that was developed by Vail Resorts in
partnership with the Vail Valley Medical Center. These include two new buildings and a
recent renovation of two existing buildings. This development is devoted to seasonal
workers for both Vail Resorts and the Medical Center. This complex offers a mix of
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 3l of 75
studios, twobedroom and four-bedroom units. There are interior lockers that are set
aside in a separate area for resident use, laundry rooms and a communal room. An
office is also located on site. Extra storage that is easily accessible by residents and
designed to enhance security were noted as important features. The lockers are located
on the first floor and are drywalled and have deadbolts. A convenient location that is
secure was noted as being important if residents would use the lockers.
It was also noted that there have been conflicts between the seasonal workers employed
by the Medical Center and Vail Resorts. Although Medical Center employees are also
seasonal, they tend to be older and do not desire to live with younger seasonal workers.
Because of this, management has segregated the buildings so that more mature
seasonal workers are living in separate buildings.
Rivers Edge is dedicated to seasonal workers. lt offers 137 apartments in a mix of twe,
three- and four-bedroom units. Each bedroom is quite small (approximately 80 square
feet) and has built-in cabinets and beds to maximize space. Originally, Rivers Edge was
going to be developed as a series of small studios and one-bedroom units. During the
development process a focus group was held in which it was leamed that potential
residents would prefer to have a small bedroom, with a door that would lock, and a
larger communal space. This included a shared kiichen, bathroom and living/dining
area. This development has been successful in providing livable space for seasonal
workers and was replicated at The Tarnes and other projects in the area.
Parking for this development was done based on 8/10ths of a space per bedroom. To
date, there have not been any problems with parking and it was felt that half a space per
bedroom would have been adequate. In addition, Rivers Edge has a communal space
in each building where residents could gather to watch TV, host an event or "get away''
from roommates. lt was noted that this concepl did not work well, as there were
problems monitoring the use of these rooms. From a property management perspective,
it would be befter to offer one large communal room that is located adjacent to the office.
Residents could reserve this space for events and pay a refundable deposit for its use.
Eagle Bendwas constructed in two phases with 294 units provided altogether. The
older phase is contemporary in design and has tuck-under and surface parking. There is
a tot lot, community room and one edge of the site borders the river. The last phase of
54 units was constructed in 1994 and these are located directly on Highway 24 fronting
the Eagle River. Of the 294. units, 70 are master-leased by Vail Resorts for seasonal
employees in the older portion of the project. The balance of the units are leased by
older persons who are either in the area year-round or are retuming seasonal workers,
Timber Ridge Village Apartments is a 19&unit complex located in Vail. This project
was built in 1980 and is well located within the Town of Vail on the north frontage road
across from Interstate 70 and west of Lion's Head. The site has a 20-year employee-
housing covenant that is set to expire in January 2002. At this time, the Town of Vail is
pursuing efforts to retain this project for employee housing.
The project consists entirely of twobedroom units. Most of the complex is master-
leased by area employers for housing employees. The units are 750 square feet in size
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Paoe 32 of 75
and the lease allows up to four persons per unit. Surface parking is provided and can
pose a problem at times, since most of the residents own a car. Although parking can
be problematic, most residents use local transit to go to work, for shopping and other
activities. Vail Resorts does offer satellite parking for its employees. The project
includes a clubhouse, sauna, hot tub, fitness center and on-site laundry. lt consistently
maintains occupancy between 98% to 100%.
River Run is a 1 17-unit complex that was built in 1 986 and is located in Eagle-Vail, one-
half mile west of the Minturn exit off Interstate 70. lt is privately owned and operated
without any employment or income restrictions. lt offers a mix of one- to threebedroom
units all with balconies. Residents tend to be younger workers living together as
roommates. Most of them work in the Vail and Avon area. They have recently instituted
a 12-month lease to reduce tumover.
The site includes a fitness center with locker rooms and showers; separate sauna,
clubhouse, outdoor Jacuzzi, sun decks, community laundry facility, lounge and video
library. A hook-up for a stackable washer/dryer is included in each of the units and
many residents purchase these appliances and have them installed. Surface parking is
provided and has not been a problem for this complex.
Eagle Villas is a 120-unit tax credit project that is located in Eagle and was built in 1995.
It provides twq and threebedroom units and consistently maintains occupancy at 95%
to 100%. The units are located in six buildings that are two and three stories. A
communig building, laundry room and playground are some of the amenities that are
offered.
The project uses a one-year lease and tends to attract families and couples who work
throughout the Eagle Valley.
Kayak Crossing is a SO-unit apartment community located between Eagle-Vail and
Dowd Junction. This project was developed under a 6320 non-profit corporation. lt
consists of four buildings that have a mix of twe, three-, four- and fivebedroom units.
Colorado Mountain Express owns half of the bedrooms in the project. These tend to be
lhe five-bedroom units. Only one person per bedroom is allowed at this project, which
attracts a mix of seasonal and longer-term residents. Among the seasonal workers,
there are some who are in the area for a season, whereas others retum year after year.
Surface parking is provided at this site. This project was fully leased within 30 days of
opening.
Out of the eight developments that were surveyed for this market study, six were
selecled for more in-depth review. The following sections review apartment size, rent
rates, rents per square foot and amenities offered in each of these complexes.
Apartment Size
The size of units in Eagle County varies depending upon the target population for the
project. For example, units at Rivers Edge/Tarnes are smaller than other apartment
projects in the area and are focused primarily on providing housing for seasonal
The Housing Colloboroiive, LLC.Paoe 33 of 75
workers. Other developments market primarily to year-round residenb, although
seasonal workers are also found in these properties. These factors are important to
consider when comparing the unit size proposed for Middle Creek Village. In this
project, the studios and one-bedroom units are targeted for year round residenls,
whereas it is anticipated that the two and threebedroom units will house seasonal
workers. The proposed unit types for Middle Creek Village include:
. Studios designed to be 364 square feet include an alcove that provides for
some separation between living and sleeping areas. These are significantly
larger than the studios found at Tames and Rivers Edge. The size and layout
of the studio is likely to be a desired feature among potential residents;
. One-bedroom un'rts will be 480 square feet. This is about 120 square feet larger
than the onebedroom units offered at River Edge/Tames and between 62 to
247 square feet smaller than other projects. Although smaller, the layout of the
unit will accommodate a variety of furniture arrangements.
r Twobedroom units are planned at 728 square feet. Among comparable units,
the sizes range from 551 (Rivers Edge/Tames) to 1,200 square feet at River
Run. Although small, the size and layout of this unit at Middle Creek Village can
accommodate a couple and roommate or several roommates. Because of this,
it is likely that this unit will attract both long term and seasonal workers.
r Three.bedroom units are intended to be 900 square feet. This includes one
large bedroom, with a walk-in closet and two smaller bedrooms. Two
bathrooms are proposed. The layout allows for separation of the living and
sleeping areas, which should enhance its appeal to seasonal workers who are
living as roommates. These units are larger than the seasonal housing offered
at Rivers Edge/Tames (690 square feet) and are slightly smaller than three
bedroom units offered at Kayak Crossing and Lake Creek.
The Housing Collaborofive, LLC.Poge34 of 75
Lake
Creek
Rivers
Edge/
Tarnes
Eagle
Bend
lGyak
Crossin
Timber
Ridge
River
Run
Eagle
Villas
Middle
Creek
Village
fotal Units 270 237 294 50 198 117 120 156
Studio 41 68
Square Feet 240-272 364
One Bedroom ?n 30 '100 39 't8
Square Feet EEN 325-365 5r''2-594 747 480
Iwo Bedroom 152 oo z 198 OU 48 26
Square Feet 860 551-629 740-880 828 750
975-
1.200 874 728
fhree Bedroon 88 22 20 21 19 68 44
Souare Feet 1000 690 1030 978-1325 1,300 1065 900
Four Bedroom 7t .l
Square Feet 802-949'1271 1,150
Unit Size
Rents
This section examines the rents by bedroom configuration and on a per square foot
basis.
. Of the studios proposed for Middle Creek Village, 64 will be financed using
LIHTC and would be leased for $693, exclusive of utilities. This equates to a
per square foot cost of $1.90. At Rivers Edge/Tarnes, rents include utilities and
are leasing for $2.08 per square foot to $2.39. Of greater consideration are the
studios that will be developed at the Village at Avon (see pending projects).
The studios in this development will be smaller at 310 square feel and have
rents proposed at $525 to $550 or $1 .69 to $1 .77 per square foot. The tax
credit units will be priced below those proposed for The Village at Avon on a per
square foot basis, but have a higher rent and will also offer a slightly larger unit.
. The rent of $733 proposed for the onebedroom units that would be dedicated
to tax credits fall on the low end of the rental range when compared to other
developments. In comparable projects, rents for one-bedrooms range from
$650 (Lake Creek) to $855 (River Run). On a per square foot basis, the rents
proposed at Middle Creek Village are higher than comparable properties, with
the exception of Rivers Edgeffames. At Middle Creek Village the rents on a
per square foot will run from $1.53 for the '14 tax credit units to $2.03 for the four
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 35 of 75
market rate rentials. The Village at Avon is proposing rents of $745 to $920 for
a 580 square foot, one-bedroom apartment or $1 .28 to $1.58 per square foot.
. The twobedroom units proposed for Middle Creek Village would rent for $1,350
or $1.85 per square foot. These are the highest rents of all comparable
properties; the next highest rent found in other projects was $1,295 (River Run).
The Village at Avon is proposing rents of $860 to $1,200 per month for an 835
square foot unit. This equates to rents of $1.03 to $1.44 per square foot.
. Middle Creek Village is proposing rents of $1,765 or $1.96 per square foot for a
900 square foot, threebedroom unit. This product is proposed for seasonal
workers and would be most comparable to the unib proposed at Rivers
Edgeffarnes. The proposed rent at Middle Greek Village is significantly higher
than Rivers Edge/Tames, which includes utilities in the rent. The Village at
Avon is proposing the development of 40, threebedroom units that would be
1,145 square feet and lease for $1,390 per month or $1.21 per square foot.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 36 of 75
Rents and Rent Per Square Foot
Lake
Creek
Rivers
Edge/Tarns*
Eagle
Bend*
Kayak
Crossing
Timber
Ridge
River
Run
Eagle
Villas
Middle
Greek
Villaoe
fotal Units 270 237 241 50 't 98 117 120 156
Studios 41 68
Rent $500 - $650
$693 -
$850
lenUSo.Ft.$2.08-$2.3e
$1,90 -
$2.33
one Bedroom 30 30 100 39 18
Rent
$650 -
$750 $820
$725 -
$790
$700 -
$855 $733 -$975
RenVSo.Ft.
$1.18 -
$1.36
$2.24 -
$2.52
$1.33 -
$1.34
$0.94 -
$1.14
$1.53 -
$2.03
Iwo Bedroom 152 66 z 198 60 48 26
?ent
suu>
coon
$35e
$70o
$905 -
$1,015 900 $1.050
$1,145 -
$1,29s $79s $1,350
RenUSq.Ft.
$1.03 -
$1.15 $1.12 -$1.27
$1.15 -
$1.22 $1.09 $1.40
$1.08 -
$1.17 $0.91 $1.8s
fhree Bedroon 88 22 20 21 19 68 44
Rent
$1,050 -
$1,150 $1,275
$1,100 -
$1,180 $1,325
$1,445 -
$1,495
$742 -
$895 $1.765
RenVSq.Ft.
$1.05 -
$1.1s $1.85
$1.07 -
$1.1s
$1.00 -
$1.26
$1.11 -
$1.15
$0.70 -
$0.84 $1.96
Two
our Bedroom 78 17 4
Rent $1,700 $1.590
$735 -
$800
RenVSq.Ft.$1.79 -$2.1 1 $1.25
$0.63 -
$0.69
Unit Mix
Among all the comparable properties, twobedrooms are the most prevalent (47%),
followed by three-bedroom units (22o/o). ln comparison, Mo/o o'f the units at Middle
Creek Village will be studios , with 12o/o found in one-bedroom units. Twobedrooms will
account for 17% ol the product type, with three-bedrooms at Middle Creek Village
constituting 28o/o oI the unit mix.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge37 ol 75
Bedroom Configuration of Comparable Properties
Four gedroom
9%
Three Bsdroom
22%
Two4B€droom
Middle Creek is heavily weighted toward studios and one-bedroom units, which is in
keeping with the desire to house year round residenb who are single adults and
couples. Ahhough there are a significant number of three-bedroom units in comparison
to other projects, there will not be any four-bedroom units.
Middle Creek Village - Proposed Bedroom Mix
Bedroom Number of
Configuration Units % of Units
44Yo
One Bedroom 18
Two Bedroom
Three Bedrotrn 28%
156 100%
Amenities
This section compares amenities proposed at Middle Creek Village to comparable
projects.
Amenities vary among projects. Most offer a community room, with Rivers Edge/Tarnes
having several community areas within each building. These are being altered, as it was
found to be difficult to provide oversight to these areas and often resulted in unwanted
guestrs sleeping on the premises, property damage and other misuse of the facilities. lt
was recommended that a community room be located close to the office and that
residents make arrangements and pay a deposit to use the room for parties or other
functions.
Amenities such as hot tubs were also sources of management headaches and, with the
exception of River Run had either not been built or were removed.
One B€droom
17Yo
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 38 of 75
Balconies and patios were found in all projects except for Timber Ridge and offered an
additional "room" for residents to use in the summer months. Playgrounds were located
on most projects. All developments provided additional storage, although Lake Creek
includes a garage where residents store items such as skis, kayaks and boxes.
All projects offered on-site management. Utilities are included in the rent at Rivers
Edge/Tarnes. At Lake Creek and Kayak Crossing residents pay an additional amount
for utilities that varies based on the size of the unit. Other developments include water,
sewer and trash in the rent, but not electricity or gas.
Most developments provide surface parking. lt was noted that not as much parking is
needed for seasonal employee housing. One project was built using .8 spaces per
bedroom and felt that it was 'over-parked" and that .5 space per bedroom would have
been adequate. In contrast, parking for year round employees should probably be
based on 1 .1 lo 1 .2 spaces per bedroom, depending upon the number of roommates
allowed in a space. Each person will have a car. For example, at Timber Ridge, one
space per unit is provided, although each resident usually anives with a car. Residents
must decide who uses the parking space and Vail Resorts provides satellite parking
outside of town. At Timber Ridge, most residents use public transit to go to work,
shopping and other errands, leaving the car parked in the lot most of the time. At Lake
Creek, one-car garages are provided for each resident for an additional $50 per month.
Residents must pay for the garage. At one point in time, residents used the garage for
storage and did not park their cars in them; however, management has required use of
the garage for its intended purpose. Garages will be rented for an additional $75 per
month at the Village at Avon.
Generally, the amenities proposed at Middle Creek Village are in keeping with
comparable projects, with the exception of patios and balconies.
The Housing Colloborative. LLC.Page 39 of 75
Amenities
Itttbcr
Rldsr Rlvcr Run
Clubhouse/Community Room x x x x x x
Hot Tub x
f,id.llrErglc GnctVlhr Mllroc
hk Rlvcn Eegh Krnt
Gnck Edgc' Brnf Grcrlng
Balcony/Patios x
Plqvgrquld
x $so/month
Covered Parking x -extra
Laundry Room X x x
Microwaves
Dishwashers/DisposalsXxxxxx
Central Air Conditioning , X
OnSite Management
Utilities lncluded
Water,
Sewer, Water,Yes Yes No Trash Sewer Water, Trash
Furnished Apartm€nts Yes Some Some Some
Source of heat Gas Gas Gas Electric Electric
Tenants pay
electric
Security Deposlts/Lease Terms
Security deposits for The Tames/Rivers Edge are $200 per employee. For other
projects, fees ranged from one-months rent, to a flat $1,000 (Mountain Glen) to a
variation depending upon the bedroom configuration.
The Housing Colloboraiive, LLC.Pqe4O ol 75
Deposits
Lake
Creek
KayakCrossing Eagle Bend
Mountain
Glen'
Eagle
Villas
1BR $ 925 $1,200 $1,000 1 month's rent
Lease terms are generally for one year, although seasonal employee housing uses a
six-month lease. Employee housing leases include a daily rate and there are no
penalties for breaking the lease. No leaseup incentives were noted among the property
managers interviewed.
Utilities
Most projects include water, sewer and trash pick-up as part of the rent. The following
projects charge a fee for utilities that includes water, sewer, trash, expanded cable, gas
and electric. Among projects that focus on seasonal workers, all of these utilities are
included in the basic rent.
Utility Fees
Lake
Creek
Kayak
Crossing
Eagle
Bend
1BR $1 10 $100
2BR $120 $110 $1 10
$130 $120 $120
4BR $ 130
5BR $140
Other Communities
This section includes project descriptions from developments located outside of Eagle
County. These include developments that are located in other resort communities as
well as in Leadville.
Breck Tenace is located in Breckenridge and consists of a total of 17 two and three
story open-ended apartment buildings located within one block of the Breckenridge
Recreation Center, four blocks of shopping and other amenities, and within two miles of
the ski area. This project has 302 units and was fully leased within 30 days of opening.
It is also convenient to resort, town, and county bus systems. The units range from
one', twe, and three-bedroom unils, where exactly one bedroom in each unit is a
"shared" room containing bunk beds. The complex offers a community clubhouse,
containing a full kitchen, games, book exchange/library, big screen television, and other
amenities. Additional storage is available for each unit on the top floor of each building.
One parking space is available for each bedroom on a first-come, first-serve basis and is
$1,7s0
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 4l of 75
generally plentiful. Private rooms are in the highest demand, along with 3-bedroom
units.
Breck Tenace only serves full-time employees of the Breckenridge Resort (30 hours per
week). Because housing in the complex is offered as part of an incentive to attract
resort workers for generally hard{o'fill positions, rent rates are set at lower-than-market
rates to make them affordable and attractive to potential employees. As a result, there is
very liftle tumover during the peak employment seasons (winter and summer). Leases
are on a day-today basis, which makes it convenient for seasonal employees.
Employees that do stay year-round and can commit to year-round leases are
encouraged to find housing elsewhere in the community to free up the needed seasonal
units.
1BR/1 BA 2 BRY1 BA 2 BRYz BA J BRZET
Square foot 554 713 798 937Rent Shared bedroom: $35O/person Private bedroom:
$4
enant Paid Utilities Phone
Secu administration fee
Tabor Grand qnsists of 37 units in the 1991 renovated historic Tabor Grand Hotel in
the center of downtown Leadville. The units are a mix of relatively spacious one- and
twobedroom units, including one studio apartment, with one permit parking space
available per unit. Free transportation is available for residents that work in the
neighboring resort communities (Vail, Frisco, etc.); however, only year-round leases are
offered, generally discouraging strictly seasonal workers. Applicants must meet inmme
qualification requirements, as all units are rent restricted based on HUD standards for
incomes at or below 60%,50o/o, and 4O% AMl. One-bedroom units tend to be in highest
demand, though other units are usually available provided the applicant meets the
incomequalificatlon requirements.
1 BR/1 BA 2 BR/1 BA 2 BR/2 BA
Marolt Ranch consists of 100 dormitorpstyle apartments with a front living-area, shared
bedroom (two twin beds), a private bath, two large closets, and a small kitchen (counter,
sink, microwave, small refrigerator). Each unit is designed to hold two tenants and may
house up to four people. The complex is owned and operated by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority and offers seasonal housing for full-time Pitkin County
employees (35 hours/week) from September 1"'through April 30rh and student housing
for the music school in the summer. Five units are available for year-round occupancy,
which contain a slightly larger kitchen (mini stove, larger fridge). Winter seasonal units
cable and other utilities included in
Studio
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 42 of 75
tend to fill up by mid-September, at which time a waiting list is available, although units
are rarely vacated before the end of the season in April.
Marolt Ranch is an auto-disincentive property, with only 50 parking spaces available for
over 200 occupants. Orrsite parking spaces are issued through a lottery system and
cost an extra $75 per month. Overflow parking is available at no charge, but is located
some distance from the complex. However, the town of Aspen is about a ten-minute
walk from Marolt Ranch and the local bus system serves the property at no cost to the
rider.
1 BR/1 BA
Tenant Paid Utilities Cable, phone
Security Deposit Req:First, last, deposit $2,120
Pinewood Village consists of eight two and threestory apartment buildings and
contains 74 units. This project is located in Breckenridge and offers a mix of one, two,
and three-bedroom units. One-fourth of the one and twebedroom units were
developed using Low Income Housing Tax Credits. This portion of the development is
set aside for tenants working within Summit County who have incomes at or below 50%
of the Area Median Income (AMl). The complex is located across the street from the
Justice Center and library and a half-block from City Market. Bus transportation is
available at the complex both to town and the ski area. Units typically fill up by the end
of August with winter residents and May or June with summer residents. Winter tumover
is basically non-existent and a 6 to 8 percent turnover rate is generally expected from
May through August. The longest waiting lists are for one-bedroom units. Year-round
leases are required. This project leased up with 60-days of opening.
Permit parking is available at a rate of one space per unit. A total of 55 single-car
garages are also available at a rate of $40 per month, which are in high demand and
consistently have a waiting list. Additional amenities that make the units particularly
attractive include a washer/dryer in each unit and very large walk-in closets that provide
abundant storage.
1 BR/l BA 2 BR/1 BA 2 BRY2 BA 3 BR/2 BA
Bedroom mix 28 38 8
Souare foot 660 800 860 1.000
Rent (market-rate cEA,r /o7^E\ caTo /e..,EE\ czo.., /orroE\ a{ ,,2tr
L"'iii ii "r,J"ir-]"irr
$56t 15765; $67e ($ess) $78e ($ees) $1'235
enant Paid Utilities Flat fee covers all but phone: $50 1-BR, $55 2-BR, $60 $BR
$720
Security Deposit Req: lz of renl
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 43 of 75
Big Billie's is an apartment complex that was completed in 1995 in Telluride and
contains 149 studio units. These are small ski in/ski out units located at the base of lifts
1 and 10 on the Telluride ski mountain in Mountain Village. Storage is limited and
kitchens consist of a microwave, a twobumer cook-top, and a small "dorm" refrigerator.
Cars are not imperative as the units are convenient to the transportation "Chondula" that
operates to and from the town of Telluride. Further, parking is limited, with only 30
spaces available for the '149 units.
Approximately 50% of the units are occupied year-round, with the remaining units
occupied by seasonal workers. Employees of Telluride Ski and Golf receive priority for
available units, though the only requirements that must be met for occupancy are that
individual yearly incomes may not exceed $27,000 and no more than one person may
occupy any one unit. Six-month leases are required through the winter months and
month-to-month leases are available in the summer months. .Units tend to fill up by
November for each winter season, whereas the complex rarely (if ever) reaches 100%
occupancy in the summer.
Pending Developments
Viltage at Avon
Corum is proposing the development of a 244-unit apartment complex that offers a mix
of one-, two and threebedroom units. This project will be located south of Interstate'7O
at the Avon exit. The development is proposed in two'phases;" however, the phases
correspond to the financing mechanisms that are proposed rather than the timing of
construction. Construction is expected to begin in the Spring 2002, with completion of
units 18 to 24 months later. This project expects to attract longer-term employees,
including couples, couples with children and unrelated roommates who meet the income
guidelines.
Phase One will consist of 176 units that are financed with a mmbination of Private
Activity Bonds and LIHTC. These will include:
. 44 studios with 310 square feet and a proposed rent of $608;. 44 one-bedroom units with 580 square feet and a proposed rent of $725; and,. 88 twobedroom units with a proposed rent of $860.
Phase Two will be financed using a 6320 approach and will be targeted to households
eaming 80% of the Area Median Income. These will include:
r 4 one.bedroom units for $675 per month with 580 square feet;
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 44 of 75
. 24 twlbedroom units with 845 square feet and rents of $1,200; and
' 40 three-bedroom units with '1 ,145 square feet that would rent for $1,390 per
month.
The following chart summarizes the rent mix and cost per square foot for the Village at
Avon:
tVillage at Avon - Tax Credit Units
Studios 1BR 2BR 3BR
Number
Size 310 835 145
$89G
$1,200$550 $1,390
$1.6e - $1.28 - $1.07 -
Rent Per Souare Foot $1 .77 $1.59 $1 .44 $1 .21
Garages will be provided for an additional $75 per month. The total number of garages
has not been finalized. The project will include laundry facilities on-site, a clubhouse and
additional storage.
Mountain Glen
This is a 72-unit apartment complex that is being developed by Eagle County and is
located in Gypsum. The site is cunently under construction; however, of the one
building that has been completed five units are occupied. Another seven units are pre-
leased. The project is expected to be complete in November of this year. The unit mix
and rents include:
Mountain Glen
28R 3BR
Number
Size 895 - 991 1062
40112484
580
$z+s -
$920Rent
1854
$1,160-
$1,235
$1,300-
$1,370
Rent Per Souare Foot
$1.22-
$1.29
A playground will be included on the site and the units will have individual washers and
dryers. There are no income requirements for this project; however, residents must be
full-time employees of Eagle County. Up to two persons per bedroom are allowed in this
development. Two covered parking spaces are provided for each unit. A 12-month
$1.25 -
$1.31
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 45 of 75
lease is preferred; rents increase by $50 per month for a six-month lease and $25 per
month for a nine-month lease.
In addition to the rental units proposed to the Village at Avon, the Town of Avon has
several affordable housing developments that are in the planning process or cunenfly
under construction. Most are targeted to households earning 80% or less of the AMl.
The typical size is a twobedroom unit and they are all mndominiums or townhome style
units. The unit size, mix and whether or not they will be rented or sold has not been
determined in all cases. For example, the balance of the units proposed at the Village at
Avon (256) may be for-sale or for-rent. According to the planner, the build out for the
Village is planned over a 20- to 2Syear timeframe, with some early employee housing
being required.
Planned Projects. Avon
For.Sale Rental
Project Number of Project Number of
Name Un'rts Name units
Brookside 3 Lakeside 3
Lodoe Terrace
Sheraton
Mountain
Vista
Village at
Aron
256 Village at 24
Lot 61
Total 296 316
In addition to the development proposed for the Town of Avon, several are pending in
other parts of Eagle County. The projects identified are primarily for-sale housing and
include:
Two Rivers - 400 units of mixed type affordable housing to be developed in the
Dotsero area. Of these, 100 would be condominiums, 280 manufactured
homes and 20 apartments above commercial space have been tentatively
planned;
Eagle Valley Health Center - 36 employee rental housing units to be developed
in Edwards; and,
Berry Creek 5'n - is a parcel of land that that may be jointly developed by Eagle
County, Town of Vail and the Eagle County School District. lt would offer a mix
of single-family homes, duplexes, lown homes and condominiums. This project
undetermined Avon
if theywillbe
for-sale
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 46 of 75
is in the planning discussion phase, with approximately 300 units being
considered for this site. Ground breaking is planned for summer 2002.
Tax Gredit Projects
There are twotax credit projects in Eagle County:
. Eagle V/Ias is a 120-unit tax credit project that is located in Eagle and was built
in 1995. lt provides two and three-bedroom units and consistently maintains
occupancy at 95% to 100%. The units are located in six buildings that are two
and three stories. A community building, laundry room and playground are
some of the amenities that are offered (see competitive projects for details).
. Holy Cross Village Apartmen6 has 60 rental units and is located in Gypsum.
Rental housing for households earning up to 60% of the AMI is offered.
One-bedrooms Two-bedrooms Three-bedrooms
Square Footage 700 890 1,033
Rent $642 $764 $880
The Housing Colloborotive. LLC.Poge47 of 75
VeclHcv Rlres ano AvERAGE Rrnrs
Vacancy Rates
The vacancy rate for Eagle County has varied from a low of 0.10lo to a high of 1 .8% since
1996. For the last five years, the vacancy rate has continued to be one of the lowest in
the state for each survey reporting time period. Vacancy rates do vary significantly when
one takes into consideration the target market. Rentral housing directed toward seasonal
workers tends to have very low vacancy rates during the winter season (less than 57o)
and may reach as high as 30% during the summer months. The lower vacancy rates
are attributed to rental developments that focus on year-round workers and/or those
developments that execute master leases with area employers.
Generally, when there is a vacancy rate below 5%, there is concem about the adeguacy
of supply of apartment units. lt is apparent that there is a serious shortage of multF
family rental units in Eagle County. With the exception of the summer months, when
seasonal worker housing is abundant and available for households who are not affiliated
with specific employers, locating year-round rental housing or an apartment during the
winter months may be impossible.
Average Multi-Family Vacancy Rates for Eagle County
3rd Qtr 1st Qtr 3rd Qtr 1st Qtr 3rd Qtr 1st Qtr 3rd Qtr lst Qtr 3rd Qtr lst Qtr96 97 97 98 98 99 99 00 00 01
Average Vacancy 1.7o/o 0.8% 1.8o/o 'l.2o/o 0.3% 0.1o/o O.4o/o 0.9Yo 0.4o/o 0.'l%
Source: Colorado Mufti-family Rent and Vacancy Swvey, Februaty 2001
Average Rents
Over the last three years, both average rents and rents by apartment type have sbadily
increased. Since the third quarter of '1996, average rents have increased by 25.5o/o.
There are some variations by quarter that are due to the sample size fluctuating. For the
first quarter of 1999, the sample included a slightly different makeup than the first quarter
of 2001 (for example, one group with 198 one-bedroom units did not report). As a result,
avemge rent decreased somewhat for the first quarter 1999.
Average Multi-Family Rents for Eagle County
3rd Cltr 1st Qtr 3rd Qtr lst Qtr 3rd Qtr 1st Qtr 3rd Qtr lst Qtr 3rd Qtr lst Qtr96 97 97 98 98 99 99 00 00 01
Rent $ 798 $ 886 $ 900 $ 901 $ 992 $ 948 $ 958 $ 989 $ 997 $1,000
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Pooe 48 ol 75
Average Rent by Bedroom Gonfiguration for Eagle County
3rd Qtr
98
3rd Qtr
96
'lst Qtr 3rd Qtr 1st Qtr97 S7 98
'l st Qtr 3rd Qtr 1st Qtr 3rd Qtr 1st Qtr99 99 00 00 01
$ 430 $ 488 $ 505 $ 516 $ 400 $ 563 $ s30 $ 540 $ 529
1BR $663 $645$717 $667 $8s9$714 $75s $780$813 $866
2BR/1BA $ 853 $ 937 $ 917 $ 918 $ 881 $ 927 $ 932 $ 9s $ 948 $ 972
2BRv2BA $ 920 $ 871 $1,024 $1,402 $1,204 $1,054 $1,065 $1,098 $1,015 $1,129
3BR $ 991 $1,004 $1,081 $1,082 $1,238 $1,172 $1,066 $1,200 $1,124 $ 920
Ave.Rent $798 $886$900 $901 $992$948 $9s8 $989$997 $1,000
Source: Colorado Multi-Family Rent and Vacancy Suvey, February 2001
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 49 of 75
DenllnoAruALYSrs
The demand analysis for this project has been completed in several steps. This includes
an analysis of the overall demand for rental housing, followed by the demand for the tax
credit units and market rate units. Within the demand analysis for tax credit units, an
analysis was completed for both households and individuals who are currently living in a
roommate situation. This was done to ascertain the potential market among roommates,
as most individuals and couples would prefer to live in their own apartment and not
share a unit with anyone else. The tax credit analysis focuses on year round residents
and does not include seasonal employees.
The demand analysis for market rate units considers the potential market among
residents whose incomes exceed the tax credit threshold and includes seasonal workers
as a subset of this group.
This analysis is based on the demand of current households and forecasted growth.
The groMh projections are based upon projections provided by the state; however, it is
likely that growth will not occur at the projected rates given the slowdown in the
economy. Traditionally, resort communities are the most volatile when there are
changing economic conditions.
Overall Market
Household Type
There are an estimated 5,499 renter households in Eagle County (36
% of total households). About 48% of renter households consist of couples (23.8%) and
couples with children (24.5yo). Unrelated roommates accounted for 21.1o/o of all
households; however, this number is probably low due to the under-representation of
renters overall and seasonal employees in the 1999 household survey.
Household Type - Renters
%ot
Adult living alone 17.7o/o 972
Single parent with children 6.8o/o 374
Couple 23.lYo 1,309
Couple with children 24.SYo 1,346
Unrelated roommates 21.1o/o 1,159
Family members and unrelated roommates 4.8% 262
Other 1.4Yo 75
Households
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 50 of 75
Age
Renters in Eagle County tend to be young. Over half are under the age ol34 (57oh).
Age of Renter Householders
Eaqle County Vail
#ofHH %ofHH #ofHH %ofHH
Renter occup'ed: 5,499 100% J,032 100%
15 to 24 vears 918 17o/o 2:6 21o/o
25 to 34 vears 2.221 4O"/o 473 46Yo
35 to 44 vears 1.220 22Yo 170 16Yo
45 to 54 vears 763 'l4o/o 101 lOYo
55 to 64 vears 233 4o/o 51 iYo
65 and older 'lM 3oh 21 1%
Source: 2000 Census
lncome
Renters have a significantly lower income that other households. The average
household income of renters in Eagle County was $51 ,538 in 1999, with a median of
$50,000. In comparison, the average household income for a// households was $85,889
and the median was $65,000. In 1999, the median household income from the
household survey for Eagle County was very close to the 1999 median family income
estimate of $64,300 provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
ln 1999, approximately 27To o'f renter households in Eagle County earned less than 60%
of the Area Median Income. Assuming that there were not substantial changes in
household income, it is estimated that27% of the 5,499 renter households (1,492
households) eam less than 60% of the AMI and would qualify them for some form of
housing assistance, including rental units produced using Low Income Housing Tax
Credits.
Estimates of the Number of Renter Households by Area Median lncome
o/o ol Estimated
Renter HH Number of HH
Under 30% AMI 8.67o 471
30 - 50o/o AMI 8.60h 471
50 - 600/o AMI 10.0%(qn
60 - 80% AMt 10.0Yo
80 - 10070 AMI 22.1Yo 1.217
100%+ AMI 40.70 2.238
Total 100.070 5,499
Ihe Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 5l ol 75
Population Growth
Assuming a 3% annual increase in population from 2000 to 2006 (42,547 to 49,324
people) and an average household size ol2.76, with renters accounting for 36% of all
households, the number of renlers in the area would grow to 6,528 by 2006. lf income
ranges were to stay constant, approximately 27% of these households would earn less
than 60% of the Area Median Income and would be eligible for uniG developed with tax
credib (1,775 households). Approximately 4,753 renters would eam above this level
and may seek out market rate housing.
Growth in Renter Households
olo ol
Percent AMI Renter HH Estlmated 2000 Estimated 2006
Under 30% AMI
30 - 50% AMI 471
50 - 60% AMt 10.00%
60 - 800/o AMt 10.00%
80 - 100% AMt 22.100/o 1,217 1,443
100%+ AMI 4O.70o/o 2,238 2,657
Total 100.00%5,499 6,528
Gommuters
About 14% of employees (4,193 people) commute from outside of Eagle County to work.
Of these, an estimated 55o/o are renters. Approximately 40% of all commuters live in
households composed of couples and about the same percentage live in households
composed of family members and unrelated roommates. The Eagle County Housing
Needs Assessment found that around half of the commuters would prefer to live in Eagle
County and that commuters tended to be employed in construction (27o/o) and
maintenance/housekeeping and service jobs (37%).
Approximately 40% of commuters are couples, family members living with roommates
and roommate households. These are the household types that are most likely to be
attracted to a rental housing development.
Assuming that 2,306 commuters are renters (55% of commuters) and applying the
overall average household size of 2.76 persons yields 836 households. lf half of these
households would prefer to live in Eagle Coun$, then an additional 418 renter
households could be included as part of the market for Middle Creek Village.
471
56't
The Housing Colloborofive, LLC.Poge52 of 75
Estimate of Commuter Households lnterested in Living in Eagle Gounty
Com m uters 4,193
Renters 2,306 (5570 rent)
Prefer Eagle County 1 ,153
Households
2.76 Ave HH418 Size
Turnover Rate
Turnover rates were estimated al40o/o and are based on information obtained from
property managers which indicate that an average of four to five units per month become
vac€rnt per project. In housing for seasonal employees, tumover rates are much higher
as six-month leases are used and at least half the units become vacant at the end of the
winter season. Turnover rates are used as the basis for calculating demand from
current residents; however, in a low vacancy rate, high cost environment it does not
adequately capture all the potential market. In a high cost environment, households do
not have the choice they might under other markets, making turnover rates unusually
low, This, in turn, may not adequately capture the demand for the proposed housing
and in a high vacancy rate environment, turnover rates may be higher and would
suggest greater demand exists than is actually the case simply because renters have
more choices.
Factors Used to Calculate Turnover Rates
Number of Projects 7
Total Uniis in Proiects 1,062
Average Turnover 4 per month, per project
Turnover - 15 Months 42O
Tumover Rate
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 53 of 75
Low lnconrte Housrnc Tnx G neor - D emero Ar.rAlysrs
Of the 156 units proposed for Middle Creek Village, 78 would be financed using Low
Inmme Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Of the 78 tax credit units, 64 would be studios
and 14 would be one-bedroom units.
This analysis is provided in accordance with CHFA guidelines as published for the 2001
allocation plan, as the 2002 guidelines have not been adopted. These findings are
probably conservative, as unrelated roommates and seasonal workers are likely to be
under-represented in the household survey. For example, the household survey data
indicates that 1,472 three-person households are families with children. Another 493
three-person households are unrelated roommates. Given the number of seasonal
workers who migrate to the area, there are probably more thre+person households
made up of unrelated roommates than reflected in the survey datia or demand
calculations. This is important as the information indicates sufficient demand for two
and three-bedroom units, however, the site design and interior unit design would be
different for families with children than seasonal workers.
Demand From Existing Households
Of the 5,499 renter households in Eagle County, an estimated 1 ,494 eam less than 60%
of the Area Median Income and thus would be eligible for units produced using Low
f ncome Housing Tax Credits. Of these households, 842 (560/o) consist of one- and two
person households. These are the household sizes most likely to live in studio and one-
bedroom apartmenb. lt is acknowledged that the LIHTC guidelines estimate one person
for a studio and 1.5 persons for a one-bedroom unit; however, in resort communities and
areas where vacancy rates have been consistently low, it is reasonable to expect that a
tweperson household will select a one-bedroom unit and possibly a studio, For this
reason, twlperson households were included in the demand for studios and one.
bedroom units. Shaded area denotes households eligible for tax credits.
Renter Households by Income
617o to 80%142 181 1t4 63 37 577
81% to 1007o AMI 369 215 169 314 150 1.217
TOTAL 924 825 575 518 446 3.288
tPHH 2PHH 3PHH 4PHH 5PHH Total
30% TO 50olo AMI
51% TO 60%
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 54 of 75
Employment
ft is estimated that there are 418 commuter households living as couples and with
roommates who may be interested in moving to Middle Creek Village. Approximately
47Yo ol commuters are employed in housekeeping/maintenance/restaurant and service
jobs, which typically pay lower wages. lt is estimated that about half of the commuter
households have income equal to or less than 60% of the Area Median Income, or that
209 commuter households who are interested in living in Eagle County and are
comprised of couples and those living with roommates would be eligible for units
produced using Low lncorne Housing Tax Credits.
Future Demand
According to ihe Colorado State Department of Local Affairs, State Demographers
Office, the population in Eagle County is expected to grow 3% per year from 2000 to
2006. This will increase the number of households to 1 8,1 34 in 1 996. Assuming that
36% of these households rent, results in an estimate of 6,528 total renters in 2006.
Currently, 27% of renters meet the LIHTC income guidelines. Applying this to new
renter households results in a total of 1,762 incomequalified renters in 2006. The
difference between the current households (1,494) and projected incomequalified
renters over the five-year period is 267 households or 53 new households annually.
Assuming 56% of these households consist of one and two persms results in 30 new
income and household size qualified persons annually.
Existing and Proposed Tax Gredit Projects
For this analysis, only existing and proposed studio and one-bedroom units were
selected, as these are the unit types that would compete with Middle Creek Village for
market share. Cunently, Holy Cross offers 10 one-bedroom units. The Village at Avon
is proposing 44 studios and 48 onebedroom units that would be priced as affordable
underthetaxcreditprogrcm. Thisisatotal of 'l02taxcreditunitsthatare,orwill be,
made available in Eagle County.
Capture Rate and Market Penetration Rate Analysis - Tax Credit Units
Using the information described in the previous sections, the capture rate for the studio
and one-bedroom units is projected to be 16.8% and market penetration would be
10.5o/o.
The Housing Collaborotive, LLC.Poge 55 ol 75
Tax Credit Units Capture and Market Penetration Analysis
Renters 5,499
Income Qualified 1,494
Household Size
Tumover Rate
Demand From Existing HH
Commuters
New HH
Total annual demand from new, existing and commuters 565
Existing Studio, 1 & 2 BR Tax Credit Units 10
Prooosed Tax Credit Units
Net Demand
Capture Rate and Market Penetration Calculations
Annual Demand 565
Existing and Proposed Units
Proposed for Middle Creek Village
Capture Rate 16.8o/.
Market Penetration 10.5%
lndividuals and Tax Gredit Units
Because of the high cost of housing in Eagle County, many two or more person
households consisl of unrelated roommates. Alternatively, estimated demand was also
considered among individuals. This information was obtained by further stratiiTing the
results from the 1999 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment.
In 1999, there were 2,240 individuals who were renters living alone, with family members
and roommates and in roommate households who had incomes that met the LIHTC
thresholds. This equates to roughly 57o of the population. Of these persons, 1,647 live
with roommates. Adding these persons (1,647) to adults living alone (325) equates to
the need for 1 ,972 beds. Another 267 individuals live with family members and
roommates. The latter are most likely to be couples living with one or two roommates.
Assuming two beds for each of these households equates to the need for 133 additional
beds. Adding this to the 1,972 individuals living as roommates and adults currently living
alone equates to 2,106 potential households/individuals who may seek to live in studio
and one-bedroom units.
These adults also constitute a potential market for two or more bedroom units, especially
those who are couples and currently living with roommates.
102
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 56 of 75
lndividuals in Households by Income
Adult Unrelated
roommates
Famlly members and
unrelatedroommates Other Sub-totalalone
30 - 60% AMI 1,&7 267 0 2,240
Gapture Rates and Market Penetration Analysis
The capture rates and market penetration computations for individuals were done using
the same information and methodology as performed on households. lt was assumed
that family members living with unrelated roommates equated lo a need to provide two
units to house these households; in other words, one unit might house a couple and one
an individual. Assuming a 3% increase in population yields an estimate of 24 new
income qualified individuals moving into the market area on an annual basis.
Using this approach, Middle Creek Village would capture 10.8% of the market and a
market penetration of 10.7% would have lo be achieved to fully occupy the units.
Capture Rates and Market Penetration for lndividuals
Unrelated Roommates 1.647
Adults Livinq Alone
Familv Members and Unrelated Roommates 1U
Total Demand 2.106
Turnover Rale
Demand From Existinq Individuals/Couples
New Persons
Total annual demandfrom ne@
Existing Studio, 1 & 2 BR Tax Credit Units 10
Proposed Tax Credit Units
Net Demand
Caoture Rate
Annual Demand
Existing and Proposed Units
Proposed for Middle Creek Village
Capture Rate 1O.8o/o
Market Penetration 10.7o/o
Estimate of Households Paying 307o to 40% ol Income for Rent
The following table indicates the rents, including utilities that are allowed under the
LIHTC program tor 2001 in comparison to the rents proposed for Middle Creek Village.
Rents indicated for Middle Creek Village do not include the utility allowance.
325
102
78
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge57 of 75
2001 Allowable Rents - LIHTC
LIHTC Program Middle Creek Vlllase
1BR lBR
$ 370 $ 396
$ 617 $ 061
Source: CHFA
There are about 842 one and twlpersdn households who eam 60% or less of the Area
Median Income and would be eligible for units provided with Lorrrt lncome Housing Tax
Credits. The next chart compares rents that are afiordable to households eaming 307o,
50% and 607o of the Area Median Income. Households eaming 30% of the AMI would
pay 50o/o or more of their income for this product and would likely need other forms of
housing assistance. This equates to 270 households.
One-person households earning 50% of the AMI would pay 34o/o to 35% of their
income for a studio or one-bedroom unit in this project (69 households). Of the
twoperson households (180) eaming 50% of the AMl, roughly 30o/o of gross
monthly income would be devoted to this product.
One-person households eaming 60% of the AMI would pay 28o/o to 30% of their
gross monthly income forthe unlts, (212 households) and tweperson
households would pay 25% to 260/o for this product (1 1 t households).
ffit'3.?ffiffiiiBa"ffiffiffiffiffifrffi
SWKKKKryry-wry@ry#$ffiffiffiffiffiiffiffiffiffi
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page58 of 75
Manxer Rare Uurrs- DeuaruoANALysrs
Of the 156 units proposed for Middle Creek Village, 78 will fall under tax credit
requirements and 78 will be market-rate units. The two and three-bedroom market-rate
units are expected to draw from both seasonal workers and year round residents.
Unit Tagets - Middle Creek Village
Number Bedroom Finance Market Tax
of Units Gonfiguration Program Gredit
U Studio LIHTC-
60% ofAMI 64
4 3U Market 4
14 1BRY1BA LIHTC_
60% of
AMI
4 1BRY1BA Market 4
26 2BFYIBA Market 26
44 3BR/2BA Market 44
Total 156 78 78
In 2000 there were 5,499 renters households. Assuming a 3% annual increase in
population from 2000 to 2006 (42,U7 lo 49,324 people) and an average household size
of 2.76, with renters accounting for 36% of all households, the number of renters in the
area would grow to 6,528 by 2006. Excluding the current estimate of 1,494low income
tax credit qualified renters from the cunent estimated total renter households of 5,499,
results in a cunent estimate of 4,005 renter households who might seek out the market
rate units. In addition, it was estimated that 209 of the 418 commuter households who
rent and would prefer to live in Eagle County also have incomes that would allow them to
quafiff for the market rate portion of this prolect. This equates to 4,157 households with
incomes above the tax credit threshold. Generally, the estimate of demand for the
market rate units is likely to be conservative as it does not take into consideration
seasonal employees who come into the area for part of the year and who would also
seek rental housing in Vail. Seasonal employees are considered as a separate sub-
market for this development (see Demand Estimates - Seasonal Employees).
In performing the capture rate and market penetration analysis, units that have been
developed or are proposed for employees in the market area were used. These include
the comparable projects (exclusive of Eagle Villas and the tax credit units proposed for
the Village at Avon) as well as the 72 units proposed for the Village at Avon to be
financed using the 6320 program, 72 units at Mountain Glen, 72 additional rental units
planned in Avon and 20 rentals proposed for a project in Dotsero.
14
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page59 of 75
Comparable Existing and Planned Projects
P roj ect Units
Comparable Projects
Various in Avon
Mountain Glen
Mllage at Avon
Eagle Valley Health Clinic 36
Total Units 1,210
Market Rate Units Capture and Market Penetration Rates
Using the factors mentioned in the previous sections, the capture rate for the market rate
units is estimated to be 13.8% and a market penetration rale of 24.2 would need to be
achieved to fully occupy the units.
Market Rate Units Capture and Penetration Rate
Renters
LIHTC- Income Qualified (1,494)
Over lncome 4.005
Turnover Rate 1,522
Demand From Existinq HH 1,522
Commuters wilh incomes above LIHTC threshold
New Households
Total annual demand from new, existing and commuters 1 ,777
Capture Rate
Annual Demand 1.777
Existing and Proposed Units 942
Proposed Units
Total Existing and Proposed 1,210
Proposed for Middle Creek Village
Caoture Rate 13.87o
Market Penetralion 24.2Yo
Seasonal Employees
Seasonal employees are considered a sub-market for Middle Creek Village. This project
is expected to draw heavily from seasonal employees to occupy two and three-bedroom
units. The proposed rents reflect this, as pricing assumes an amount paid per bedroom
as opposed to an overall unit cost that a family would have to consider paying to live in
the area.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 60 of 75
f t is estimated 2,245 to 2,830 individuals, the majority of which are currently not housed
in the Town of Vail, come into the valley each year for work. Using the average
household size for renters of 2.54 and applying it the mid-point of individuals coming to
the area to work (2,538) yields an equivalent 999 renter households or the need for
2,538 beds, assuming all seasonal workers would have their own bedroom. A majority
of these renters, and their need for housing, are likely to be in addition b the 5,499
renter households identified in the 2000 Census. Anecdotal information ftom Vail
employers confirms this number, as they generally describe a need for an additional
2000 beds to house seasonal workers each year.
All rental projects in Eagle Valley offer housing to both seasonal and year-round
workers, although some developments target seasonal workers. Of the comparable
projects, Rivers Edge/Tarnes, Kayak Crossing, Eagle Bend and Timber Ridge house a
majority of seasonal workers.
Information from the employer survey conducted as part of the 1999 Eagle County
Housing Needs Assessment was used to estimate demand for seasonal employee
housing. Employers reported providing housing lor 1,372 employees. Not all employer
assisted housing is devoted to housing seasonal workers and it is likely that there are a
greater number of employees who receive assistance than was reflected in the survey.
Although there are probably more beds available to house seasonal workers, lhe 1,372
employees who receive housing assistance is likely to be a close estimate of seasonal
worker beds that are available in the area.
Demand Estimate
The demand for seasonal worker housing was computed differently than for tax credit
units or market-rate housing. By its nature, 100% of seasonal worker housing is subject
to turnover during a lFmonth pedod. CHFA guidelines require using the turnover rate
to form the basis for computing a capture rate and market penetration, which would not
adequately capture the net demand estimate. Instead, demand was computed using the
estimated number of seasonal workers coming into the Vail Valley and subtracting an
estimate for housing that is available for seasonal workers. The estimate for the number
of employees who receive housing assistance through employers is likely to be high, as
it is unlikely that all 1,372 employees who receive housing assistance are seasonal
workers. On the other hand, there may be more housing provided for seasonal workers
than was captured through this study.
lf it were assumed that employers provided housing for 1,37lseasonal workers, and
that the number of seasonal workers in the area were 2,538, then there would be a net
demand for seasonal worker housing of 1 ,1 66 beds or 459 units, (assuming 2.54
persons per rental unit).
Using this methodology, Middle Creek Village would have to capture 15.8% of the net
demand to fill the two and threebedroom units with seasonal workers (equivalent to
184 beds and assumes one occupant per bedroom). Market penetration for all'seasonal
housing would be at53.2%.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 6L of 75
Capturr and Penetratlon Rates - Seasonal Wolker Houslng
Ssasonal Worfter3
Seasonal Workers -Anlual Estlmate 2,538
Existing Beds .1,372
Net Demand 1,166
Middle Creek Villas€ 1&4
Caphlre Rab 15.8%
Penotradon Rat€
Pogc 62 of 75The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.
Cottctuslotts
Overview
The proposal for Middle Creek Village includes units to be developed under the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit guidelines as well as providing market rate housing primarily
targeted to seasonal employees. Middle Creek Village is proposing to house year-round
residents, who meet the LIHTC guidelines in the studio and one-bedroom units, with a
small portion made available at market. Seasonal workers would be the primary target
for the two and three-bedroom units, although it is anticipated thal year-round residents
may also seek out these units. For the purposes of this review, "seasonal workers" are
those who come to the area to work one or two seasons and then leave. They may
return to the area to work each season, but are not in the community year-round.
Longer-term residents are those who live in the area year round. These residents may
hold jobs that are seasonal in nature; however, they live in the area year round.
Anecdotal information provided by area employers indicates that many of their "seasonal
employees" are, in fact, year-round residents of Eagle County. One large employer
indicated that year-round residents meet about half of their seasonal employment needs.
It appears that there is sufficient demand for studio and on+bedroom units when cunent
unrblated roommates are broken into individuals and combined with adults living alone.
All property managers indicated a high demand for studio and one-bedroom units; at a
minimum, unrelated roommates and families with unrelated roommates wanted a
separate bedroom if they had to share an apartment.
On a per bedroom basis, twobedroom units would rent for $675 per room, which is
slightly below the renl proposed for the studios to be offered as tax credit units ($693)
and about $60 below the rate proposed for the onebedroom units. The small difference
in price may make studio and one-bedrooms more attractive to incomeeligible
households who desire their own apartment. For the market-rate units, the price
difierence would be higher ($175 when a studio is compared to a single bedroom in a
twqbedroom unit); however, the demand appears to be sufficient to fill this product,
particularly since eight (8) studios and one-bedrooms are offered at a "market rate" rent.
Consideration was also given to the number of persons in a household by the number of
bedrooms in the unit in which they lived. A majority of twoperson households (587o) live
in twebedroom units. About half of four-person households lived in three-bedroom
units, with 68% of five-person households living in three-bedroom units. This information
documents the sharing of bedrooms among larger sized households and indicates that
the proposed unit mix is appropriate for the market.
The Housing Collobonotive, LLC.Poge 63 of 75
BedroomConfiguration by Number of Persons in Household
One Two Three Four Flve
Person Persons Persons Persone Persons
One Bedroom NYo 19% 5o/o
Two Bedrooms 20% 5906 52% 33% 17%
Three Bedrooms 21% 38% 50% 67%
Four Bedrooms 2Vo SYo 17Yo 17oA
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
sourc€: tlousenoio JlNey
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Pqe64 of 75
RecoruueNoATtoNS
This section of the report combines the requirements described in the CHFA Market
Study Guidelines for Recommendations and Conclusions. lt includes an evaluation of
the developer's proposal as well as the opinions of the market analyst about the rent
struclure.
'1. Product Mix
The product mix proposed for Middle Creek Village is appropriate given the target
markets to be served. As proposed, this project would consist of stacked flats in
several different buildings (final arrangement has yet to be determined). Stacked
flats are suitable for this product type and location. Special consideration needs to
be given to separating the studios and onebedroom units that are designated for
year round residents from seasonal workers (two and three-bedroom units). ldeally,
these would be in separate buildings, although it may be accommodated on different
floors within a building. One property manager noted that they let people know that
one building is "quiet" and has a low tolerance for noise, whereas another building
may be more tolerant of noise. A similar management tactic is recommended for this
project.
Middle Creek Village will have 44o/o of its units devoted to studios, with 12o/o found in
one-bedroom units and 17% consisting of twebedrooms. Three-bedroom units will
make up 28% of the unit mix. Comparable projects devote more toward twe
bedrooms (47%) and very little to one-bedrooms and studios (22o/o combined). This
generally reflects a market where a large number of individuals live as roommates to
attain housing that is more affordable. Given that there are 1,347 persons living as
unrelated roommates and another 267 who live as family members and unrelated
roommates, it appears that the introduction of studios and one-bedroom units will
meet a penfup demand for small, affordable units that could accommodate an
individual or couple. Property managers interviewed for this study confirmed that the
greatest demand was for studios and one-bedroom units.
Although studio and one-bedroom units are desirable, twobedroom units offer the
greatest flexibility in attracting couples desiring to live alone or with a roommate and
two unrelated roommates. Given that there is.a fair number of twobedroom units in
the area (47o/o ol comparable projects), it is appropriate that Middle Creek Village
would only devote 17% of its product to this unit type.
The three-bedroom units are clearly targeted toward seasonal workers and make up
28o/o of the bedroom configuration. Given that there are approximately 2,500
seasonal employees who move into the area to work during the high season and
only 31% of existing product consists of three and four-bedroom units, it seems
appropriate to include seasonal worker housing in this development.
. As proposed, the unit design will accommodate @uples and roommates.
In each of the two and three-bedroom unils, one bedroom is larger and
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 65 of 75
includes a walk-in closet, making it suitable for a couple or two persons to
share. The remaining bedroorns are smaller, making them appropriate
for one person. ln addition, the unit design is flexible enough to
accommodate families with children, which should enhance marketability
in the summer and shoulder seasons. As noted for other seasonal renter
housing, families often moved into these units during these times.
Optimum Rents, Security Deposits and Lease Terms
It is not known at this time what the security deposit requirements would be for
Middle Creek Village. Among the comparable properties, security deposits ranged
from $200 per employee (Tarnes/Rivers Edge) to about 1.5 times the base rent
(Lake Creek Village Apartments). Projects that allowed pets required a pet deposit
and increased the rent for the pet. No pets will be allowed at Middle Creek Village.
. Although the proposed rents for Middle Creek Village are higher than
found among comparable and proposed projects, they are within the
allowable levels for households eaming 60% of the AMI for the tax credit
product. Most comparable product is located down valley, which has
lower overall housing prices and may not offer a fair comparison to rents
in Vail. As there has not been any affordable rental housing introduced
into Vail that has not been affiliated with an employer, the rents proposed
for this development are considered lo be optimal for the area. Vail is the
primary employment center and is aftractive to many because of a
reduction in commuting time and distance. In addition, Vail is often noted
as a place where more renters would prefer to live.
Considention should be given to providing some variation in rents, depending upon
the location of the unit. For example, top floor units would have better views and no
one living "over them" and could command a slightly higher rent. Ground floor units
may have patio space or easy access to the outdoors, which would also allow tor a
vaiance in rent. lt is recommended that, while pices may vaty, the overall average
should not exceed that proposed forthis development.
. Middle Creek Village is proposing to use a six-month lease. This lease
term will make it attractive and mmpetitive with other seasonal housing
product; however, it may increase turnover and vacancy rates as a result.
Consideration should be given to using a 12-month lease for those units
designed for longer-term residents. A six-month lease would be
appropriate for seasonal workers.
. A securiV deposit equivalent to $200 per resident would be in keeping
with other seasonal worker housing projects. Property managers also
report offering a payment plan to cover the security deposit, which could
include a weekly or bFweekly fee that is paid until the full deposit is made.
A security deposit equivalent to ',|.5 times the monthly rent for longer{erm
residents would be consistent with other practices in the area.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Pooe 66 of 75
. With lhe exception of seasonal worker housing developments, no move-in
specials were required lo leaseup units. For seasonal workers,
incentives included offering units solely to those employed by the
companies that owned and/or master-leased the propefi, allowing for a
six-month lease that included a daily rate and no penalties for breaking
the lease and a modest security deposit. lt may be necessary to offer
similar incentives to these workers.
3. The demand for studio and one-bedroom units in Eagle County relies on the number
of individuals/couples currently living with roommates who may be willing to pay
more to live in their own apartment. The choice people make to live with roommates
is influenced by several factors:
. Age and length of time in the area. Younger residents are more willing to
share a bedroom, particularly if they are new to the area. Retuming
seasonal workers and year round employees who have been in the area
would prefer their own apartment and are willing to share a unit if they
can have their own bedroom:
. Cost. Sharing a space is usually less expensive than renting an
apartment alone. In the Eagle Valley the average rent for a studio was
$529 (first quarter 2001) and a one bedroom was $866. In comparison, a
twobedroom, twqbath unit had an average rent of $1 ,1 29 or $564.
When comparing the costs, a studio would be appealing, as the rent is
not significantly different from sharing a room, but a one-bedroom unit is
likely to appeal to higher income, more mature households.
. Location. Proximity to work and not having to drive is a consideration,
particularly for those who commute into Vail to work. Parking is at a
premium in Vail and employees often have to pay for parking if they drive
into town. Having a unit in the community, that includes parking for
instances when a vehicle is needed for shopping or to leave the area, is
likely to be a consideration when selecting a unit. The fact that there will
be a transit stop at Middle Creek Village will enhance the location further.
It is estimated lhat Middle Creek Village will have to capture 19% of existing households,
commuters and new households. In comparison, this project would only have to capture
10.8o/o of incomequalified households. Clearly, the project will attain more success if it
is able to attract individuals cunently living as roommates to this development.
Marketing efforts need to be directed primarily to these individuals.
The tax credit units are priced so that households at 60% of the AMI could afford them
and not exceed 30% of monthly income for rent. One-person households earning 507o
of the AMI would have lo pay 34% of their income for a studio and 36% of the monthly
income for a one-bedroom. Households below 50% of the AMI would exceed 4Oo/o of
their income for a housing payment and would likely need other forms of assistance. To
be competitive and attract income qualified renters, pricing needs to be held to a
maximum of that which is currently proposed.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page67 of 75
4.Estimated Absorption
Most of the developments in Eagle Valley were built several years ago and
absorption rates would not be applicable. In Breckenridge, Pinewood Village
provides 74 units that include a mix of year-round and seasonal housing. This
project was fully leased within 60 days of opening in 1997. Breck Terrace, also in
Breckenridge, was opening in November 2000 with 302 units; it was fully leased
within 30 days of opening. Kayak Crossing was completed in September 1999 and
was fully leased upon competion. Breck Tenace and Kayak Crossing are both
employee a$sisted housing developments, where it was likely that employees had
been notified and pre-selected for occupying the units (50 units). Regardless, this
indicates that there was a very high demand for this project. Cunently, Mountain
Glen (located in Gypsum) is under construction and has five units occupied in the
one building that is complete with an additional seven units pre-leased. The project
is expected to be complete in November 2001. Delays in construction have affected
occupanry rates.
It is important to note that one factor that could affect the leaseup of Middle Creek
Village is whether or not it is available al the same time, or close to, the opening of
The Village at Avon. Taking all of these factors into consideration, it is reasonable to
assume that Middle Creek Village could lease an average of 15 units per month and
achieve full occupancy within a ten-month period.
Amenities
Following are suggested amenities and considerations the overall project based on
the target market(s):
Seasonal Emolovee Housinq
. The more successful seasonal worker housing provides for private
bedrooms, with shared living areas or common space. While the
bedrooms may be fairly small, they need to be large enough to
accommodate a bed and other fumishings and have a lockable door.
Many of these types of units have furniture that has been 'bgilt-in."
The common areas generally include a living room, dining area and
kitchen. These rooms need to be large enough to accommodate the
number of people sharing the unit. These employees do not make a
large sum of money and cook at home more frequently than others. They
also tend to entertain others within the unit, but do not need a dining area.
As proposed, the unit layouts of the two and three-bedroom units
address these needs. In addition, one of the bedrooms in larger units
includes a walk-in closet and is larger, which may accommodate couples
sharing a unit with one other person. Furthermore, the inclusion of two
bathrooms in a three-bedroom unit make this unit type more desirable
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 68 of 75
than other three and four-bedroom units provided for seasonal
employees where one bathroom is offered.
. Anecdotal information about "seasonal employees" indicates that they
would prefer to live in a unit with a separate bedroom and shared
common area over a "dormitory-style" environment or even a very small
studio apartment. Units of two to three bedrooms are the most
appropriate for these groups. While the size may be fairly small, the
organization of the interior space needs to be done in a way that
maximizes an "open feeling." This includes using flexible common space
and designing kitchen areas so that they are open to the rest of the unit,
but still have a defined kitchen space. Again, the proposed unit plans
accommodate this desire.
. Many seasonal workers do not bring cars; therefore a reduction in parking
is appropriate and desirable. Although this is the case, care must be
given to parking demands generated by uses during "off-season.' For
example, a sports camp where kids/teens use the seasonal units may
create similar parking demand to winter workers; construction workers, on
the other hand, would likely create higher demand for parking.
. Suffcient interior and exterior storage that will hold clothing, skis, bikes,
kayaks and other goods will be needed. The inclusion of the outdoor
storage locker that is adjacent to the entryway of the unit addresses this
need.
. Access to public transportation and pedestrian links to services will also
be important. Including a bus stop for the Town of Vail service will be
imperative.
. Hot water heaters should be adequate to provide heated water for
bathing, washing dishes and clothing.
o Laundry rooms on site have been planned and are appropriate.
Year-Round Residents
. Based on the results ofthe focus groups, many ofthe year round
residents living in rental housing are likely to be unrelated roommates or
couples without children. These households would prefer to live in Val.
r Year-round residents would like units that are "well designed with an
emphasis on sound insulation." They would also prefer to have seasonal
employee housing located within an enclave, rather than distributed
throughout housing that they might lease. This suggests that if both
groups are to be housed at Middle Creek Village, the buildings should be
separated and may have different design features.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge 69 ol 75
. Balconies or patio areas will be important for longer-term renters, but not
as important for seasonal employees. This amenity is ofiered in other
developments, with the exception of Timber Ridge.
. There will need to be sufftcient parking for year-round residents. lt is
more likely that there will be one car per resident for year-round residents,
and this segment would be especially concerned if seasonal worker
parking is not adequate. Covered parking that is offered for an additional
fee would be acceptable. The preference would be for garages; other
projects charge $50 to $75 for a garage.
. This group is willing to live with roommates. The focus group found that
no more than two roommates (a total of three people) are desired. This
suggests that the twobedroom units may accommodate year round
residents who consist of a couple and one roommate, or three
roommates. One-bedroom units are also desired by this segment.
Regardless of the bedroom mix, it will be important to have a unit that is
of sufficient size to accommodate a variety of furniture placements and
types of fumiture. Smaller units are likely to be more acceptiable in Vail
than downvalley locations.
. This group is more likely to want in-unit washers and dryers, or at least a
washer/dryer hook-up.
Both Groups
Regardless of the target populations to be housed at Middle Creek Village,
the following need to be considered:
r Sufficient interior and exterior storage that will hold clothing, skis, bikes,
kayaks and other goods will be needed.
. Good sound insulation.
. Information gleaned from the focus groups indicates that residents would
prefer lo have some services on site. These include things such as on-
site laundry, computer rooms for Inlemet access, gymfuo* out area and
a community room that could be used for larger parties. ldeally, the
community room would include a "heat-up' kitchen with a microwave,
water service and coffeeltea service. Property managers indicate that
while these amenities are desirable and would enhance the livability of
the unit, access to common facilities, such as a community room,
gym/work-out area and computers must be closely monitored. lt was
suggested that community rooms be placed adjacent to the management
office and that a deposit be required of residents for use of the facility to
assure that it is returned clean and free of damage.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge7i of 75
6. Utilities - There is a variation in how utilities are handled among comparable
projects. They are generally included in the rent for seasonal employees to avoid
conflicts among roommates about how much to pay. This includes water, sewer,
electric, gas and cable services. Other developments charge a flat fee, in addition to
the base rent, for comparable utilities, also to avoid potential conflicts. The fee
adjusts based on the number of bedrooms. Other developments only include water,
sewer and trash in the rent. lt is recommended that a utility fee be added to the base
rent to avoid conflicts among roommates and minimize the amount of deposits a
renter may have to pay at the time a lease is signed.
7. Gas is the recommended source of fuel. as il is more economical.
8. Timing - it is important to recognize that The Village at Avon is proposing to
construct 244 rental units in Avon during the same time period that is proposed for
Middle Creek Village. Although the location of Middle Creek Village is more
desirable than that proposed for the Village at Avon, this project is proposing larger
units, of a comparable unit mix, for a lesser rent. Although the market appears to be
strong at this time, the recent slowing of the economy may have an adverse affect on
both projects if they are introduced into the market at the same time.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.PogeTL of 75
ArracnueHrs
Summary of Focus Groups
On April 2,2OO1 Chris Cares of RRC Associates, lnc. moderated two focus groups for
the Town of Vail. These groups were designed to address issues related to affordable
housing in the Town, particularly as experienced by cunent renters. Participants in the
groups were recruited by the Town of Vail (TOV) staff; sessions were held at the Library
and at the lnn at West Vail..
Prior to the start of each group participants were asked to complete a brief Background
Survey designed to provide some additional information to augment that obtained
through the focus groups. A summary of the results of this survey is provided in the
attachment to this report.
This short report provides a brief overview of findings from the groups, along with a
summary of notes taken at the session by Nina Timm, a member of the Community
Development Department staff. Participants were told that their comments would be
summarized in a format that did not directly attribute comments to an individual. Further,
the participants were identified by first name only. Therefore, the notes list comments
but they do not contain references to the names of speakers.
. The focus groups were designed to build on focus groups conducted over the past
several years that have been held with seasonal residents. The makeup of
participants in each of the April groups was similar. Surprisingly, the groups were
not well attended by true 'seasonal" workers although this segment was targeted in
the recruiting. The problem was that, with the exception of one participant, seasonal
workers chose notto attend the sessions. The groupthat atlended these sessions,
which included primarily residents that have been in Vail between one and three
years, represent another extremely important segment of the Vail community in need
of housing assistance.
. Based on the short survey conducted in advance ofthe sessions, all participants feel
that affordable housing is a problem. In fact, interestingly, the groups felt strongly
that they alono with seasonal residents should be receiving attention from the Town
in efforts to create affordable housing. As several pointed out, 1ffe represent an
important segment of the community both in terms of our interest in the community
and the types of service we provide, year-round."
. In general participants were young (between the ages of 25 and 35) renters. Most
lived with unmarried roomates although a few participants were manied. A majorig
of participants live in the Town and all worked at least one job in the Town. Many of
the participants work more than one job and most have worked multiple jobs in the
past.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge72 of 75
While describing their household, participants were asked about pets. Several
participants have pets and most want pets but indicate that they are "not allowed."
There is an interplay between having pets and finding afiordable housing that is
frequently a part of the housing decision process for residents, especially those that
have been in Vail between one and five years. While it is obviously difficult to create
affordable housing that allows pets, it is important to understand that many residents
want pets - it is an important part of quality of life as perceived by this segment of
the work force. lt is also one of he perceived benefits of moving down Valley to less
expensive but also less restricted housing.
Many members of these groups would like to own in the future but in the near term
they are looking for rental housing that has some of the attributes of owned housing.
Some participants find it acceptable to live downValley (ahhough not beyond
Edwards), but most really want to live in Vail. "Vail has the night life and the fun. Vail
is why I am here."
The groups felt that access to transportation is an important part of the housing
location decision process. The Vail bus system is good and it makes it possible to
live and work without a car, or without daily use of a car. The groups felt strongly
that housing should be located on the transportation system. They felt that the
Mounlain Bell site is a good site in relation to the bus system, but that it would take
some work to be pedestrian friendly. They felt that it is important to pay careful
attention to pedestrian planning, especially if the site is to serve seasonal workers.
The groups felt that they are paying excessive amounts of their income for housing -
in some cases as much as 50 percent. They frequently compare the costs to what
they experience in other metropolitan areas and are keenly aware of the sacrifice
that they believe they are making to be in Vail. They balance the quality of their life
in Vail against opportunities to move to other locations (often urban) where salaries
would be higher and/or housing less expensive.
The groups were generally not very aware of efforts by the Town and others to
create affordable housing. Some were aware of Vail Commons and were very
positive about the design and function of these units. The current program of deed
restrictions applied to TOV affordable housing was discussed. In general, the group
felt that deed restrictions are important and necessary although several said deed
restrictions would enter into their housing purchase decision. Their concem was to
have enough value accumulating in their home to allow them to move to another
property in the Vail area as they outgrow their initial home. This lead to the
suggestion that affordable housing in Vail should include a variety of housing types
that are appropriate to households' changing needs over time.
Participants felt that'seasonal housing" does not work in the long term for residents.
They wanted to see some "transitional" rental units created that are designed for the
special needs of the segment that are in Vail from one to five years, or some of the
international staff that retum each year, but are also gone for a part of the year.
ldeally these units would be "Well designed with emphasis on sound insulation.
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Poge73 ol 75
They would anticipate the desire to not party all the time, and be located so that the
seasonal work force is concentrated in enclaves."
Focus group participants felt that seasonal and longer-term rental units should
contain a mixfure of floor plans, not all one type of plan. An example of these
differing opinions about unit layouts was evident around the discussion of both
kitchens in units, and roommates. Some felt that kitchens are very important
because this is where interaction takes place - others felt that they could be
minimized because many workers have access to food services on-mountain or at
restaurants. Similarly, some wanted roommates and were willing to share a
bedroom but most preferred a unit design that minimized this occunence.
In general, the groups felt that there are different types of needs by different types of
workers. They pointed out that a segment of seasonal workers arrive with little more
than a suitcase and skis, but others arrive for a single season with a car fully loaded.
For many of these workers, cost is the most important issue and the focus group
participants supported units designed for low cost housing by seasonal residents.
But they felt that good design and sound insulation are extremely important in
designing for any segment. Based on the opinions expressed at the focus groups,
each of these segments represent an important part of the work force and both
should be designed for. Several felt that the dormitorptype approach for seasonal
workers should be a part of the program, but there was some feeling that this type
housing would be better located closer to the mountain than the Mountain Bell site
(Sunbird redeveloped was suggested).
Most participants felt that longer term rental housing could be effectively integrated
with seasonal worker oriented housing and that this type of "integrated community
design'should be pursued. They envisioned a "neighborhood" with a mixture of
people. As a part of the design for seasonally and longer term residents they
mentioned recreation facilities (such as a minimal work out facility, pool tables,
intemet access, basketball and volleyball). They also mentioned outdoor gathering
places where barbeques could occur. They described a need for indoor and outdoor
"social spaces." They felt that a well designed laundry is an opportunity. One
mentioned a combination laundry/bar that is available in some other communities.
"A place to hang out in conjunction with the laundry would be nice." One mentioned
that Vail's recreation facilities that are being discussed would provide excellent
amenities to support worker housing - she said "Perhaps the recreation center
should also be talked about for the Mountain Bell site. Interestingly, as the groups
talked about the Mountain Bell site they were excited about the opportunities that it
represents and they began to envision far more uses for the site than it could ever
hold.
Balconies were discussed. Many felt that if adequate and welFdesigned indoor and
outdoor gathering spaces were created, balconies are a low priority for seasonal
residents. However, they are important for longer-term residents, as is storage
space.
The Housing Colloborotive. LLC.Page74 of 75.
. Parking was seen as an opportunity to be handled differently. Several suggested
that parking be allocated to individuals rather than to units. Pay for parking in
addition to the unit rent, encourage workers without cars and discourage the use of
cars. Several felt that cars could be stored somewhat remote from their unit
although security of the automobile was a @ncem. All of the participants had cars
(sometimes one per married couple) but several pointed out that many seasonal
workers come to Vail without cars. This represents a "design opportunity."
The Housing Colloborotive, LLC.Page 75 of 75