HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE PEC SUBMITTALS 2002 PART 2 LEGAL\
()DELL ARCHITECTS
Date:
From:
Re:
To:
August 15,2002
Lee Mason, AIA, Odell Architects, P,C.
Middle Creek Project- Final PEC Submittal
Allison Ochs
Town of \rail Planning Departrnent
Mike Coughlin
Allison, this memo accompanies our final PEC submittal, which incorporates comments made by
staff as well as PEC and DRB. The submittal complies with the submittal requirements published
by the Town on the application form.
Piease note that the elevation heights of Building C are shown on the roofplan. {hese elevations
are based upon a concrete garage system currently proposed for the structure. At this time, the
entire project is undergoing a GMP pricing exercise by Shaw constructiorL and the possibility
exists that the garage structure could be steel instead ofprecast concrete. That would lower the
floor-to-floor heights of the garatge structure to an unknown degree. It's probably not a very
substantial amount, but in the Construction Documentation ofthe building, the sections and
elevations do not indicate USGS elevations as yet because ofthis fact. The wall sections of this
building do indicate overall floor'-to-floor elevations ofthe housing structure above the garage
based on standard plate heights, and these dimensions would not change. The variable will be
exactly where the plaza elevation is located. We are indicating the "worst case" situation on the
roof height plans.
Enclosed are exterior lighting cut sheets. The exterior "pole" fixtures are indicated on the
landscape plans. The exterior building lighting will be located at all front doors and at stair tower
entries. As the project is desigMruild, the electrical engineering will be performed by an
engrneer,/contractor that is cumerrtly being selected by Shaw Construction. The engineer will
calculate required light levels and coordinate with the Town standards.
H^zard Mitigation reports are al:ro enclosed. The reports are by Art Mears and David Cushman
and indicate retainage on the north side ofBuilding A. This is indicated on our site plan, as well as
the civil and landscape plans.
Tree caliper sizes are based on location. On the steep slopes a smaller caliper size is indicated as
our landscape architect, EDAW, has told us the standard caliper size tree would not have as good a
chance ofsurvival on the steep slopes. We thought this was a prudent choice. Trees out of the
steep slope areas would be to standards.
Color palettes are also enclosed rn this package. The overall color palette has been discussed and
accepted by the DRB and further development with the DRB as to specific locations of colors will
be forthcomrng at our meeting on the 2l't oflAugust.
PEC comments response 8.6.02.doc
T
Middle Creek Village
Parking Management Plan
The Middle Creek development provides all of the parking spaces that are required bv Town
Code. for a total of 248 snaces. Ofthese, approximately 85%o 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 additional tandem slot, which will be assigned to one
of the studio or 1-bedroom units. 'fhis can be easily accommodated since each of the studio and
I bedroom units has 1.5 spaces provided for it.
Allocation and Assisnment of Parkins Spaces
It is anticipated that each unit will have available to it a parking space(s) within the parking
structure. There are 212 covered spaces. which will be allocated as follows:
Number COVERED Total
Unit Tvpe of Units Per Unit Allocation Covered Snaces
2 Bedroom Units 24 I covered tandem 48
3 Bedroom Units 45 1 covered tandem 90
Studio Units 44 1 covered single 44
1 Bedroom Units 28 I covered single 28
I Bedroom Units I I covered single 2
Total 142 212
Surface spaces will be available for visitors, or for second cars for the studio and I bedroom
units. All tenant cars will be regislered with the leasing office and will have some sort of
identihcation on the car itself (hang tag or sticker).
- Ae/.1,.4/2442 I6;37 9746413236 ART MEARS
AIUHI.'R I. MEARS, P.E.,INC.
Nanual Hazards Consultanu
555 County Rord 16
GgDliso!, Colondo 8 f23O
ltl/lFrx 90{41.3236
rrrncnQrmii.corn
PAGE AT
August 14,2002
t!lr. Michael P. Coughlin
140 E. tgn Avenue, Suits Z)0
Denver, CO 8020$1035
RE: Debrir;-frorv dynamics anelysis and miUgation design cribria - Middle C;reek,
Vail
Dear Mr. Coughlin:
The attiachr:d reporb findings of rry debris-f,ow analysis at thc Middle Creel
afiordable houdng site in Vail.
This report conaigts of (a) a brief summary of tre debds f,ow potential and site
obcervatorp, (b) an anal! eis of ha debris-lloirr dynamice, and (c) mitigation
design perlormance specifcations. The sec{ion of flow potential and site
obcervations is erpanded in the report by David Cushman of Churcfi &
Asoociates, and should be studied for nnre detail.
Please conbd eiher Mr. Cushman or nryrself if you have furthar questions.
Sincerely,
C,l,*r^r+r,t[*a
Arthur l. Meprc. P.E.
Avalanche contol enginoer
Ma$ llhning.4valaiches . Ayalachc C4/trrol hthvcriag
. ayl4/zzaz L6i37 9786413236 ART MEARS
1 REPOR'T OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
As discussed with Odell Archibcts (the proiact erchitec.t) and David Cuehnurn of
Churcfi anrl Aeeociatee, this report has the follorirrg objectives:
livaluation of the debris-fror potential at the afiordable housing sile;
Oalculation of the debri+llow dynemics through appropriate mode,ling
t=chniques that take field observelions into account;
t,roposal of mitigation et buildings; and
Oalculation of debris-flow loading potential on the proposed mitigertion.
This report also has tte fdloring limitations, which should be understood b1'all
those relyirrg on the findings, condusions, and recornrnendations.
a, I'he analysis is site'specific, thus applier onfy to the Middle Creek site;
b, l'he mitigation recomrendations depend on the OdallArchitecte
cevelopment plan "A1.0," undabd; this was the lateel available arl of
tlrc July, 200zfrcld uork; any substantialcfianges to theee plans tnay
ittvalidate the findlngs and recomrendations of this report;
c. ()alculations of debris-flor dynamics assutne a reasonably foreseeable
event with a retum period on the order of 1000 years (103'D yeers);
extraordinarily large sv€nts with eizee in excess of the event asguned
here couH occur.
2 FIELD OBSERVATIONS
The field olnenretions are disdJssed in furthar deteil in tre accompanying re port
by David C:shman. Primary observations are ouilined below.
2.1 llaior debds-jlow source areas. A typicel potential sourc€ area (areas
',vhere potenlially unetable elopes exist) is shown on Figurc 1, an
,lnlerg€ment to a ecale of 1" = 500'of the U.S. Geological Survey
rluadrangle map. Larg+volurne (in excess of 10,000 ydo) exist orr
rite€p southeast-facing slopes approximately 500 fuet above the
lUiddle Creek cfiannel. Additional Eource areas also exist on the rrcet
:$de of the valley farther b the north or to the gouth of that ehomt on
l:igure 1. The large Booth Creek debrie frow of May, 19&4 stsrte(l in
iln area similar b the one shown.
2.2 lvlinor debri+fiow souroa qrag. Minor souroe areas also exist wilhin
small landslide ftaturee on the east side of he valley a ehort disttnce
rtbove the old (deactivated) U.S. Geological Survey gaging station,'fhese landslides ars too emall to show on Figure 1.
2.3 !?revioue tsws. The Middle Creek channel has extensive prior de rbrie
llow and flood depoeits. Th6e consist of boulders (up to 3 feet in
rliareter), smaller rocks, soil, ard vegetafve debrie. The llovv
rlepoeib are lobaE in shepe within the channef and on the alluvial fan
PAGE 82
1
a.
b.
c.
d.
AAi\4/2442 15:37 97964L3236 ART MEARS
above lnterstate 70, characteristic of debris f,oran. The lobes are up
to 5 f€€t in thickness. A 3-foot dianetar rock is considered to be of
the size to be used in design for irnpact at the buildings and is
consisbnt wiih obesrvations.
2.4 Freqrcno/ of flons. Definitive estimates of debris-frow fiequeng'
u/ere not obtained and rny be impossible to estimete accurately
because of mixirg by many lloods and srnall debris-'llow events. Only
nearest'oder of megnitude'(conecl b the neareet fac.tor of 10)
gstimat€E can be rnade, Based on our experience, rve doubt the
retum pariod of large lloms_ reaching to the alluvial fan could be as
long aB 10,000 years 110a'0 yeers) or ar ehort as 1@ years (1dr
years). We assurn^, therefure, thatthe retum period lies in the nmge
of 1,0001B-ars (lfluyeers) and probably liee betu€en 300 and 3000
years (10" to 10*'years). More accurate estimeteS may be porrsible
using detailed radlocarbon dating of buried soil horizons, but we
doubt such studies nould be fruitful given the propensity for mixirrg of
soil layers by floods and f,om within the chanrnl. Furthennor€, lo our
knodedge, sudr efirdies have not been done at o$er locations vdthin
he Town of Vail.
2.5 fhe alluvialfan characterigUce. The cunent alluvielfan is ghown on
lhe detailed topographic map (Figure 2) provided courtesy of Tonr
lGssmel of the Town of Vail. This fen consiets of debds that has
treen taneported dovrm Middle Creek by f,oods and debris flows rmd
g intemixed with glacially-transported boulders from upper Bootlr
3reek and the high-elevation basins to the east and north. The
\4ountain Bell Road, the large communication ton€r, the eady-
learning canter, and parking lots have been excavated into thia fa n,
DEBRIS;FLOW MODELING
3.1 l-imitations of modeling, Procedureo for mathernatical modeling of
rlebde flow are available and heve been uged at various areas
l:hroughout the United Stratee and elsewhere. All of those nrodels are
r;ubject to sore undefinable degree of uncertainty b€cat se the fiiction
irnd other resigtiva lermg used in the models are not known but nrust
lrc etUmated. We bel such rnodeling ie of limited applicability here.'the Middle Creek {lows, similar to those observed at Vail in 19&4,
teeult as unstable eoil and mc-k avalandre and slide into flooding
lribuhry chsnnels durirB heavy spring runoff. The flonr begin a,r
ttnstable, saturebd eoil is "pushed" ofi steep slopes by groundwater
ltiped thtough and betvrreen sedirnentary rock layers. This ia exa$y
tvfiat occuned in many ol tle 42local soil-slip landelides, debris
ilalanches and debris florvs of 1984. Such evonts do not lend
lhernselves to typical hydraulic rnodeling, but instead, suggest an
rwalanche-type or "inertial-typs'model in vfiich the iniliel
PAGE A3
2
. O8/t4/2442 L5:37 97@64L3236 ART MEARS
landslide/debris evalenche stage moves at relatively high spee&r and
quickly decelerates to slorrcr speeds in the etream channels.
3.2 ModSInq aoolied. We applied a two-dirnensional, three-compon,:nt
stochastic rnodel to the avalanche/debds fow process at Middle
Creek. This is kinetically similar to an avalanche model but the
pararneters that contrd the ouput of $e model vwre modified to
simulate field obserwUone. The reeults are summarized graphically
on Figure 3. A high speed of approximatety 20nls is attained on the
steep slope but e more'steady-state" veloclty of approxirnately 6 - 10
n/sec (20 - 33 fi/sec) is mintaired in th6 central dtannel above the
alluvial fan. Velocity rneasurernents of the ftlggive Booth Creek flows
urere not rnade in 1994, but visual eetimates made by nryself suggesl
speed rnaxima in the 4-5 m/sec (13-1€ fl/sec) range in the upper
channel. We assurmo, therefore, an impact speed of 4rn/sec (13
fl/sec) al the proposed housing units on the alluviel fan because lhis is
consisbnt with the 19&4 observations and the modeling results. This
speed wag ueed in the developncnt of design criteria.
MITIGATION DESIGN CRITERA
4.1 Elemenb of the desion-cdlaria. These consist of three elennnts: (a)
the impact pressure, (b) fie impac't height, and (c) impact of boulders
n the flow. The rnagnitudes of these pararyeters depend on the
ocation and orientation of building eurfacee elgosed to the llow.
4.2 .lmoact surfaces. These consist of the uphill (north) facing walls tf
truildirE ?'(which is exposed to nonnal impact) and the r,vest-fat;ing
'rall of building "C' (which is exposed to reduced normal impacl and
:3hear). These ale summarized on Figure tl wttich indicates the
rnagnitudes and vertical distributions of the debds-frow design lcrds.
4.3 ,Solid irnoact of boulderq. Buikling walls are also exposed to inp{tct
r?om the 3-ioot diarneter deeign boulders which could be cenied in the
i1ow. The irpact of a aolid boulder difiers from the impact of the Fn+.
rlrained matedal and small rocks comprising the rnetrix of the muJ
rrhich produces the impact pressures defined in Figure 4. The
boulders produce pclint loads. For flexible constuction elements such
irc beams, structural defleclion must be considered in computing the
impact force, P. Equating the kinetic energy of the 3-foot design
lrculder with vrcrk expended in bending deflection yields the
relationship P = (M f K) o't, wlrere M ie the mase 6f tne g-ncot bculder
t'2.333 lbs or 72.4'slr.rgs"), V is fre impact velocity (13 ft/sec), antl K is
n stifttess fac'tor. For a sirnple cantilever beam, K = 48 El/L', \,vhrlr€
lil is beam stiffness and L is leqgth. The relationships expressed
itbove indicaE ftat flexible structural merbers are rnore efficient in
resisting impact than stiff ones. The actuel expression for stiffnes;s will
lrobably difier fom that given depending on stuctural engineering
rleteils and would need to be considered in finalengineering.
PAGE A4
3
. AUL. /2082 16:37 9785413235 ART MEARS
Fl,?alRE 1- Dattiil ,oxts ot exop/f€d wilt of Drddfigs 'A' ftrottt-
f8i*rg)
'{td'C'(vie/d.ffirg}
tm& ol boutdc4-s tE nd firatuded eN
6n bec'&,l'{adi, a nwywffitotlptdSffitt 1.3.
Erdldt.n trA"
5Oqpttr
(9hoar on tulldta8 "C' 1r
I
I.
II
t-
rttr..
4.4 ,\ddi6onal considerF,tions. Wndqrvs and doos should be avoided on
1t!e norh gide of building 'A' and the rrast side of building "C' unless
1:hey are designed for inpac{ of debds and rocks.
4.5 ,\lternate mitiga{gn*An altomate form of mitigatim considered $as
')onsfucting a defreding wall on the soufi eide of the cfiannelab,rye
lhe parking araa and eieting tt t. Bellbuilding. This albmeti\re wa8
rejected becaue€ fieH work conducted on July 30, 2002 indicatec (a)
rnajor floua (sinrilar to tre Booth Creek flow of 1984) would quick y fill
in the channel, and (b) amall, low-viscosity froua could be def,ecttd by
such a berm downstreem onto adjacent property, in vidation of
tlhapter 21 of the Vail hazerd odinance.
4.6 llomoliancg with.V,ail Haeard ordinance. The proposed mitigatiorr will
lrc fully cornplient with tenrc of Chapter 21 of the Vail hazards
ordinance. The mitigation will not d€fiect fiows onto adjacent pul)lic
or privaE property.
PAGE O5
4
A8!I8/28A2 Og:88 9795413236 ART MEARS PAGE 82
5
5 ROCKI:ALL
Tha north wall of building "c' is indiceted on Vail hazard rrnps as lying within a
lm-od_erate rcveriV rodcfall hazard area. The steep tenain direcdy above the
building ri:es approimately 60 vertical het and does contain sorn€ srnalt, (< 1
foot long) potentialfy unstabfe boulderc. Sone of thege appeer to have rolkd to
the propored location of the north wall of building "9.' Such rockfall events
would not damege the building and are aucfi rare evenb that mitigaiion is not
recomrpnded.
Report prcpared by,
0LtL*,1 v\[r a.r
Arthur l. Mears, P.E.
A8/I.4/2602 15:37 970641-3236 ART MEARS PAGE A7
F,GURE 1. .t-gcatkrl nq Mng hypritlrctfgll bratbl qle nqrg,'tuth-CruE,kUry' tow.
&nh an ev€nt was usd in hazaftl quentlllcat'nn. Sn''or undeble dgpes w€,€ slso lu atsd on
fl|c oast sl* ottho channel belottt 8,100 feet elevation
SO{[E; 1'= ilrA
rToQrdlC?tttortt i E dt: |;ln D..r& l,a-a D rc NAD'
A8/L4/2882 LEi37 97864L3236 ART MEARS PAGE 88
Ltrrtr
FIGUVE 2. Delteiled tWtqhtc mq atflr NHar cllerlr. iltmid ran gtcr;elrmt a mE p@
dwwing pof"nt/r,l llmfre d a n#lto* cturttg crlrotrt (J.ty, zwz) @rrdijtiot s. tl*rflD-ercirmifl
bttMings ancl ladsryhig may alterllow tilrcd:rin.
SC,4lf: l'= lil|
,aruo)
ZU^UO)
ONT@
_---.--
A6/1.4/2gAZ 16:37 9706413235
' 584 paltlcles st:ert frqr top seg[Eent.
c: \plk\ruiddle creek f lorr. E!(t
Path drops: 251 n
Ffiction nu = 0. 1l
Iog M,/D - 2.00
Randc'lr R - 0.400
Alph6 - 15. 4 d€grees
ART MEARS
1482 partlcles deposlt€d.
PAGE A9
,\.
\,
T- \ ". --.
r.'
':*-
::" . .....
FIGURE 3.
atedilr'.
a Front rtop! at X- 913 u
(nax - 19.8 tr/!)froul speed
------l{!An rpecd (E x - 20.4 sltl
-Deposition
(not to scale )
Exit and vi€w dlstributions
in your flle cr \plk\results, txt
anplkf,ffiyerulrmolnpner@
,Uof fp !crb-
THIS ITEM MAYAFFECT 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 with Section 12-3-6 ol the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on August 12,2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a variance from Section 12-68-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
garage encroachment in the rear setback, located at 5167 Gore Circle/Lot 12, Block 3, Bighorn
Subdivision 5h Addition.
Applicant: Rolland S. HamelinPlanner: Matt Gennett
A request for a final review and recommendations of the following applications related to the
proposed redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School:
1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 30'l 0 Booth Falls
Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12'n Filing from Two-Family Residential to General
Use;
2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to Zone Lot 12, Block 2,
Vail Village 12'n Filing to General Use, The northern portion of this lot is zoned
Agriculture Open Space;
3) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1,
Vail Village 12'n Filing from Two-Family Residential to General Use;
4) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail Land Use Map for
Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12m Filing from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-
Public;
5) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new
conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor
recreation area on 3O1O Bo6th Falls Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and
3160 N. Frontage Road EasV Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12h Filing;
6) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type lll
EHUs located on Tract C, Block t, Vait Vlttage 12th Filing;
7) A request for a for a conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom
structures located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. EasV a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village
12rh Filing;
8) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town
ui Vaii Ruckiali'iiazard Map tu irrtiicatc appioved i'iit;gaiion for 3160 N. Frontage''
. r..r _."...rrt . r. a4 4r- -t. '1.,--,r.t-,. r- rrt-.t / r.r-:l rr:rr. - ,^m -:r';,-.-.r \\rr-!r, l-!rr ,ar rJi|rrvr\ .:.r.r-. ..: j :.:.'9,
9) A request for a major subdivision in accordance with Title 13, Chapter 3, Vail Town
Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at Lots 11 and 12, Block 2,
Vail Village 12tn Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12'n Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc.Planner: Russ Forrest
A request for a minor amendment to Special Developnment District No. 6, to allow for an expansion
of commercial uses into common area, located at 123 S. Frontage Rd. WesULots M,N, &O, Vail
Village 1"'Filing.
Applicant: Club Chelsea, represented by JMP ArchitectsPlanner: Warren Campbell ,til-
t- .
(t
T .,
t,la Lvl'l
it\r-
r/
L
l,
A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a
conditional use permitto allowfor a private educational institution and development plan approval
to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site
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, represented by Odell Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a public utility installation, located at the East
Vail Water Tank, 5004 Snowshoe Lane/Summer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows Filing 1.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Bill Gibson
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to of an amendment to Section 12-7A'-7
(Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public
Accommodation Zone District.
Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay PetersonPlanner: George Ruther
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
Development 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 language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published July 26, 2002in the Vail Daily.
()DELL ARCHITECTS
Date:
From:
Re:
To:
cc:
August 7, 2002
Lee Mason, AIA, Odell Architects, P.C.
Middle Creek Project- Preliminary Corffnents dated 8/2/02
Allison Or:hs. Russ Forrest
Mike Coughlin, Denny Coughlin, Clark Atkinson, Project Team ( OA and
consultants )
Allison, I received your email Friday and have distributed it to the project team for response and
review, but wanted to write a more "formal" response to the comments for the file.
I will address each item as set fo rward in your email ofAugust 2,2002 by number.
Public Works Comments
l. Parking numbers have been confirmed and Coughlin and Company has sent out a
detailed parking rxmag':ment plan.
2. We have made a changc to the plans to reflect this.
3. Peak engineers is indicating ADA ramps on the extent of the site plan.
4. Tree on sidewalk is gone.
5. We will indicate lightirrg at intersections. The Electrical work is Desigr/Build; therefore
we have no engineer as yet, but will have this ASAP.
6. ELC will have a sign; we will locate it out of sight distance triangle. This is located on
the architec tural site olan.
7. We will apply and receive all permrts required prior to any work.
8. Culvert extension details will be on {inal drawings.
9. As this stage Peak Engineers is showing a general level of inverts, etc. The Construction
Documentation phase ofthe project will be when specific calculations are done.
10. Engineered Erosion control plan will be produced.
ll. Shaw Construction u'ill provide construction fencing information and limits of
disturbance prior to Building Department review.
I 2. Asphalt overlay will be noted on Peak Engineers drawings
l 3. Guardrail along curve vrill be per CDOT standards.
14. Peak Engineers has met with Greg Hall and documented a 4"-0" shoulder. They will be
meeting again this Thursday to clarify this issue.
15. Final plans will provide retaining wall details prior to DRB approval.
16, Drainage calcs will be in the final report.
17 . l:20 plans will be provided at final submrttal.
18. Debris Flow analysis r€ port is being produced at the present, we will receive final report
8ll5l02.Indications are we will be able to minimize any site disturbance.
19. We have forwarded thrs question to TDA, our traffrc consultant, and they will address
this issue. The traffic report previously submitted addresses this isse as well.
20. Hankard Engineers performed noise study. The HUD and FHWA measurements are
guidelines, not requirements, according to Hankard. Interior theshold measurernents are
the standard for 0ris type of project, and indeed, if the window is open, the highway will
be heard. HUD standrrrds are measured from the interior with the window closed..
PEC comments response 8.6.02.doc
Hankard is working rvith JF Sato as a consultant for the noise mitrgation for the entire
valley as a project for CDOT at this time. After speaking with therq I have found that
FHWA are national guidelines that CDOT will be amending their own local guidelines.
These have not yet beerr established for the valley, and again, according to Hankard, rvill
be on a site-by-site basls.
2l . As a part of the final submittal, prior to PEC approval, we will submit a full easement
exhibit and the Final Environmental Report (due to us on the l5'" of August).
As a part of the final submittal, prior to DRB approval, we will submit retaining wall details,
hazard mrtigation plans, final drainage study, pavement design sections and grading plans to a
Design Development phase level. All details for Construction Documentation will be developed as
the project progresses and be submitted prior to Building Department review.
Planning Comments.
L The trash enclosures are screened in themselves. Refer to sheet 4.8 of the set. The
buildings are stone and stucco with a roof. The dumpsters are within this "house" and not
visible to the outside.'llhe traffic circulation should not be affected by this location, and
pedestrian cilculation is being designed to go up and around the enclosure to the north. If
this is a requirement to relocate, we will consider enlarging the enclosure at Building B
for a "central" location. but initially feel having them located at different locations on the
site is preferable.
2. The reason EDAW has used smaller Aspen trees is due to the slope of the land east of
building B. On a 2 to I slope, they have told us that the larger caliper trees will have a
much more difficult time establishing a root system than smaller caliper trees, and would
most probably not sun,ive. Wherever we are not on a steep slope however, EDAW is
proposing using larger caliper trees.
3. The informal path will be lit for use , but not shoveled in the winter. The material is
natural path - probably crusher fines. Facing south on a slope.
4. The trash enclosure at ELC was located for the trash truck circulation, and is set up for
quick access and ease of movement through the site to minimize disturbance to the
faciliry.
5. The Fire Department Tumaround at the ELC was designed with the VFD. Mike McGee
assures us this meets requirements..
6. The last parking spaces tuming radius' will work for passenger cars.
7. We will screen parking as much as possible. Landscape plans will show berms.
8. Letter from Art Mears r:egarding Hazard Mitigation refers to this issue of site access. We
will indicate this on the Civil Site Plan.
9. At this point, it does not seem we will be able to save the trees befween Building C and
Mountain Bell, as the g:ade difference is too large.
10. EDAW will include thir;.
I 1. EDAW will move these trees.
12. EDAW will coordinate with OA's site plan.
13. EDAW will look at more boulder walls and incorporate them wherever possible.
14. The evergreens were picked at this location for a specific reason, in order to more
effectively screen any parking areas from the view from Spraddle Creek.
15. Exterior storage is accessed from the exterior.
16. Windows will be shown on the floor plans
17. No longer CMU on the south side of Building C. Sh:cco and Stone
18. Material selection will be impacted by DRB comment and has been to date developed
with DRB input.
19. Coughlin and Company has submitted a Parking Management plan on Augnst 6"',2002.
\ir\,.1[* C-^-,-d.-
JOHNF. MALO
333 LOGAI\ STREET, SUrrE r00
DEI{VER, COTORADO 80203-4089
August 15,2002
Town of Vail
Town Council
75 South Frontage Rd., West
Vail CO 81657
Gentlemen:
As a past president of the Board of the All Seasons Condominium Associatioq I write
you to strongly oppose the proposed Mountain Bell Affordable Housing Project.
The need is apparent, but the choice of location is disastrous. We all want to keep the
environs and architecture at Vail as originally conceived by its founders. This is what
makes Vail aesthetically beautiful. Lionshead is an example of bad planning. Let's not
follow this thinking in the core village area. I can't imagine approaching Vail and
looking at this proposed monster as I drive in. What will visitors think?
Other areas are available and you, as members of the Town Council, can certainly find a
better location that the one proposed.
Sincerely,
//lALr#^"k/ / JotnF. Malol-/ Vail Residert since 1966
B-1, All Seasons
JFM:bc
Vail, CO 81657
Please contact the Association should you have questions or concerns regarding this issue.
Poct Officc Bor 2.18 Veil, Colorado El65E
Tefephoner (970) s"7-55E0 Voic* MaiUFAX: (9?0) 827-5s56 ' fl" t Ie-melh
Y olcc rr..rur ^2r; (t'v' o qottt''*'ot / ' "{ *J/,
f,-g /// zcc z-
Dear: Mayorand Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
UWe, as prop€rty owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is
incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance.
We urge the Town of Vail to significanfly reduce the size of the housing project or move it to a
more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable employee
housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors fint enter our
beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors
will encounter. frury affordable employee housing should not be attempted where it is neittrer
appropriate nor affordable.
Signed: 6r".".2 V 4a.a
Print Name:
& nztol4 fr 'Q*-/"-
0L(',7a r fc'"7"g 2et1
3? -./ro,'/",ta-( E/
&/" fu7s, Ca go?ad
4of4
Vail. CO 81657
Please contact the Associatipn should you have questions or concerns regarding this issue.
Post Office Bor 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Tclephone: (970) S27-5680 Voice MaiUTAX: (970) 827-5856
e-mail:
4-J.
-/:,ZL/ /*;/
//t ,o c 2*-
Dear: Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
VWe, as property owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is
incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance.
We urge the Town of Vail to significantly reduce the size of the housing project or move it to a
more appropriate venue. While we all recogrrize the importance of affordable employee
housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors first enter our
beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors
will encountet. tt rty affordable employee housing should not be attempted where it is neither
appropriate nor affordable.
Signed: o&".".4 V Ea--e.-
Print Name:
K nzt-14 t' 8o'-/"-
04'ttcr- fc"'V"o 2ct 1
3? -./r','/z.oe-( .A4
&/" fu7s, (a go?ad
4of4
Eu"rgreen Looge
VAIL
August 12,2002
Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
Department of Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Commission & Development Staff:
Having reviewed plans for Middle Creek I wish to voice both support and concem about
the project.
First, I do favor dwelopment of reasonably priced employee housing that is of
respectable quality, thus encouraging residents to behave with respect for their
surroundings and neighbors. The Mountain Bell/lvliddle Creek location seems
appropriate to this use as it is close to work and hopefully residents would be encouraged
to utilize public transportation or walking to work rather than further impacting Vail's
limited parking.
My concerns are based upon the anticipated price of rents in the units and the size and
balance of the structures on the site. All our employees are conscious of rents and many
struggle to make ends meet although they work two or more jobs. If at all possiblg
keeping rents per bedroom below $650 per month would be important. Second, the
sketches of the proposed buildings appear to be imposing and too much for the small site.
Grante4 the Mountain Bell tower and the school are not examples of exceptional
architecture, howwer, I feel that what is proposed it out of scale with the natural
landscape. Further, when passing through the roundabout, this will be a primary
introduction to Vail. An oversize building on this site simply is nor appropriate.
As a neighbor across the street (Interstate) and as both a business owner and resident of
Vail, I urge you to consider how the views of the building from the east and from the
south will be impacted. It may be necessary to scale the development down in order to
maintain an attractive balance and not overdevelop the site.
"#(r dk4/r*'L
Pamela Stenmark
General Manager
General Partner
250 Souih Frontoge Rdod West . Voil, Colorodo 81657
97 O- 47 6-7 8 | 0 . rn< 97 0- 47 6- 4504 . www.evergreenvoil,com
%?aO Qo*a.D tLt€n^fas
s.ru; ar B€Be C4ft'6leV
3og r\<.L*,,tRi "J ,/ *r t Qa J aJci t-
fiuGd-sT
ai?Dtr
t> ).aa >
e 8 g;K A/o ,,Lr i arc ?eo fficF
€od^
cg
DfrE:
f,rc
f,.o
7r,
f cPfusc 46Jsilrc 4T AuA /u6 Jtfli{ *tt
53-T ia4 4LcT*€ /€esa*s |rRGaDy -aXFR€S'EJ
f\6P atrofl€ : a((€ -rb d,.t Cd d arCt; t,tf;s N af
}gA,t ,2€9 {#e Earf,raHc aa ?ea,ri?€ sAFr
?€DC tf1 ;fr I y' ec€ss aa a/l? ti r tfr e{ edq {
TT{€ arLc'f s-{aiCe kud )s fa u;rALK-7*2asG P
Tf+€ -iv'Io !-aox?*?ac,r: .1*tr5 v*tJe E Aod.,. /
?gexAiAir €Qo, u''DD'{ tQfaf, 12t't <L
Ca*? *ft) 1 6 frr , =z+ F a N ^/ 3d r.s .r., atl {+a -,a,/
l, aGt{ dAg nrAls',{ TH€ Rou*t?ADdaT:
1r ) e #T'vyt€s ' KiK? T*€ ,+.r.d ? o'l toa4a'r-rS'
1-t+6 {*it-4od*a4laoTs rlAt/' FtRS-ro Tll?
Vc,Q dTAfi o * o: ?-TiJa a^E a F -1& 4a sT
f oee&s>"";"i*"fgarc ")J
,{ f', rw* N*r;'u FLLJ
ntj'ofrtAilK;orr*r-rl'nfBAn;l11+'sfi1?'.t7{Titt
?rEfs€ I sT7 9
oo
s/r/o<t
l.'
,9, fut 'l'ta' /hr^/^^ ?feu -A^'
,r^ ry'O" rh*allz O4'/ .%4tf* d,'- rt ''a^-
baarulg -ae /V/^n aua k|'h '(2 a-
4,n ( A-,'- r M ''/*w '41'14/' Vt*r t'o'z- J J"o-("(
ry; iL wd4 ';t'/*^a/"'^ /a44e
eu tm,.",
4n,a,?zt # % ^ ::ff
M)fa*,u A 'a4- U*tr { Y:-'13Tilf /' z3'* r )n"'*&-"''a'% /D
-*f-{-re '7& raz"-"daJaoz1 '
2(i,*JA" A '/h47-'{^
*,{ P'4u-t' P#/^ Ri-^'(
UaU-
V-76-Vovo
I
ARTHUR KELTON JR
225 WALL STREET
VAIL, COLORADO 8L657
970-476-7990
TO MAYOR LUDY KURZ
THE P.E.C.
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PLEASE COUNT ME AMONG THOSE OPPOSED TO THE OVER
DEVELOPEMENT OF THE "MOUNTAIN BELL'' SITE NOW DESIGNATED
MIDDLE CREEK. THIS SITE WAS ONLY REZONED TO ALLOW FOR 40
EMPLOYER OWNED UNITS, NOT THE ENLARGED DESIGN ON THE TABLE
TODAY.
THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, THE FIRST IMPRESION
THAT THE VISITOR IMPRINTS. NPLEAESE RECONSIDER THE DENSITY AT
THIS LOCATION AND SPREAD IT TO OTHER AVAILABLE SITES SO AS TO
MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESORT EXPERIENCE.
ELAINE KELTON
1034 HOMESTAKE CIRCLE
vAtL, coLoRADO 81657
970..476-5411
DEAR MAYOR KURZ
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
YES, WE NEED INTEGRATED LONG TERM AD SEASONAL FIOUSING.
YES, WE NEED EMPLOYER OWNED HOUSING.
YES, WE NEED A LOT OF IT.
BUT WE DO NOT NEED ALL OF IT IN ONE LOCATION, ESPECIALLY ONE WHICH IS SO
VERY VISIBLE AT THE "FRONT DOOR TO VAIL".
THE ALTERNAT]VES ARE AVAILABLE TO SPREAD THE UNITS NEEDED: THE "HUD
WIRTH PARCEL" AND THE TIMBER RIDGE SITES COULD PERHAPS ABSORB THE
NEEDED UNITS. EACH OF THE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS WOULD ALSO HAVE
AVAIIABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS THE IROQUOIS NATIONTHE ]MPACT ON TH E 'SEVENTH
GENERATION" BUILDING THE LARGEST SINGLE PROJECTAT THE ENTRANCE OF THE
TOWN - THE 1ST THING SEEN AS YOU EXIT 1.70 AND THE VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN
AS YOU SKI DOWN AT THE END OF EVERY DAY DOESN'T FEEL SYMPATHETIC TO ALL
WE ESPOUSE AS AWORLD CLASS RESORT.
LASTLY, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THIS LAND WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED
OPEN SPACE AND THE REMOVEABLE OF THIS TRACT WAS DONE TO CREATE A
SMALL POCKET OF 40 EMPLOYER HOUSING UNITS.
SINCERELY.
ELAINE KELTON
/2,;?az-
oo
*E .4^
)J-O:--"=t vvl Fa -%t- 'f/--'= ?*L-4J>\-
M/J4'-
SLS ttjj.! 0,u.Ae.ilk
V;-! ,Qc s/6t+-
7 7C -+76 .#4f
\
Page 1 of 1
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site - Proposed high-density housing
From: "DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 8ll2l02l2:53 PM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site - Proposed high-density housing
--- Original Message ----
From: Ronald Snow
To: towncou ncil@ci. vail.co. us
Sentr Sunday, August 11, 20Q2 5:12 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell Site - Proposed high-density housing
Gentlemen,
We have just leamed of the effort to change this dedicated open space to high-density development.
We understand that this site was donated to the town as a pernanent open space and to preserve the
entry to Vail as a mountain community and not as a congested urban core. Violation of this trust by
public oflicials should not be considered under any circumstances and should result in forfeiture of
the property if this is your intent.
This site is very steep and cannot be developed in any fashion without considerable compromise to its
natural character. Any efforts to design a "hidden" development project, let alone a high-density use
are impossible and incompatible with this site. The location is not remote from neighbors willing to
protect it from irrational development but is cenhal to all of our daily lives each time we enter the
village and each time we traverse its corridors. This is not the impression that our visitors and
residents should have ofthe Vail experience. On behalfofall owners and residents, please do not
indulge in planning that is so short sighted.
The Lionshead improvements and other Village plans have proceeded with much more deliberation
and thoughtful planning. High-density additions on open space must be deliberated and planned even
more thoroughly.
Sincerely,
Ron and Mary Snow
401 Scorpio
135W Meadow Dr.
Ron Snow
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands ofNew Jobs
fi le://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00001 .HTM 8tr2t02
Page I ofl
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Affordable lfousing Project
From:'DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@)msn.com)
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@)ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 8ll2/02 12:50PM
. Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Atlbrdable Housing Project
--- Original Message -----
From: <Mjoemchugh@aol.com>
To : <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Cc: <jflamont@vail.net>
Sent: Sunday, August I l, 2002 12:05 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell Affordable Housing Project
> We are East Vail property owners and believe that the proposal for the
> development of the Mountain Bell site is not compatible with the desired
> beauty of Vail's main entrance and is in direct conflict with the planned
> "Front Door" project intended to improve and beautify Vail's main access.
> The size and design of the proposed project are grossly inconsistent with
the
> upscale image Vail tries to convey.
> Additionally, we understand that the cost of the project will render the
> necessary rental rates decidedly unaffordable to the overwhelming majority
of
> the seasonal employees for whom it is intended, thereby defeating the
purpose
> of the entire project.
> The alternative proposal set forth by Gail Steadman in the August 7th
rssue
> of the Vail Daily makes a lot more sense from many perspectives.
> Sincerely, Brenda & Joe McHugh,4014 Bighorn Road, Vail
fi le ://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00002.HTM 8/12/02
Page I of I
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site Proposal
From: "DIANADONOVAN'<dianamdonovan@msn.com>To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>Date: 8/1210212:48 PM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site Proposal
--- Original Message ----From: Scorpio404
To: towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 11:19 AM
Subject: Mountain Bell Site Proposal
Dear: Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review Board
We, as property owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is
incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance.
We urge the Town of Vail to significantly reduce the size of the housing project or move it to a more
appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable employee housing, we urge
the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all
other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly
affordable employee housing should not be attempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable.
There seems to be much more appropriate land available (i.e. the
ruins") for this purpose.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Debora Morris and S.J. Praouolenis
Scorpio #404
fi le://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 l. HTM 8nzt02
Page I of I
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Day Care Center
From:'DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 811210212:18 PM
Subject: Fw: Day Care Center
--- Original Message ----
From: EMercyjr@aol.com
To: towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
Sent: Saturday, August 10,2002 8:28 AM
Subject: Day Care Center
Members Of the Vail Town Council:
I am writing to express our support for two critical issues which will impact the long term viability of Vail as an
outstanding national resort.
The day care center should be expanded at its present site. lt is an essential employee benefit which is much
needed and is a logical use that would be compatible with the site.
Affordable housingmust be a priority. lf Vail is to thrive as a destination resort it must be able to attract service
employees in large numbers. Without housing this simply will not be possible. Sue and Gene Mercy Villa
Cortina 330.
fi le:/iC :\S'indows\TEMP\GW ) 00002.HTM 8t12/02
Page I of I
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site
From:'DIANA DONOVAN" <dianamdonovan(@msn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer(@ci.vail.co.us>Date: 8/1210212:09 PM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site
--- Original Message ----From: andy wiessner
To: towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell Site
Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of putting affordable housing at the Mountain Bell site, but hope that in approving any project
you will keep the following in mind:
1.the project be of sych a size as to blend into the terain and forested area in the vicinity. In particular, the
taller trees on the site should be preserved and the building(s) landscaped so that visual intrusion is minimized;
2. I lhink the drawings I have seen which involve a 5 story structure(s), have buildings which are probably too
high for that particular location. Can the height be lowered to 2-3 storiesd so that it is similar to the majority of
the other developments on the north frontage road?
3. Parking should be underground.
4. VERY IMPORTANTLY IN MY MIND, THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF BRIDGE OR WALKWAY TO
VILLAGE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN GET THERE ON FOOT. The current underpass at the Vail l-70 exit too
narrow (icy in winter) is not adequate for people to travel by foot. lt either needs to be widened...or some sort of
foot bridge put across/under the Interstate.lf foot access is not provided, there will be a traffic problem at the
rotary. lf a fool path is too expensive...then, at least, a bus stop should be put at the entrance to the housing
project..
Thank you for considering my views.
Sincerely.
Andy Wiessner
tel:970-476-61 36
fi le://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 I .HTM 8/r2/02
Page I of1
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site
From:'DIANADONOVAN'<dianamdonovan(@msn.com>To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer(@ci.vail,co.us>
Date: 811210210:54 AM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site
--- Original Message -----
From: SANewsam@cs.com
To: towncou ncil@ci.vail.co. us
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell Site
Dear: Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
As a property owner, I believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible
with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance.
Please, significantly reduce the size ofthe housing project or move it to a more appropriate venue.
While we all recognize the importance of affordable employee housing, I urge you to preserve and
protect Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee
housing should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly affordable employee housing
should not be attempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable.
Sara A. Newsam
file:/iC :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 1 .HTM 8t12t02
Page I ofl
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Project
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@)msn.com>
To: "Pam BrandmeyeC' <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 8/12102 l0:31 AM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Project
--- Original Message -----
From: <MWKI 851@aol.com>
To: <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Sant: Thursday, August 08, 20029.'24 AM
Subject: Mountain Bell Project
> Dear Mayor and Town Council, I am President of the Alphom Condominium
Association at l2l West Meadow Drive. I soeak for all of our owners when I
express concem about the proposed Mountain Bell Project. The massive size
of the employee housing building is totally inappropriate for the entrance
to Vail. Attractiveness to our visitors is a high priority, as well as
space to house our employees. We highly oppose the present plan and feel
that it must be re-visited in another form. Thankyou for your
consideration, Margie Kell
fi le://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW) 0000 I .HTM 8t12/02
Page I ofl
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site
From: "DIANADONOVAN'<dianamdonovan@msn.com>To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 811210210:30 AM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site
--- Original Message ---From: Gretchen Busse
To: Vail Town Council
Sent: Wednesday, August 07,2002 7:39 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell Site
Mr. Mayor and Town Council,
We as property owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with the
beauty and scenic image of Vail's main entrance.
We urge the Town of Vail to move it to a more appropriate location. .We urge the Town to preserve and protect
Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all major resorts, employee housing should not be
the first viiual visitors encounter. Truly affordable employee housing should not be attempted where it is
neither appreciate nor affordable.
Len and Gretchen Busse
fi le://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00002.HTM 8/12/02
Pam Brandmeyer - ltr twn of vailJountain bel.dat
ll.iDllFtlD!D[E-lFl ldl lDPaul J. and Katherine W. Dudzinski
3309 Canadian Park Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
and
Skaal Hus I, Unit #4
141 W. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
August 7, 2002
Town of Vail
Town Council
75 South Frontage Road, West
Vail, CO 81657
e-mail <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Fax:970479-2157
Dear: Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
We, as prope(y owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is
incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of VailOs main entrance.
We urge the Town of Vail to significanly reduce the size of the housing project or to move it to a
more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable employee housing, we urge
the Town to preserve and protect VailOs image as visitors first enter our blEeautiful Village. As at all
other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly affordable
employee housing should not be aftempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable.
Wearewell awareof theexcitingplansthatarebeingcreatedforall of Vail, includingtheVail
Front Door and Lionshead, etc. and are anticipating playing our part in helping it happen. We would be
much less interested in participating if this ill conceived project at the Mountain Bell Site goes through in
its current form. lt is not congruent to create a well conceived upgrade to our Village, and to try to use
outdated, less than athactive, plans for the actual entrance from the interstate.
We hope you will reconsider at this important stage in planning, as the future outcome will be of
great importance to Vail as a whole.
Sincerelv.
Paul J. Dudzinski, M.D.
Katherine W. Dudzinski
z tiilrNl lIolll t tDSET,,ty!r.Hitt]!lyyyrryyyIFuOr]or ^!!+pn%ut]l,iltlot irtrrtri,iiolyit"uD
ir+prr%DSET'riii,.Hr lr r€r rLst!)ryyb'yyynrr^ - r n rlZr tr D^uOtr tr tr ! i,i,i,r I ri^t] n l]On t] r tr ! ui,],68],y-
;- 11+pn%DSUM'rnPaul DudzinskiHDNltrSTYLLI@I@L]irirnDrSTYLtrFI-A:rf rFn'ilF:anFnTrF
Page 10
Page I ofl
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw:
From: "DIANADONOVAN"dianamdonovan@|nsn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@)ci.vail.co.us>Date: 8ll2/02 10:26 AM
Subject: Fw:
--- Original Message -----
From: <Bill_Morton@jackmorton.com>
To: <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:29 PM
Dear Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board:
I have reviewed the plans, size and scope of the building for the
proposed Mountain Bell Site. I just wanted to drop you this note to
tell you that I believe that it does not fit with the look and the
image of the main entrance to Vail.
I had spoken with several of you, and again via this note encourage
you to significantly reduce the size or move it to a more
appropriate location. All of us recognize the importance of
affordable employee housing, but from all that I can assess, I don't
believe it's truly affordable nor appropriate.
Sincerelv.
William Morton
8/12/02file://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00002. HTM
Page I of I
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site opposition
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@)msn.com)
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 8/12/02 10:21 AM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site opposition
--- Original Message -----
From: <Mikhaley@aol.com>
To: <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07 , 2002 10:33 AM
Subject: Mountain Bell Site opposition
> Dear Mayor & Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission Design
> Review Board:
> We as property owners, believe that the size of the proposed affordable
> housing project at the Mountain Bell site is incompatible with beauty and
> world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance.
> We urge the Town of Vail to significantly reduce the size of the housing
> project or move it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the
> importance of affordable employee housing, we urge the town to pres€rve
and
> protect Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful village. As at
all
> other resorts, employee housing should not be the first visual visitors
will
> encounter. Truly affordable employee housing should not be attempted where
lt
> is neither appropriate nor affordable.
> Sincerely,
> Mike Haley
> 1860 Meadow Dr.. #3
> Vail. CO
fi le://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 I.HTM 8^2102
Page 1 of I
Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site Project
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@rmsn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@)ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 8/12102 l0:14 AM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site Project
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ginny Culp" <gculp@vail.net>
To: <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:46 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell Site Project
> Dear Town Councilperson,
> I'm worried that we are awfully close to starting something that isn't
> going to deliver what anybody wants. I'm worried about who is in the
> driver's seat on this Middle Creek (Mountain Bell site) housing project.
> My concems include:
> l. Vail resident's assets and tax dollan are going to build rental
> l.rousing for employees of businesses in the Town of Vail. I don't
> believe this is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. I think it is
> fine if the TOV builds housing for THEIR employees, but I believe
> building/providing housing for private business's employees ought to be
> done by private sector money.
> 2. There are those *'ho think this is costing the TOV nothing. Wrong.
> The value of the land at the entrance to Vail is worth.how much would
> you think? Leasing it on a very long-term basis at no cost is not
> helping the taxpayer get any retum on a huge asset. Additionally the
> council has spent tens ofthousands ofdollars in the planning phases.
> 3. The entrance to Vail will be changed forever. It is like putting
> TimberRidge as our first greeting to guests. (Yes, once a town council
> thought TimberRidge looked good!)
> 4. I understand that the rents will shake out at a minimum of $650 a
> bed. Is that affordable'? Given the site. costs could easily escalate
> resulting in even higher rental rates.
> Additionally I have concerns, given the current economy, that this
> project may actually be underfunded. Today's dollars are not what lhey
> were a month ago. I'm uneasy that there will be lots of corner cutting
> in the construction. Once it is started, if the project isn't completed
> by the developer, who pays to have it completed'? Bonding doesn't cover
> the full cost of the project, does it'l
> There will be much redevelopment in Vail Village and Lionshead in the
> next flve years. This will provide a perfect opportunity to include
> employee housing in the new designs and to have the right people paying
> for it..the employers. And they will have more interest in making the
> units look good and fit into their location.
> I urge you to think more carefully about this important decision. I
> believe there are better ways to serve the employee and the residents of
> Vail.
> Ginny Culp
fi le://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 I .HTM 8/12t02
Paul J. and Katherlne W. Dudzinskl
3309 Ganadlan Park WaY
Fort Collins, CO 80524
and
Skaal Hus l, Unit *4
141 W. f,leadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
August 7,2002
Town of Vail
Town Council
75 South Frontage Road, West
Vail. CO 81657
e-mail <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Fax: 970-479-2157
Dear: Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
We, as property owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain
Bell Site is incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main
entrance.
We urge the Town of Vail to significanly reduce the size of the housing project
or to move it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of
affordable employee housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image
as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee housing
should not be the first visual visitors will encounter. Truly affordable employee
housing should not be attempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable.
We are well aware of the exciting plans that are being created for all of Vail,
including the Vail Front Door and Lionshead, etc. and are anticipating playing our part
in helping it happen. We would be much less interested in participating if this ill
conceived project at the Mountain Bell Site goes through in its current form. lt is not
congruent to create a well conceived upgrade to our Village, and to try to use
outdated, less than attractive, plans for the actual entrance from the interstate.
We hope you will reconsider at this important stage in planning, as the future
outcome will be of great importance to Vail as a whole.
*
F.
'iil*';)l
HARLEY G. HtcBlE,
'R.1600 Broadway, Suite l,*00
Denver, CO 8O2O2
303-86 t -4230Fax 303-830-1465
August 12,2002
The Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81657
lve are very much aware of the need for employee housing. During Vail's very
first winter we were forced to bed down employees in the liundry room of rha
Lodge, causing Jack rweedy and me to try to initiate an employee housingproject. We failed.
As much as we favor the concept, the proposed project at the Bell site is too big
and too prominent. lt would be unfortunate for the entrance to Vail to be defined
by a housing project. Our image is too importanl.
A smaller building that is well-hidden, or another location, would be our
preference.
Sincerely,
4^^I^rr*M
gr
1'd sgtl-oge-eoe ANUdnoo -tlo sNl)lnu3 eql:Il zg zI 9nH
A7lzv2gA2 19:56 974476 KASSI]N CO
Thursday, August 08, 2002
Dear: Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Desigr Review Board
we, as vail property owners, have studied the plans for the Mountain Bell Site
andare quiti aisturUed. Too dcnude this site of its beautiful trees to build such a
large (annot vcry attractive) strucilre seems out of synch with our desire to have
Vail a moro beautiful place in which to live and to visit'
We suggest the Town of Vait sigrrificantly reduce the size of the housing project
or movc it !o a more appropriate venuc, Affordable employec housing is
important, But locating it at our main entrance, in its cunent configUratiOn' Seems
to defeat the purpose of a more atractive Vail.
Signed:
Elna and Bruce Kasson("r,*
Ls'l o b^IA hr-*ot^ Y*A
2933o PAGE AL
PHONE (970) 476.s646
@
rtl||$-h0rl|
416 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
vAtL, coLoFADO 81657 FAX (970) 476-030'l
August 7,2002
Town ofVail
Town Council
75 South Frontage Road, West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mayor and Town Council
For several months we have been following the discussions regarding the Mountain Bell
Site. The size of the project proposed for this site is not compatible with the world class
image of Vail. This project is the entry to Vail and the first impression for guests and
residents alike.
We urge the Town of Vail to either significantly reduce the size of the housing project or
move it to a more appropriate location. Although we understand that affordable
employee housing is critical for the Town, we also believe first impressions is a critical
issue to Vail as well. We have only one major entry to Vail and this is not the
appropriate location for affordable housing. We urge you to evaluate this issue carefully
as the effects of this decision are very long term.
Sincerely
Rams Horn Condomini Association
t.Page I of2
Nina Timm - Fw: Opposition to Middle Creek Affordable Housing Project
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeye/<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 08/26/20024:L2PM
Subject: Fw: Opposition to Middle Creek Affordable Housing Project
.---- Original Message -----
From: "Bi|| Rodkey'' <cartilagedoc@hotmail.com>
To: <town cou ncil@ci. va il. co. us>
Cc: < ed itor@va ilda ily.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23,2002 12:06 PM
Subject: Opposition to Middle Creek Affordable Housing Project
> Dear Vail Town Council:
> | wish to express my strong objection to the "Middle Creek"
> affordable housing project on the Mountain Bell site. I am quite
concerneo
> that such an edifice will forever defile our beautiful mountain and
> desecrate our quaint village environment. Please understand that I am not
> opposed to affordable housing, but rather I am opposed to this project at
> its current location.
> Based on the information I have seen as well as what I have read in the
> Vail Daily, I am unable to comprehend how this development possibly could
be
> deemed as "affordable" housing. Will any of our local employees truly be
> able to afford the rents in such a place? | honestly doubt it.
> Furthermore, if my information is correct, these apartments will be quite
> small, making the cost per square foot comparable to many mid-level (or
> higher) units in and around Vail. Who does the Town Council actually
think
> will live in theses units? Please be honest with yourselves as well as
the
> citizens of this valley, especially those of us who are full-time,
> year.round residents and home owners.
> In the past thirteen years I have observed many property owners, both
> residential and commercial, "jump through hoops" and spend untold amounts
of
> money to comply wiih the many restrictions placed upon them. This Jact is
> true even in those cases when the property owners simply wanted to upgrade
> their properties for the sake of appearance and in support of what is best
> for all of us who live and work here. Now. it seems that this Middle
Creek
> project is being given green lights at every intersection with little or
no
> opposition from the TOV in spite of strong opposition from the citizens.
To
> whom do you owe your allegiance?
fi le://C:\windows\TEMP\GW l 0000 I HTM 09/03/2002
Page2 of2
> Please consider the alternatives to this project and to this site. I am
> certain that there are sites that would be less technically challenging
and
> more amenable for building than the Mountain Bell property. You know
better
> than I what other possibilities exist, so why not look at those other
sites
> and suggestions with open minds? That would benefit all of us.
> Please, for the sake of all VailValley residents, do not allow
this
> proiect to proceed at this location.
> Very sincerely,
> Bill Rodkey
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> h_ttp;//www,hqlmpi l.qom
fi le://C:\windows\TEMP\GWl0000l.HTM 09/03t2002
Page I of I
Nina Timm - Fw: Re send of previous letter re Mountain Bell Affodable Housing plan
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeye/'<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 08/26/2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Re send of previous letter re Mountain Bell Affodable Housing plan
"--.- Original Message --.--
From: <OWHY@aol.com>
To: <town cou ncil@ci. va il. co. us>
Sent: Sunday, August 25,2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Re send of previous letter re Mountain Bell AfJodable Housing plan
> | have resent this message because the first time my name and address were
> not on it.
> To Town of Vail Council:
> Please rethink your plans for this site. As I have read for the past
couole
> of years the town is very serious about upgrading the Village and
Lionshead
> with remodeling and cleaning up existing structures and roads in the area.
> when I was in Vail last winter there was specific mention made of Vails
> "front door" entry just off l-70. All those who commented on it wanted
that
> area to reflect the "new and improved" look of Vail. Now just to the side
of
> that "front door'you propose to develop a site which will be more in
> keeping with the worst of Lionshead as it was developed. I think that it
is
> commendable that you want to put in affordable housing at this site, but
it
> should be in keeping with the plans that you have for the village Jrom the
> beginning of its life. You do not want to have to go back and try and
> redevelop the site into something more in keeping with your plans for an
> improved Vail look. Keep the scale and the look in keeping with what you
> have planned for the village.
> Sincerely,
> Diane L. Otto
> 124 Willow Bridge Road
> Unit 5CD
> Village Center
> Diane L. Otto
fi le ://C:\windows\TEMP\GWl 0000 I .HTM 09t03/2002
Page I of I
Nina Timm - Fw: Mountain Bell
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 08/26/2002 4:03 PM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell
--- Original Message ---
From: Eustaquio Cortina
To: towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
Cc: glamb@sliferlet
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell
I attended the past meeting and heard many opinions
To me we are missing the boat
Bob Lazier presented a project - and there was enonnous discussion of4 or 6 foot height - the
building looks great and is the same stories as of today but with all mechanical new items needs the
extra foot per floor to acomadate mechanical
Mountain Bell project will affect all people comming to Vail, skiers on the mountain, highway traffic,
at least I will see it a couple of times a day - these buildings will benefit 150 + families
IDEA - sell property and develop 12 lots or so - what ever is convinient - sell lots, purchase land in a not
so visible location and do the needed employe housing. Where is the next big questioq I have no idea,
but there will be a good place to put such a BIG and visible building
Thanks
Eustaquio Cortina
20 year resident in Vail
970 47t 0626
wu ry.eu9f aqul,oc-_qn1ua: gp.,m
MSN Fotos: la forma m6s f6cil de compartir e imprimir fotos. Haga clic aqui
fi le:i/C :\windows\TEMP\GW) 0000 1 .HTM 09/03/2002
Page I of I
Nina Timm - Fw: Middle Creek Houseing Plan
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: 'Pam Brandmeyer" < pbrand meyer@ci. va il. co. us>
Date: O8/29/2OO2 3:03 PM
Subject: Fw: Middle Creek Houseing Plan
---.- Original Message -----
From: "Catherine E Douglas" <cmdoug@iopener.net>
To: <Towncouncil@ci.vai l.co.us>; <Schofieldjbs@cs.com>;
<ju m p-arch@Mounta in max. net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28,2002 12:34 PM
Subject: Middle Creek Houseing Plan
> When we fist heard of the employee housing idea on the Middle Creek
location,we were in favor of the thought. However,one should never asume
anythig.We did.We visualized atractive buildings,like the employee houeing
on Sandstone Road opposite the Potatoe Potatoe.That architecture would be
more tasteful,more in keeping with Vail's alpine atmosphere,less
cospicuous,more tasteful,and not as objectionable.Why ltalian?This is
Vail.The architects had no feeling of the community.The present plan
resembles a prison;cold and stark. We think the Worth property shuold
still be considered.Does the town need 140 units???We doubt it.West Vail
would be more lagical with all the amenities within walking distance. We
are long time property owners['63],and fultime residents who take pride in
our town.Please!!l! do not do something foolish that can not be rectified.
Respectfully, Cathie> and Morgan Douglas
> [Pardon the typing errors]
fi le://C :\windows\TEMP\GW l 0000 I .HTM 09103/2002
Page I of2
Nina Timm - Fw: Mt. Bell
From: "DIANAD0NOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 0A/26/2002 2:15 PM
Subject: Fw: Mt. Bell
----- Original Message -.--.
From: "Judy Berkowitz" <Judy@HPBAssoc.com>
To: <town cou n cil@ci.va il. co. us>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2OOZ 7 :12 PM
Subject: Mt. Bell
> To: The Mayor
> The Planning Commission
> The Town Council
> As longtime Vail homeowners, we would like to express our hope that you
will
> reconsider the masss and scope of the proposed Mt. Bell site. The idea of
> placing a high density, low esthetic development at the entrance to our
> Village is ill conceived and should prompt a thorough investigation of the
> both the real needs of the town employers/employees and how best to
satisfy
> these needs. As we heard at the recent PEC meeting, an after September 11
> re-evaluation needs to be undertaken so that we are not just responding to
> perceived but perhaps unrealistic assessments and move in the the
direction
> that is most appropriate given the changing economic climate of Vail.
> As you climb up Vail mountain and look down toward the Village as I
recently
> did this summer, it is clear that the landscape would be horribly affected
> by this project which will loom as the large and out of scale development
it
> is. The same vista will assault our downhill skiiers as they end their
day.
> Right now we have a chance, and an obligation, to preserve the character
of
> Vail and not allow such massive developments that could radically alter
the
> perception and reality of our world class resort.
> We urge the Council and the Commission to look into reducing the scale of
> this project and to preserve as much of the open space as possible.
> Sincerely,
> Judy and Howard Berkowitz
fi le ://C :\windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 I .HTM 09/03t2002
Page I of I
Nina Timm - Fw: Middle Creek Ilousing - YES
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com)To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 08/26/2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Fw: Middle Creek Housing - YES
---- Original Message ---
From: _BJKSKI@aol com
To: towncouncil@ci.vail.com
Cc: jacaro@vail.nel
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 9:23 PM
Subject: Middle Creek Housing - YES
I'm a voting residenl of Vail and writing you in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental development for local
employees on the site commonly known as the "Mountain Bell" land. Many years ago I lived in a trailer court
which was located in within the current Town Of Vail boundaries and later lived in one and two bedroom
condominiums (located in Vail Village) with up to 3 roommates to make it affordable. These living arrangements
certainly helped make me and my roommate more productive and happy employees enjoying a very short
commute to work (l parked my care for the ski season) and knowing I was part of a great and caring community.
The need for employee housing grows every year, and while the Town Of Vail has made strides in providing for-
sale options, an affordable rental development is much needed.
Residents living wilhin town boundaries are essential to the year round viability of lhe community as well as the
economy. This location in particular has the advantages of being on the Town's bus and bike routes, as well as
being within walking distance ol Vail Village and Lionshead. My wife and I live in the Sandstone area of Vail and
will be able to see this housing development which certainly will not trouble us.
I have reviewed the density, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and teel that this
housing development is very appropriate at this site.
For over 23 years I was a principal officer (CFO) ol a Denver based investment banking firm (which I helped start)
involved in financing atfordable housing throughout the United States. lf you have any questions please do not
hesitale to contact me at 479-0761 or by e-mail at kent_erickson@newmanfs.com.
Sincerely,
R. Kent Erickson
1 139 Sandstone Dr.
Vail. CO 81657
fi le://C :\windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 I .HTM 09t03/2002
Page I of I
Nina Timm - Fw: Middle Creek Housing Proposal
From: "DIANA DONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: Oa/26/2OO2 2:53 PM
Subject: Fw: Middle Creek Housing Proposal
-.--. Original Message .-.-.
From: "Nancy Byers" <nancyb@mountai n max. net>
To: <town coun cil@ci. va il. co. us>
Sent: Monday, August 26,2002 8:38 AM
Sublect: Middle Creek Housing Proposal
> Dear Council Members:
> | wrote before that I was against employee housing on the Mountain Bell
> site. What concerns me more is not housing on that particular site as
much
> as the size, density and cost of the project. Will it really be
> "affordable" when it's completed? Or is this another Donavan Park debacle
> that the TOV will then need further compensation by raising our taxes?
> | find the size and density of this plan almost as offensive at our town's
> entrance as the proposed and approved Wl project, which I think is
tota lly
> inappropriate. Massive, tall buildings are not in character to the TOV
let
> alone at the entrance. Neither project invites me to leave 1.70 to enjoy
> special experience.
> Thank you,
> Nancy Byers
> 352A Beaver Dam Cir.
> Vail, CO. 81657
fi le ://C:\windows\TEMP\GW ) 0000 I HTM 09/03/2002
o
ELAINE KELTON
1034 HOMESTAKE CIRCLE
vAtL, coLoRADO 81657
970476-il11
DEAR MAYOR KURZ
PLANN]NG & ENVIRONMENTAL COMM]SSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
YES, WE NEED INTEGMTED LONG TERM AD SEASONAL HOUSING.
YES, WE NEED EMPLOYER OWNED HOUSING.
YES. WE NEED A LOT OF IT.
BUT WE DO NOT NEED ALL OF IT IN ONE LOCATION, ESPECIALLY ONE WHICH IS SO
VERY VISIBLE AT THE'FRONT DOOR TO VAIT.
THE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE TO SPREAD THE UNITS NEEDED: THE "HUD
WIRTH PARCEL" AND THE TIMBER RIDGE SITES COULD PERHAPS ABSORB THE
NEEDED UNITS. EACH OF THE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS WOULD ALSO HAVE
AVAILABLE PUBLIC TMNSPORTATION.
WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS THE IROQUOIS NATIONTHE IMPACT ON TH E -SEVENTH
GENEMTION" BUILDING THE LARGEST SINGLE PROJECT AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE
TOWN - THE 1ST THING SEEN AS YOU EXIT 1-70 AND THE VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN
AS YOU SKI DOWN AT THE END OF EVERY DAY DOESN'T FEEL SYMPATHETIC TO ALL
WE ESPOUSE AS AWORLD CLASS RESORT.
I.ASTLY, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THIS LAND WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED
OPEN SPACE AND THE REMOVEABLE OF THIS TRACT WAS DONE TO CREATE A
SMALL POCKET OF 40 EMPLOYER HOUSING UNITS;
SINCERELY,
ELAINE KELTON
/2,.?az-
ARTHUR KELTON JR
225 WALL STREET
VAIL, COLORADO 8L657
970-476-7990
TO MAYOR LUDY KURZ
THE P.E.C.
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PLEASE COUNT ME AMONG THOSE OPPOSED TO THE OVER
DEVELOPEMENT OF THE "MOUNTAIN BELL'' SITE NOW DESIGNATED
MIDDLE CREEK. THIS SITE WAS ONLY REZONED TO ALLOW FOR 40
EMPLOYER OWNED UNITS, NOT THE ENLARGED DESIGN ON THE TABLE
TODAY.
THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, THE FIRST IMPRESION
THAT THE VISITOR IMPRINTS. NPLEAESE RECONSIDER THE DENSITY AT
THIS LOCATION AND SPREAD IT TO OTHER AVAILABLE SITES SO AS TO
MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESORT EXPERIENCE.
oO
s/n/o<
9, fu;^/ta' l4/"/^^ ?feu '4'*
,r^ 6Urh-alJz&''/ryyr%4Lf^t dr.- ft ''a^. re,*rf-L, 4 b"*d'|Ua
h"**4 -a* /d'^'a-A *-a7-b" 'a &
qrn-( A''- , 'ul
,a'! 4v7'1'1/t *Vc*t t't-" J -ato'-U
ry; i; /dd$ ';t'/^^a/"4 /a''|4*
a{'fu.- rzt*adw,l<P*ry ^ :fu' k)"A' /?o 4A^a % ff - -.r'
, L - r, iwrz*&2A,*'i -a<'"u;*%' { Y:--rcT^f r+ -a'"'* t )"'*-G-'"'a'm /D
-*f-tt"re 'Az taz'-"doJoor1 '
?z&,*Ja" A '/h47-'|^
t,{ P,1u1, P#r^ Rs"a
Ua^'e'.
v-76-Volo
o
*E
A:.----l.y-l l< .-%e 'H'';-' h-qf>\- "\r
f ><- , a-T )-/ . Jrx()
MtJ+jLS njt,! O,-'A0)-/<
V;-!,Qo s/6{+
7 7C -+76 -{74f
,6
j€o, t
cg :
p,+iE :
flrc
fr.o
?o*"
rt a edsT
uiDDtr
(> ).oo )
e P t;K Na ,)si arc ?eo iIEcF
-,O,^ffc Slot+AD tL{6u
sre; ar B€pe C4ft-6/e?
Bog &leLe'tfli "J ,/ *r t Q o J alei t
7r,
T o,? fusc +t 6 )sir6 iT 1#A lub J Frti il *tt
s,ft {u R 4 Lc Tt( € /€esd*s n r Rcaby €xf RGsssJ
fyp 4to(€ : rf(€ -rb dL, C6u$c(L ftfrs rr tf
?eA,t i 2€D fi+e Qw Fra He -To ?ea I i?€ sAFr
?€DG,TP;frJl1 ee€ss 1o a#e ri rfieF edq{
f1g crLc'1 e{oie kud )s f" ,irALK-7*2ouQ r+
Tft€ -16?aox? A;,osTf .lt+Fs V*l6E Ro,,.s. /
?g**Ainir €Qo. u''?D^i tQfaf' 6t'c 1L
CaF *ft', t 6 6{ ' t* tr a N z/ 3a Kt 'r'' art Ef,R To/
is aGtf otAg:,,t$l" -,{ TH€ RodvaagatTi:
1r , e t(,rtLt1q-vJ ' dt K? T*€ ,4,ruc ? o'J 'pa0a'l1-s'
T-t+6 ( *it- 4 od ^D4iacrd rl A { tr FtR rt E'D -' /l?
VE? aTnfi t *': ?-7ia)a aw a tr frfi 41a sT
5 o.c*>Fr:"ieotgd= ")J
,t t, ,- t*trf+ il*-;&I AAt)
frfD 'o frt Almio rtAle/ Berni | 114's fr6Pt747itt
?rEPs€ I of€ 9
t
Fo Dox 4e2n Va'iff,
,trlnTr?o o,tfi;ii9rff **-*
August 20,2002
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Vail Town Council:
I'm writing this letter in support of the proposed Middle Creek employee housing development
for the following reasons: meeting the need for housing for locals near the pedestrian village,
meeting that need in a clustered, low-impact environmentally responsible manner, and offering an
automobile-free lifestyle for those able to live and work in Vail.
An estimated 500 vehicles a day consume parking spaces daily in Vail for commuting workers
alone, using up valuable finite parking that otherwise should be available to guests. According to
the Sonoran lnstitute report on Population. Employment. and Personal Income Trends for Eagle
Count-v, gross income outflows outpaced inflows by around $57 million in 1999 alone, an
indication of employees living outside Eagle County and commuting in daily to work. This
disparity has steadily increased over the past I 2 years. Not only are dollars being taken out of the
local economy, but employees are being sentenced to long daily commutes just to have a place to
call home.
The environmental impact of commuting alone can be assessed in the following manner: The
average daily commute in Eagle County is l8 miles. Ninety-one percent of commuters travel via
single-occupancy vehicles. Given an average gas mileage of 20 mpg, providing local housing
versus commuting workers in for 256 employees each year would save roughly 93,075 man
hours, 83,768 gallons of gasoline, eliminate 838 tons of CO2 emissions, or the equivalent of
planting 349 acres oftrees. Ofcourse this doesn't include cost ofroads, vehicles themselves,
impacts to wildlife, sedimentation from road sanding, insurance, vehicular accidents, etc.
In addition, plans for the development are to meet or exceed LEED or BuiltGreen Colorado
environmental design standards, acting as a model for enerry and water efficiency, sustainable
site design, indoor air quality, and renewable material use.
In 2000 when SKI magazine rated Vail as the #4 resort in the country, two weak points of the
survey responses reflected Vail as being (a) too "old", and (b) too expensive. Adding an element
youth and affordability near the village would add vibrancy and a piece to the community that
otherwise seems to be lacking.
The proposed Middle Creek development is beneficial with regards to the three criteria of
sustainability: good for the local economy, good for the environment, and benefits community in
the form of improved quality of life and retention of local employees. As a representative for the
Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability, we endorse the proposed development.
Adam Palmer
Executive Director, EVAS
August 20,2OOz
Voil Town Council
75 South Frontoge Road
Voil, CO 8t657
Deqr Council Members,
I om concerned thot the proposed Middle Creek rentol development
is in donggr of being scropped. Tf we continue to concern ourselves
sofefy with the oesthetic needs of the ultro rich, we will soon find the
hole in our infrqstructure beyond repoir. A town needs to have people
to run it. If we con't provide offordoble living conditions within fhot
town, who will be there to onswer the 911 calls, or crire for the sick, or
teoch our children?
It is time we put some serious eff ort into moking living here
offordoble for the people who keep this town going,qnd not just in
keeping fhose with deep pockets from living too neon onyone who might
of f end their sensi bi I ities.
fil1;Izdb*'
Koren Zqdkovic
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
towncouncil@ci.vail.co,us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(970) 479-2452iax
I am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental development for local employees on
the site commonly known as'Mountain Bell.' The need for employee housing grows every
year, and while the Town of Vail has made strides in providing for-sale options, an affordable
rental development is much needed.
Residents living within town boundaries are essential to the year round viability of the
community, as well as the economy. This location in particular has the advantages of being on
the Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking distance of Vail Village and
Lionshead.
I have reviewed the density, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and
feel that the project is very appropriate at this site. Please feel free to contact me should you
have any questions.
furl 6r,r,dt L/%'K7(
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(970) 479-2452fax
I am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental development for local employees on
the site commonly known as "Mountain Bell." The need for employee housing grows every
year, and while the Town of Vail has made strides in providing for-sale options, an affordable
rental development is much needed.
Residents living within town boundaries are essential to the year round viability of the
community, as well as the economy. This location in particular has the advantages of being on
the Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking distance of Vail Village and
Lionshead.
I have reviewed the density, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and
feel that the project is very appropriate at this site. Please feel free to contact me should you
have any questions.
'T:,r r rl
H&rFHffiq+)
'2a7>7ewC\ LFq
,*CH*"S'kI
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
towncouncil@ci.vail.co. us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(970) 479-2452fax
I am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental development for local employees on
the site commonly known as "Mountain Bell." The need for employee housing grows every
year, and while the Town of Vail has made strides in providing for-sale options, an affordable
rental development is much needed.
Residents living within town boundaries are essential to the year round viability of the
community, as well as the economy. This location in particular has the advantages of being on
the Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking distance of Vail Village and
Lionshead.
I have reviewed the density, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and
feel that the project is very appropriate at this site. Please feel free to contact me should you
have any questions.
il,,t-ALif .k
.\ss,bf
,urfr#,)f
r f)r5r'4?r'\l:ru,
"\,'v ,,o \'\0";uD5\ '-
" i.rJ{ - e1-'
/ nno* tl] '
., t JV,\/ J
\ r$ I,',
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(970) 479-2452fax
I am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental development for local employees on
the site commonly known as "Mountain Bell.' The need for employee housing grows every
year, and while the Town of Vail has made strides in providing for-sale options, an affordable
rental development is much needed.
Residents living within town boundaries are essential to the year round viability of the
community, as well as the economy. This location in particular has the advantages of being on
the Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking distance of Vail Village and
Lionshead.
I have reviewed the density, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and
feel that the project is very appropriate at this site. Please feel free to contact me should you
have any questions.
3*t\t^ $n*,'?'sts awJu"r
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
towncou ncil@ci.vail. co. us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(970) 479-2452fax
I am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental development for local employees on
the site commonly known as'Mountain Bell." The need for employee housing grows every
year, and while the Town of Vail has made strides in providing for-sale options, an affordable
rental development is much needed.
Residents living within town boundaries are essential to the year round viability of the
community, as well as the economy. This location in particular has the advantages of being on
the Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking distance of Vail Village and
Lionshead.
I have reviewed the density, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and
feel that the project is very appropriate at this site. Please feel free to contact me should you
have any questions.
4u+lntt zcs> -r<<(rcr
(e7o)479.2452rn\
r-T.rr"i!c 4,*n L * prcporcd Mlddlc cre.k rrrtrr cllopuent for locrt*n'rloSrcer on thc sitc commorrly larown a! cMomtrh BcIL" 'rrre ncia for onrployceho.olng groxs Gveqt'yesr, .'d rhilc rhe Town ofvrir hEr -ree "eir", il p.ouaingfor-ralc optionr, rn afior.dablc nntrl devclolurent is much nesdcd.
Rcoid"'ilr living ru'orrn tmn boundadcr arc errenthl to the 5,.ar tourd 'irhilty ofthoconmunity, erwcll nr tho econony. ThirlocrtirmlnFrficulsrtes tbeadvnrtags of bclng ou thc Tom'c br* rcuiG
"od
brlc prrh, * -"r o t"r.g -rori,wtltsng ittrtrnce of Velt \rillegc rnd llonshced.
r hrvc revicrcd trc projccn_radrqpport it roro-ing thrt e[ of
're
c,omponcotr ofthc p.ojGct mry not nect .Il of orc-demanfu rni pnfcrrcncrr of a[ mcryrbc' of flrecomrnurity' it ir irnDort&t thrt r.h lrfiddlc cbceh rrousing Dc,vclopmenip"o*.o,and consh:rrctiqr begln ar roon ar pocdhle
tJ^u+,1 k*hJ
CHelsFl ka<"g,.1
Va,tu- F.tnoE \r-t- s(e\rc_E-
llo-4-71^Zqztp
PS' ANf oppqytaJiT= q
To lJ vE t5 c^:?t-aomE-
tQq=
ft{e PpsaE<jr tPHo
IJJHwF I+TE1
,SWJJL<.E. P/aAFFESIsN*IS?-o c^A tqe,
4A<rtrt e)</pLAl'-N,
Hre€"THE-
TD WIE.
Lecy'.l_
o9/L2/o2 IsU--0-S:lg-ElL--- O
VrilTollG@
75$odrlhdrgcnmd
V4Gottd$,
@
/9'it0\ i?(|.l&Sn -r^--
*,n$lulzt*-,1 [0oor
t!!ta.fa
Sep lI (JZ U3:auP rHIL L
Fr('ru \rcll,{ To: Jo! l.rr Long Dst€i grt l0ij2 llne: d:15::0PN
L i' /U J JCtt-ttU a't
Pigc.l oll
\''rril Torvu Council
75 South Frontrrge Ronrl
YaiL Co 81657
towncounciltZlci.vail' co.us
(90).179-1E60 phone
(970) 479-2452 far
I am writing in support of the proposed lliddle Lreek rental development lbr local
enrployees on t5e iite commoniy laronrt as "Nlountai' Ilell" 'I'5e neetl lbr employee
housing qrorys everJ, year, tnd wNle the 'l'orvn of \iril has nrarle strirles in providing
tbr-sale options, an ottbrdabtc rentl developtnent is rnuch necded'
Residents living withitr to$n bound[ies are essenrinl lo the .vem round viability of
the couunrurity, as NeU as the econoln]'. 'fNs location in particular has the
advantirges ofU"ir,g o' the Tou''s b's route rrrrd bike plth. ns rrell as bcing *itlri'
walking distance of trail \rillage nld Lionshend'
I have revierverl the project md suppon it. Iino$ure that ail o1'the conrponents of
thepl'ojectmaynotnreetatlofthertcmandsarrrlprel.erencesofallmembertofthe
conununity, it is important that the Middle creek l{ousilrg Developmetrt proceeds
irnd construction begin as soon 'ns possible.
(r- 1
Pao { to- 0'<t'v {4'J
L.,,/.e- {'uv.t'^4 |
/rT'i/b crzz-L Ffr,.Z ".r rt'<
SEP-Il-02 l.lED 04:52 Pt{
Fro!,|: VCIIA Ta Mrt Cdm|
BRANDESS-CADHUSo REAL EST Fil( NO, 9704763188
D,Ic 9/YnoO: IIrrt: 7:tJJ{ PM U
P, 0t
t\r { of4
Vail Town Corurcil
75 South Fmntege Rond
Vri! Cb 8r6s7
tow.mcouncllfi Dciveilco.us
(970) 479-1t60 phone
(!10)479-2452 ttx
I an rrriting in support of the proposcd Midrtle L'rco.k rehlrl dcvelopmcnt for locnl
employecs on lhe sitc corunonly lqrom r:l cMorntaln BclL" The necd for employeu
housing grows cvc4/ ycsr, anrl whilc the Torur of Vail he.r rndc ttridcs in providiug
for-salc optiorrs, an rllordrble rctrtal dcvolopment is much ne e.led,
Resftltnts lMng withln towu borurdrr.lcr lrc csscntid to ahe ycu rcund viability of
lhe comnrulity, rs wrll rs the ecotroray. I'hir locltion h prticular has the
ndventagos of bcing on thc Tomr's bus route rnd hikc peth, ns wcll er bcirg wlthin
wrlhrg disteme of Veil Vilhge md Llonclrcnd"
I hrve rcvlewcd thc projcct md support it. Knowing 0lat nll of ihc componrntr of
thc plolect nay not mcel nll ofthc demands rni proferenccs ofell rnemberr of the
communlty. ll is lnportrnt thrt thc Middle Creck Houring Ilevelopmcnt procecds
tnd con$trucllon bcgln an roon e.r posslbla
/'t'5veeJ ct/q/o.L
MRrttr CqJ $\,:
Vln,t+ n C,+ Jwru s
/81 SRrr?qE Sf
SEP-11-2AA2 12:59 FROI'4 SLOPE
o
ENTERPRISES TO 4?92452 P.@t/BL
VailTown Courrcil
?5 South Frontrge Rord
VailCo 81657
tomcorurcil@Fi'Y rilco'tts
(9?0) 479-1860 Phone
p1O)479-2452tar-
I am writing in support of lhe proposed Miildlc C
'rc3k
rcnfal development for local
;;;;;h.,'l::#ffi.*r"*:rfl*H#[ffi'il;il$:f ;
houstng grow:r cvcrJ year' al'r'
*i"ri."a"p*ent is much neeiled.
for-sale oPtions' arr alfoN
Resiiterrtslivbgrrithirtowtrbourdaricsareessedirltottrcyeerrourrilviebilityof
the community, "'*"u o''i*'"-Jooo-y' This locztion in uarticular has the
adventases of t"i"g o" **"ioiliJi'o-*tltt 1nrl
urt nntlr' - *tll tt being wiihin
il;o?'*;;. oi"v"l rnr"ec rnd Lio^hcrd'
I have rcvieneit the proiect rnrl supPort it- Kno:ru! thrt ell of the components ol
the project may oot d'""i;-Jth;T;dsandarefertnces of rll members of thc
conntmitJ't it ir i'"pt"t"ililttt-nftAart Crtetrflo*ing Ilerclopment proceeds
rrr.il"t*attaton begin es soon es possiblc'
t-ll^d +f, f#' S# l' '^-reiYJ '
TOTAL P.01
9-1 1-2AA2 2tQBPM FROM FINISHING TOUCH,/VAIL I S7A 9A9 A5A1 P. I
YriI Towr Counril
75 South Frontnge Road
Yail, Co 81657
towncounciK@S.vnil.cq us
(e70) 4?9-1860 phone
(970t 479-2452 t^r
I om writtrg ln support of th proposed Middlc Crcck rerrlol dcvelopment for local
emiloyco$ on the sito cornmooly lstof,tl r$ *Mountoin Bellt The nesd for ompbyee
housing gnotld rlieery year, rnd wtle tbc Tovn of,valt hrs m,rile etrldes ln providing
for-selc opiory an allordablc rcntal dcvcloprnont ls nruch ncedcd'
Resldeltc IMng wtthln rown boundrr{cs sre esscrltd to the year rcuud vlrblllty of
the cornrnurdtS rls wcll as thc ecolrorly. TId$ locrdott In pertlcnlo'fnr ute
eilvantrges of bclng orr tlrc Towntr buc ruute ud btla prrh" u wetl es belng wltldn
wlHng dtrtencr of Vdl Vlllagc erul Liorrshcad.
I havp rcvierycd the project ud support it Knowing thrt rII of the componeutr of
thc pmJe.ct my not meet rlt of the dernandr auil preferrnceB of nll mcmberr of thc
communi8. tt is lmportant thd the Middlc C.rcek llouslng Development proreecds
rnrl corutnrcdon begln as roon as poarthlc"
TUU €r rt r vh't
lli
&'jj"
rFi,
fifl;
sEP- 1 et-42 63 i LO Pt'l
:!'(n\ A||!id
TYNLODGE 974
D*: t i.'.!G ti!. : !!'jt 'r*l
ALA
a
479gLA2
o
P.91
T!8J{{
!'d Tourr tbuncll
73 Sourt Frunbge Rortd
vdl. Co $1657
trlsncounc&f, {&lrl+qg4p
(970) {7e-1t60 photu
(9?0).r79.t{10 br
I rm urltllg ln rupport of thr pnoDced tlftldle (l.|.h rentd rlevcluprrlrr f;rr local
cmDlo! tct on thc iitc oorurorrly bmnn E 'iftroutruhl EclL" Tte ned hr cnplo5'c*
hourhg grorr rvcrl y'oru. rnd whilr tlc Torn sf lliill hlr mrdc rtrirlcr in pror'ldlng
for-*li opthnr, ur dlotdrble rtntot .lsudopmrnl tc nuch n:edcd'
SelHcaq lluh j rttlth tovm htuldrriet rtt etridl&l tu tht I rar rour.d rlnblll$ of
the cunnurnls', u wrll u lhe ectnomy, TNr l*rttlon ln putlsuhr bar thr
ndrT fijer of tet4 oa tlrc Tonr'l bttt lpule und bllc prth, u rrdl rr beilrg rdthln
rrmE{nE dl$ntce olYdl lllngo aul Um*terd.
I hlvo rrrlcued ttrc proJrt nnrt wpport tl. linorrtg thet rU {,f the sotrrportrntt of
the pnolact ttutt nd ilr.ct r[ olttrc dpnrelrds ulrd pnterem'c of rll mrnhrc ofths
corrnurhyi h h lnporut lhl lhc lttddb Crccb Houdng Dtveloprrelt plocecdl
ord cotrdnrdlor Dqb x rool u pouiblr
Ar-{W
Page I of I
Allison Ochs - Fw:
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.u9
Date: 08130120021:38PM
Subject: Fw:
--- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schilling" <robs@gorerange.org>
To: (towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Sent: Thursday, August22,2002 10:26 AM
> To the Town Council,
> I am in support of the proposed middle creek development. I moved to Vail
> with my family in the early 1970s. I am a registered voter in Vail. I
> would like to see both rental accomodations as well as low-cost owrership
> opportunities there.
> Good luck and if you have any questions you may call me at work.
> Respectfully,
> rob
> Robert Scbilling
> Marketing and Events Coordinator
> Gore Range Natural Science School
>(97O\821-9725 ext. 18
> robs@gorerange.org
) "Where nature has a way of teaching..."
fi le ://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW i 00003.HTM 09/11/2002
69lIg/2A82 13:45 KNGS
o
PAGE AL
Ptr,l oJ,l
I
dcvclopmant for locel
" The need for crnPloYec.'
s lmda rtridg in pttvl.tlng
brttrri ycn' round vlrbllitY o{
pcrdcrrtrr lras thc
gatb t| wl| E! bcing{tthln
dl of the componcnts of
of ell momben of tte
Ilcvelopnart lroceeds
Orc.
ard
BE$
N
SEP-10.02 TIJE OI:41 P}I CHRISTIAN]A LODGE FA)( NO,410
Vnil Town Council
75 South Frontagc Road
Vail, Co 81657
lqw ncou ncil@ci.vail-eo.us
(970) 479-1860 phonc
(970) 479-24521u
I am writhrg in support of lhe proposcd Middlc creek rentrl dwelopmcnt for local
cmployccs on tho sitc comuonly known as 6M0untrin Bell." Thc need for employce
housing grow$ evcry ycar, and whilc the Town of vail hru madc gtrides in providing
for-sale options, an rff<rrdable rcntrl development is mucl nccdcd.
Rosidenls living within town boundarics erp essentiol to the year round viability of
tho community, as well as thc ccotrony. This location in particular hes thc
advuntages of being on the Town's bus routc rnd bike path, os well ag being within
walkiag diclance of Vail Village end Lionchead.
I have reviewcd the project rnd support it, Knowing thrt all of the coruponents of
the project may not mect dl of the demrndr and prcfcrcnces of ell mcmbers of the
conmunity, it is important thrt thc Middlo Creek Housing Developrncnt proceeds
and consfrqction begh {$ sootr ar por.tiblc.
V"/"- 1r/**Zro.,-^- H{f-
9704760o P,0l
d^ Zw.$r/'t Uf)l,r&Lffi*_
AYA9/26A2 13: Ag 9764.rqr lvEur la. rllrlt.llltof 766266o AIERICAN S|(I
H4,XU7n2 trt|., d${;:otu
o(cHo
PAGE 6I/67
f{F{ ot4
VdlTosn Council
75 Soutb Frontagc Rmd
Yai[ Co81657
tourcoundl@ciyail.co. us
(90) 479-1860 phoue
(ll0) 479-2452 fiatt
r an wdtfog in sqrport of the proposcd l\{tdde crceh mtel dcvelo;unent for local
crnpbyces on thc rltc comrmnff hom ac oMouilrin BctL' The necil for cmployec
houfug grorw evcry'year, and rdite thc Twrr of vd has uede strider in providing
for-sde optionr, m rtfordable nutd der.dopmcut ir nuch necded.
Rcsidents tiyhgwithin torm bormderiesare elsqfialtorhc ycarrorud vlabiEty of
Urc conmunity, as vellls the economy. Itls locrftonln porticulelbrs tbc
advarrtager of being on the Town'c brrs routc end hikr tldh, as well ae being rrdLhin
ralking disfancc ofVail Village end Lionsheed-
I_heve rtvien'ed fhe project and support iL rhorfog that eu of tle conrponcnls oltte project uay not meet rll of the dcmmdr and pre.fererrccc of all ncnben of tfte
commitJr, lt b tmporlauttlat fte Middle clock Irorslng Developnud pnoceeils
and congftuqEon begin rs soon os pooiblE
]V^". (q(,6a^\ .DbG-\ +\l!-
{qb\&€lft 0ornvrntr-vl-*}q t>>atntryq------- \.-\)
l- h.,0.jrd ,
cl^r$rlef Ar.n-ry\CC*r1
Lx0-r\"aT
)q)ba- T
Frun: VCBA To;Xittrbot t)ric 'Yyr:Ar
I n.| v:{o:{4 rM
VrilTownCouncll
?SSouth FrontageRd
Vail, Co 81657
tmncourclKdcLvollco-us
(90) 479-1860 phone
(97O) 479-245;2 ht
I am rrltlng ln support of the prcposed Mirlrtle creek rental development for local
employeeo in thc iite comnonty lorom as'Mormlrln-Be1' The nccd for employec
houdng gtrowlt ev€r1 yesrr ard wlilk thc Torvn of Vlfl hrs rnade stfdg ln provldlng
for+ale opdonq an afiiordable rental developmcnt is nurdr needcd'
Rcsidenb living wi0rtn torn boundar:hs ere essential to tlre yerr roud vhNltty of
ffrc corrmunlg, rs well ar thc economy. ThIs locrdon in p*ffculrr has-the
advantages of-belng on the Town's bus r.orte and blke path, rs wel as belng xithin
walldng dtstance of Valt Vllhge and Lionshead.
I have rwicred thc proJect and upport tt Knowing ftat all of the componcnts of
ile proleci may not meet r[ of the-a-emaus rn prcferenccs of atl rnernben of the
*r"honrty, It t hnportrnt that the Mlddle crcek Hourhg Developmcnt proceeds
and conslnction begin as soon as posdble.
122EIt ililDdi'GJqEF-4
fiil6'J'&;-a;*szteto
;Fslin3li
{a<u*. lAea<.--\
l4r osPaFlf,
'riruporO*ama
1.d ee9B-9at-ot 6 FceaJl Ined t uoJeqs egs:OI ZO OI das
FRct"tt : Plaza Gallere -,tJail coo F$( l{]. ,rffinffirf;31l.or.^"
Ooct'
Lazwz 12:14Ff'l P:.
I'ellTomCourll
73SouthFlont geno.d
Vdl Co tl6f/
tprmcoundlfl cLvdlco.us
(9?0).179-1t60 ptonc
(9t0)47!L2452 hr
I anvrlthg urirDDort ofihe tr'rp'nt Mrddlc crcehreqrer dcvetoDmc'a forrocotcu4iloyeg on tlc dte counons horn u aMoutrin DdL" Tho neeril for onDloycchoudng g.rfr w6rt yq''' grd n-hib rh rorn of van har rnrr" *ia"r-il fitilil;lorolc opdonr, m rfibrdabh nntd devclopncrt lr mrrh needed.
ReddenF [trhg rflthr totn torurriee arc errendrl to llro ycer rround vialollft5r of
thc conmdty, ryvclt a f,hc cconoqr. Ild. locsdon h pricuUtfrrtt
rivutrgcr ol bdngru l|rc Tonts tru rout rnd Dih pcth, ,' ncn r bciry rtthin
rvelldng dirfauce of Vrll Yllbgc ud Lloubead.
I trve lgrdewcd tho projectcnd support lt l{nodng thc r[ of tto cunponentr of
the poiect may not neot rll of ftc dcurendr and pre fqrnces of all me,nbcrr of the
oonmmity'ft b Inportrnt that rbo Mtddlc cne|r Eousing ltcvcbpnrrrt procecdr
url cortnrction begtr or rocr as po*lbb,
frr{w*,
Sep lO O2 O8:56a
Sirrce
V",- Tu'stu {
msdo en Davis & Foulen RE 97 ?6-A63?0-4o p.1
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Co 81657
towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
(9?0) 479-1E60 phone
(9701 479-2452fitx
I nm writirrg in aupport of the propmed Middlc creek rental development for local
emptoyses o-n ttt" iii..or^oniy knowu as "Mou-ntlin Bell." The need for employee
housiug grows every year, and white the Town of vail has mede strides in providing
for-selii'ptions' an-affordable rental dwetopment is much oeeded'
Rcsidents living within town boundaries are essentiel to the year round viability of
the communityl as well as the economy. This location in particular hasJhc
adventages of being on the Town's bus route and bike path" ls weu es being within
walkiog distance of Vail Villtge and Lionshead.
r have rcviewed thc project and support it. Klowing thtt all of th_e components of
the project mey not meet ell of the dimmds nnd pr€ferenccs of all members of the
.o,r,n,u-oity, it is important that thc Middle Creek lfousing Developmcnt proceeds
with the project. TLe design, height scale and massing may need fine tuning to lit
the srea better. I want to see thc housing but it also must be visually plersing to the
eye and a design titting for Vail. I have heard marry Vail residenh sey th€y agree
with the locrtion of the development, but feel the design doec no( fit in with being to
tall and not a attractive exterioa
oa-23-a2 04: 08
-
o
PIERs P.BT
VailTown Council
75 South Frontage Boad
Vail, CO 81657
towncouncil@ci.vail -co.us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(97A1479-2452tax
t am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental developmenl for local employees on
the sile commonly lmown as "Mountain Bell.' The need for employee housing grows every
year, and white the Toryn of Vail has made stides in providing for-sale oplions, an attodable
rental development is much needed.
Reskients livlng within town boundaries are essential to the year round viability ot the
community, as well as the economy. This location in particular has the adrnrntages of being on
lhe Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking disrance of Vail Village and
tionshead.
I have reviewed the densi$, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and
feet thal lhe project is very appropriate at this site. Please feel free to codact me should you
have any questions.
,/1
l/ ,
,f LX -ry
I D=9704750313
o
FROM I FRX NO. :Aug. 26 2AAZ t6.39Pn P1
VailTom Council
75 Sonth Frontago Road
Vall, CO 81657
tornrcouncil@ ci.\€ll-co. us
(970) 47$1860 phone
(970) 4792/*n f,il(
l,arn writing in support of Ule pruposed MUdle Creek rentsl rtwelopment for locat emgloyees onthe sib commonlv Som as'Mountain Belr-' The neeo ror emgoy; dGng grrws et/€ryy€at' and while the Tom d Vail has made stidec ln prorl-rcfrng ror-'s8l€ optioni, an sftdafu€r€rrtel dsvElgpment is mudr rE€cle<t.
Residonts living wihin tovn boundaries are ossential to he y6ar tound viability of thecommunlty' as well eg the.economy. Thie lo€tion in partior'iar hae trc advanLge6 of being onthe Towtl's hls roule ard bike pati. as w€ll as boing dnin vo*ing OGtanca orVi;; Vffrge-arfLionsheed.
I hwe twieured Ure denslly, rEntal rates, and devatiorls of the preposed devebpmeot ptan, and
I€el that tt€ Prpject ls very appropriate d his sita- Ptease reet ir€a o contact m! shoula you
haro any questions.
/r//e;'*" fr/' -u"'-) =r'CC",-r'- e/*
?7a - {+trz-
Page I of I
Nina Timm - Fw: yes, for Middle Creek housing
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>To: "Pam Brandmeyer" (pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 0812612002 3:20 PM
Subject: Fw: yes, for Middle Creek housing
---- Original Message ---
From: BJKS{l@asl-com
To: towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 6:48 PM
Subject: yes, for Middle Creek housing
To: Vail Town Council
From: Barbara Krichbaum, 1139 Sandstone Dr #3, Vail
Date: August 25,2002
I am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek development. The town needs this type ol housing in order
to continue to attract employees that will help us to maintain our fame as a "world class resort". I have only praise
for the locationl As a member ol the Parking Task Force I realize that this location will keep cars out of town. Any
other location for this type of housing will only add to our employee parking problems!
Please continue to vote for this prolect. Don't allow the non-resident home owners to control this issue.
Sincerely,
Barbara Krichbaum
fi le ://C:\windows\TEMP\GW l 0000 LHTM 09/03t2002
SEI'{T BY:20- 2 t 5:58FM ;Connunl tyDevel oprent'r 9704792452;# L/ |
VallTown Gouncil
75 Sonth Frcntage Road
vail, co 81657
bryvncoundl@ci,vail.co. us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(WO)478-24521ax
I am unltlng in supporl of the propoged Mlddle Greok rental development for local employees ort
tho site commonly kurn as'Mounlain Bell.' Ths need for emplsyee tnusing gfi)*,s every
year, and while the Town of Vail has mads strides in providirrg for-salo options, an affordablo
rental developrnent b mudt needed.
Resldonts livlng wlthin bvn boundaries ale essential b the year round vlability of the
community, as urell as the econorty. This locatlon in particular has the adrrantagos of being on
lhe Tourn's bus route and bike palh, as wellas being wihin walking dishnce of Vail Village and
Lionshead.
I have reviorved the density, renlal rates, and elovalions of lhe proposed devaloprnent plan, and
feel that lhe project is very appropriate at lhb slte. Please leel free to contect me shouH you
have any queslions.
8-
o
64 h,A,(6*-r--hw%
,1:r grX'*^-
,4/4 I a-)
J,ori' $a^tr'\
I
-It*L lq I/r---
Lesf ,J.[sor*-.
oo
7,s(or /4 z-"'o /'ot'o /- ;*;/ o y't*7-Ct;L L/
-//
.-/cJ{ -Ln',ru-zrno&"o' lL 4*-4:/@, 4 Wj
t /a, r/' vl H / 'n l/rn/r, -,/-.-cu,l /,;a nL J/- wrt6 q la /Cz*"* /z*LrL'-
U/, An*o) 6, )"""4 -^*t z;z/ ?'t-
V' 'Ut',Z a-ii*Y %:/ y*-* g/*& /"- f//Ldz<z/ '
ULzq- i D/.-e*",rt/,/a: f"L4^;J (/
flas-V
///- //?f
-n,, t J^.q "'L'-**u''"^V
C "1 ''4 i:,J-a-o1o
//J o "-+ l't"^-d
- .1't./ +q7** 7-LLnL f^I'--
oi,,.F,-i-^-,r-,-.^^ U) ;1 *h'-'-l\
Jt 3 F -"-""^
t7 '1 ,tl +? (-
t/-1 '*\ V*'^
Ttn'ffi?h
- 3 ,/ dg
o
TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
l'd
FROM: MARKA MOSER - 1880 MEADOWRIDGE #4, VAIL, 476-5822
RE: PROPOSED HOUSING ON THE MOUNTAIN BELL SITE
With a potential rental unit coming on the market in Vail, I have
been polling several other owners of rental units as to what is the current
fair mar.ket value for a year's lease'in Vail. Several owners of property in
Vail have told me that they are having to adjust downward the $1,500
rental price for a year's lease on a two-bedroom, two bath with a loft unit
they have rented for several years. They will definitely have to lower the
price considerably ln order to negotiate a year's lease. And even with a
lower-priced product that has been reeently remodeled and qpdated; they
doubt they will be able to obtain a year's lease on their property.
This signals to me that rentals are becoming far more available, so
to add to that market today would be a big mistake. I also feel that the
product being offered in this building wor*ld be much smaller for the-price
beiry charged than many units already in the rental market. This can
hardly be considered "affordable.'
I feel the town 5hould not be in the rental market, except for those
rental units that are specifically for their own employees. Business
owners should acquire units for rent to their own employees. Timber Ridge
and Sunbir.d.in Uonshead are examples of what happens when there are'
Id?ge numbers of rental units on one small area. lt becomes seasonal
employee housing for single workers. Families don't want to have anything
to do with it, because it is not a nice place live. Check out the drug use
and dealing occurring in these housing areas.
I have also researched that the most sought after units of housing
are studios or one bedroom units where full-time, year-around single
employees or a married couple may live affordably, without roomates-
A far better option for the town to pursue would be housing such as
that in the Commons and Ellefson Park where year-around employees of
Vail can'be assisted in purchaslng their own home. A homeowner cares
about their property;.a renter often does not. Please reconsider this
development of a valuable piece of Vail real estate, and do not consider
putting it into an already overbuilt rental pool.
aa99LvAL6 U=SOr'|V>UVW NOUI NV67' I L &-EL-A
Page I of I
Allison Ochs - Fw: Mt. Bell
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@nsn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 08/26n002 2:15 PM
Subject: Fw: Mt. Bell
--- Original Message ----
From: "Judy Berkowitz" <Judy@HPBAssoc.com>
To: (towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 20027:12PM
Subject: Mt. Bell
> To: The Mayor
> The Planning Commission
> The Town Council
> As longtime Vail homeowners, we would like to express our hope that you
will
> reconsider the masss and scope of the proposed Mt. Bell site. The idea of
> placing a high density, low esthetic development at the entrance to our
> Village is ill conceived and should prompt a thorough investigation of the
> both the real needs ofthe town employers/employees and how best to
satisff
> these needs. As we heard at the recent PEC meeting, an after Septernber 11
> re-evaluation needs to be undertaken so that we are notjust responding to
> perceived but perhaps unrealistic assessments and move in the the
direction
> that is most appropriate given the changing economic climate of Vail.
> As you climb up Vail mountain and look down toward the Village as I
recently
> did this summer, it is clear that the landscape would be honibly affected
> by this project which will loom as the large and out ofscale development
it
> is. The same vista will assault our downhill skiiers as they end their
day.
> Right now we have a chance, and an obligation, to preserve the character
of
> Vail and not allow such massive developments that could radically alter
the
> perception and reality of our world class resort.
> We urge the Council and the Commission to look into reducing the scale of
> this project and to preserve as much ofthe open space as possible.
> Sincerely,
> Judy and Howard Berkowitz
fi le://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW l 00002.HTM 08130/2002
Hrnarlr.r Fe.urr-v Tne.otNc Coale-ervv
ceol wAtD PA-IIE.W.AY tANs.a,s orTY, Mo €|4113
August 8,2002
Town of Vail
Town Council
75 South Frontage Road, West
Vail. CO 81657
Dear Mayor and Town Corrncil,
As a property owner and fulltime resident, I believe that the size of the proposal for the
Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of
Vail's main entrance
We urge the Town of Vail to significantly reduce the size of the housing project or move
it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable
employee housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors first
enter our beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee housing should not be tlte
first visual visitors would encounter. Truly af'fordable employee housing should not be
attempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable.
I know vou as a resident don't want a bulky eyesore to be the first impression visitors
will have of our village.
Michael E. Herman
343 Beavrr Dam Roa,j
Vail, Colorado 81657
PIfO}{E: 916-OA1'{|5'zr4
rr|x: 610-363-7419
c-mail: mikc@hctmanft c.com
ruth@hcrmaaftc .com
Mr. & Mrs. Henry Beck
3037 East Lake Road
Skaneateles, NY 13152
August 9,2002
TOWNOFVAIL
Town Council
75 South Frontage Road, West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear: Mayor and Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
We believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with
the beauty and world-class scenic image of Vail's main entrance.
We urge the Town of Vail to significantly reduce the size of the housing project or move
it to a more appropriate venue. While we all recognize the importance of affordable
employee housing, we urge the Town to preserve and protect Vail's image as visitors first
enter our beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee housing should not be the
lirst visual vrsitors wtll encounter. Truly affordable empioyee housing shouid not'oe
attempted where it is neither appropriate nor affordable.
Sincerely,
Scorpio Property Owners #405
o
TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MARKA MOSER - 1880 MEADOWRIDGE #4, VAIL, 476'5822
RE: PROPOSED HOUSING 0N THE MOUNTAIN BELL SITE
with a potential rental unit conning on the market in Vail, I have
been polling several other owners of rental units as to what is the current
fair market value for:a year's lease in Vail: Several owners of property in'
Vail have told me that they are having to adjust downward the $1,500
rental price for a year's lease on a two'bedroorn' two bath with a loft unit
they have rented for several years. They will definitely have to lower the
price considerably in order to negotiate a year's lease. And even with a
iower-pl'iced pr.oduct that has been recentty rernodeled and updated; they
doubt they will be able.to obtain a year's lease on their property.
This signals to me that rentals are becoming far more available, so
to add to that market today would be a big mistake. I also feel that the
product being offered in this building wOr.rtd be much smallel for the-priCe
butrg charged than many units already in the rental market. This can
hardly be considered "affordable."
I feel the town lhould not be in the rentalmarket, except for those
rental units that are specificatly for their own employees. Business
owners should acquire units for rent to their own employees' Timber Ridge
and.sunbird in Lionshead are examples of what happens when there are
ld?ge numbers of rental units on one small area. lt becomes seasonal
ut!loy". housing for single workers. Families don't want to have anything
to do *ith it, because it is not a nice place live. Check out the drug use
and dealing occurring in these housing areas-
I have also.researched that the rnost sought after units of housing'
are studios or one bedroom units where full-time' year-around single
employees or a married couple may live affordably, without roomates'
A far better option for the town to puraue would be housing such as
that in the Commons and Ellefson Park where year-around employees of
Vait cari,be assisted in purchaslng their own homer A homeowner cares
about their property;.a renter often does not. Please reconsider this
development oi a viiuanle piece of Vail real estate, and do not consider
putting it into an already overbuilt rental pool.
t'd aa=9L6L6 U=SOW\DUV?{ !^loul NV67'l | &+,1-e
*E .4^
ffi)4. k 6---4
<tr't*fu 4-4_J4-- n
MU^-*J=_
3LS fDJ,! U--ke"tL
V;J ,Qo s/6t+-
7 7c -+76 {4Af
t/ // 6 T/<--
MtJ+
3Ls rk4 &-"AA;-!*
VLl ,Qo s/6t+
7 7c -+76 - {71f
oo
s/n/o<
e fu,f,/-e, % ?fou -il^*
aGr* s'1 -d< 4tua//e' A4'4 ^|PA*n ry
/ ^l " "rlr*-'
r+ ._*4rd 'aua 4-t^h^ ; &
h4''u4 "A* dt-""r,"-t h,M *ry ry^ Ja""'u
"(^)/*
h "t- iildryt t'-'f '/^^7/^a -&a,*
eV shrrr-s . ., /.'Lq ) a:a2^b4
fu.a.,.74 4,1,,a ru, tr f"fu^ /#&)G-,,. A'a4 U4"f {:- a da^^f I+ frz''* r iz'"--*,';a'W A
.ty"e"re 'Az razx-^da'/aofr'
?-( i +."J-a" A' /14 */-'{^
Y{ P'+'h Pfu^ R5*
Ua^2"
+a6-10vo
ELAINE KELTON
1034 HOMESTAKE CIRCLE
vAtL, coLoRADO 81657
970476-5411
DEAR MAYOR KURZ
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
YES. WE NEED INTEGRATED LONG TERM AD SEASONAL HOUSING.
YES, WE NEED EMPLOYER OWNED HOUSING.
YES, WE NEED A LOT OF IT.
BUT WE DO NOT NEED ALL OF IT IN ONE LOCATION, ESPECIALLY ONE WHICH IS SO
VERY VISIBLE AT THE 'FRONT DOOR TO VAIL".
THE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE TO SPREAD THE UNITS NEEDED: THE "HUD
WIRTH PARCEL'AND THE TIMBER RIDGE SITES COULD PERHAPS ABSORB THE
NEEDED UNITS. EACH OF THE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS WOULD ALSO HAVE
AVAI LABLE PU BLIC TRANSPORTATION.
WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS THE IROQUOIS NATIONTHE IMPACT ON TH E "SEVENTH
GENEMTION' BU]LDING THE LARGEST SINGLE PROJECT AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE
TOWN -THE 1ST THING SEEN AS YOU EXIT 1-70 AND THE VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN
AS YOU SKI DOWN AT THE END OF EVERY DAY DOESN'T FEEL SYMPATHETIC TO ALL
WE ESPOUSE AS AWORLD CLASS RESORT.
LASTLY, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THIS LAND WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED
OPEN SPACE AND THE REMOVEABLE OF THIS TRACT WAS DONE TO CREATE A
SINCERELY,
ETAINE KELTON
C*t *t /2''?az'
ARTHUR KELTON JR
225WALL STREET
vAtL, coLoRADO 81657
970-476-7990
TO MAYOR LUDY KURZ
THE P.E.C.
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PLEASE COUNT ME AMONG THOSE OPPOSED TO THE OVER
DEVELOPEMENT OF THE "MOUNTAIN BELL'' SITE NOW DESIGNATED
MIDDLE CREEK. THIS SITE WAS ONLY REZONED TO ALLOW FOR 40
EMPLOYER OWNED UNITS, NOT THE ENLARGED DESIGN ON THE TABLE
TODAY.
THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, THE FIRST IMPRESION
THAT THE VISITOR IMPRINTS. NPLEAESE RECONSIDER THE DENSITY AT
THIS LOCATION AND SPREAD IT TO OTHER AVAILABLE SITES SO AS TO
MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESORT EXPERIENCE.
6
todt :
cg :
DfiTE :
flrc
Q.o
3oe
il" Qo*AD ner^Q/,e\
s-ru; d iape c4ft-5/e7
rLle. L*'tRi "J / *r t 0 a J alei t
7rt
/)uGU_sT ,a,2.oar.
thiDDtf e 2 g;K l/o {r , ,,rC ?eo GcF
T cPfuss d6)si,.r6 tr 1l1A /ub JrFli! *LL
=,G iu4 4Lc Tt( € /€aso*s p r RcaDy ExPR€SS,SI
f\6r? Yofl€ : aft€ -rtd*, Cod $(tL ttfis il af
?ea,slLC? {t+e Or^rFnEe -Ta ?pa{i?€ sAFr
?€DCs7 P;^ ^)
/} ec€ss ao t(f€ ti r rA eF ea?{
f1g arlc.1 ((aiCZ; kud is f" ,;ALK-\*LaIG r*
Tf+€ --vl6 ?a..rxD ,+?a"rrr -1*Fi 7*l6E Ao'!s. /
?Wxninlr {Qr- u''DD^{ tQfaf, 72t't 1L
Ca*?*Fi ^1
6 fr{, tr+tr aN z| 'aK's
.ri a*J EIB _,a,/
; , -* {?s{ u,t A L*^JSys -, { Ttl€ R a d NDADI ,tTi:
1t , e t+T,^y<-vJ ' K,i K? T*€ A'bd ? o'l toa4ar-rS'
T-?+6 {*it- Bad ^D4iaod rl a rt tr FhR,I'FO Tt+?
fi|-QoTAfia{o:?$iiaoa'EaFTFllasT
/ oge{i5>F":"iBofgn's ")J '{ t",- tW# eAt)
frNj'cfrtAttniortAr*e/'niBZtniy'-'lt'sfr|?tTr]Titt
?r€fs€ I ofc I
'u I,Lv il'a+ o-v a,ad, f owu-Lo u^-u, L
v
Adt-qr fov vlw vti'LVu,co,u*t pd*l t Lur>1b \La)'t-LTriit i, L ti tt[rur.g, , .L w,ilr" i t/-.1 \t*,n ULut # Ya-iI n
Vo+vse tWkt* ,'s, wLrut uto,dt vo.L lwctvr) dua ta-st.
Iln*v\vwri ae-rt qau*o t4Lh'a' ,wz, ylL&'tL, J- atK
"*eAftU)+t t, Irey+.tl*(al.J e,tu,Lr,rqt p0h5;itvf uXtkt yroyo >zd
tln^t fer
"tLv &; ddLt. (rttr tal
f
u+dab tz H o r"-a; io1 r toitt Lt.
<+cctytud tt v'ivotl'1, Tltt std.rn ylans,sizL a"ia l,l1attws>
b[,lotbwldiuqs tObz at"t LzLuti t7la Vtita,rcd,'sto&'nT
fi9aun a,u4 yitm a L'LoLKactt lo al- iL.u;h u1 z*t'c*+'{
I HlWogt;tt'kot l"^rtk* s**d\t*t;17 cloanfy*Lt ytda->
waw f t"t5t'".ttJ.ind il'ta l6caliat,
tt t'c'CAY tlr'r,
h,c,.vq t B.wd tc* '-
I
1@It.Jwu,Lwu L1Lz - IYAz
lrt {
(ou-t, tv i o t' rk o t'', t->
/f hfrszz.
1^* O 'i '\)
L_.1"{- " LC*.-.-r,", u// \J' {'-'-)/
o
. ..(_:
1* (---^--^ ,A-.\ -n :-d ". , .4, 7*^TeY""
ic*--{-- -^^l/ 67k'r"- r-k'r^-.
I
! t t 4. /Qi". -d- o^{-^,=o -r{-LztJ -t- d-
- -4./ Jc,9g '/.{^44 f^1il-l / t t
'a
Jd 3 E"'*""
t71u) +?G - 3 v og
Page I ofl
Allison Ochs - Fw: Middle Creek
Fron: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" (pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 0911612002 8:18 PM
Subject: Fw: Middle Creek
--- Original Message ---
From: Maljn JOhnsdotter
To : town counei@ei.vaj LOo_.u-S
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 4:1 1 PM
Subject: Middle Creek
Hello Members ol Vail Town Council
My name is Malin Johnsdotter - Zeltman and I live on Sierra Trail in West Vail. I have been here since 1986
and I work as an ski instructor in the winter time. I am only a resident of the USA so I cannol vote, but I have
paid taxes here in Vail and Golorado since 1986.
Now when I have choosen to live full time here in beautilul, but noisy Vail I am really concerned about the
fulure of my home town. lwant guesls come to Vail and feel as they have come to small, friendly village where
everything is in lesser scale than the big cities most of our guests come from.
Therefor I am writing you about my concern about the hight and scale of Middle Creek. We all know Lionhead
and we all recognize the problem with Lionshead, how big the buildings are, how ugly the whole Lionshead is.
Please think about thal when you decide to build an other complex of 6 stories buildings in the heart and at the
entrance of our mountain village where at least I want my skiing guest to leel as they are in the mountains far
away from the stress at home. Compare Vail with other European ski resorts as Zermatt, Argentiere and you
have the Dicture.
I am not against atfordable housing. I am one that would have needed it, I am just against the BIG SCALE of
Middle Creek as the first thing our guests, who are the providers for us to be able to live and work here, should
see when they come to Vail.
Please do not repeat the mistakes lrom Lionshead.
Thank you
Malin Johnsdotter
Malin Johnsdotter-Zeltman
1779 Sierra Trail # A
VAIL, CO 81657, USA
Ph (970) 479-5597
Fax (970) 479-7345
Cell (970) 376-6526
E-mail: malin@vail.nel
file://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW l 00003.HTM 09/t7t2002
Page I of I
Allison Ochs - does the Town want to risk lawsuits down the road
From: "GayE-Mail" <gsteadman@qwest.net>
To: "Town Council" <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 09/12/2002 8:18 PM
Subject: does the Town want to risk lawsuits down the road
Does the Town council want to risk future lawsuits
)from renters at Middle Creek who might get sick from living so close to the
)microwave tower? It has not been proven that long term exposure to the
>levels of radiation emitted by this type of installation are harmless. I suggest that research be done
by the council to determine whether it is sensible to put a large number ofpeople in that location
under those circumstances
Thank you, Gay Steadman
fi le ://C :\Windows\TEMP\GWl 00004.HTM 09/t7/2002
Page I ofl
Allison Ochs - Fw: Mountain Bell site
From:'DIANADONOVAN" <dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 09/16/200210:08PM
Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell site
--- Original Message ----
From: Gay E-Mail
To: Town -Council ;Vail Daily
Sent: Thursday, September 12,2002 8:08 PM
Subject: Mountain Bell site
We need an answer from the Town Council as to why members
)have not chosen the very large, underutilized land on which their office
>sits for affordable housing for employees.....is it because the choice
>is too logical? The bottom floor could accommodate municipal offices,
>there could be underground parking, and the top 5 or 6 floors could house
>employees. There wouldn't be any need for a pedestrian overpass since
>the employees would be living on the Village side of the highway.
Are our elected representatives "NATS" (Not Above the Town Staff )?
NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) and NATS are alot alike; NIMBYs just
>seem to be more vocal.
Thank you, Gay Steadman
fi le ://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00003.HTM 09/r712002
Page 1 ofl
Allison Ochs - Fw: Vote no on Middle Creek housing as proposed
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 0911612002 10:l0PM
Subject: Fw: Vote no on Middle Creek housing as proposed
--- Original Message ---
From: Helen & Bob Fritoh
To : townc.ouneil@ci.vai l,co, us
Sent: Thursday, September 12,2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Vote no on Middle Creek housing as proposed
towncouncil @.ci.vail.co.us
Vote no on the Middle Creek housing development as now proposed.
I have been asked to write you about this development by the VCBA but, as is so often true, I do not
agree with their endorsement of this project as proposed.
I am not a part-time resident nor do I live in Spraddle Creek. I am a permanent resident of downtown
Vail, and I am abusiness owner in Vail. I do think we need employee housing in Vail, even at the
Mountain Bell site. But this project is too large and too high, and the rents are too high to be called
"affordable housing." It is not even very athactive.
Bob Fritch
fi le ://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00003.HTM 09/17t2002
Page 1 of2
Allison Ochs - Fw: Middle Creek
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 0911112002 2:00 PM
Subject Fw: Middle Creek
--- Original Message ---
From: Tom-Mullen West Vail Liquor Mart
To: Vail To-wn-Cquncil
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 7:30 PM
Subject: Middle Creek
Dear Town Council,
I am writing this e-mail in support of the proposed Middle Greek housing development. lt is my opinion that this
would be a positive step in satislying the need for seasonal and full time housing options within the Town of
Vail.
I was able to move to Vail because the West Vail Liquor Mart oflered ( and continues to do so) housing within
walking distance to the store. That was in 1988 and I was 25 years old. I moved to Vail without a car and was
able to enjoy a very satisfying lifestyle working and living in West Vail, taking the bus to the Village for skiing
and night life. I did not purchase a car until I had lived in Vail for about two years. Since that time I have
become a homeowner and a parlner at West Vail Liquor Mart. I am not suggesting that everyone who moves
to Vail and lives in employee housing will become a business owner and a permanent resident, but if the
option to have a place to live was not available I probably would not have decided to move to Vail. I simply had
other options that would have made more sense lo me at that time.
There are many reasons why this sile makes sense for Vail. The proximity to the Village and Lionshead will
mean lhat a person will not have to drive to work. lt will allow employees to get to work on time allowing them
to begin serving Vail customers much easier than a commute from 10-20+ miles to the West. In other words
employees will not be late to work due to snowy roads, accidents and car problems. This will be a positive site
with the increased employee population needed with the redevelopment of Lionshead and the expectation that
the proposed conference center will be built. lt will help relieve employee related congestion in the parking
structure. lf Middle Creek is not built the population that would have lived there will spend their dollars where
they live, and that will not be in Vail. Middle Creek will offer easy access to the retail services area of Wesl Vail
and keep tax dollars in the Town of Vail.
I have read that some business owners in Vail feel lhat the location for Middle Creek is wrong because it will be
an eyesore at the front door of Vail and people will not want to come to Vail because of this perceived eyesore.
This is just not true. Vail is celebrating it's 40th year. In those 40 years people (many of the same people)
have continued to come to Vail despite all of the development and visual changes over the years. Another
argumenl that I hear is that of homeowners in close proximity to Middle Creek are against it for similar reasons
and tear of property values declining. I can recall a similar argument occurring when the Town of Vail buill
employee housing near Potato Patch. I do not think that property values in Potato Patch have sutfered at all in
the past tew years.
Middle Creek has far more positives than negatives and I would like 10 see the town council support its
developmenl.
Tom Mullen
Gore Valley Enterprises
West Vail Liquor Mart
2151 N. Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
file ://C:\Windows\TEMP\GWl 00003.HTM 09/t6/2002
970-476-2420
O Page2of2
fi le ://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW l 00003.HTM 09tr6t2002
Vail Town Council O Page I of I
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com)
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 09/11/2002 2:00 PM
Subjecfi Fw: Middle Creek Project
---- Original Message ---
From: S-teve Simonelt
To: tor,\/noound@d.vail.co.us
Sent: Tuesday, September 10,2002 8:22 AM
Subject: Middle Creek Project
Please see this form letter as my complete support for this project-Steve Simonett
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Co 81657
townc_o,unc_il@p_i.yad.!o.-us
(970) 479-1860 phone
(970) 479-2452 tax
I am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rental development for local employees
on the site commonly known as "Mountain Bell." The need for employee housing grows every
year, and while the Town of Vail has made strides in providing for-sale options, an affordable
rental development is much needed.
Residents living within town boundaries are essential to the year round viability of the
community, as well as the economy. This location in particular has the advantages of being on
the Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking distance of Vail Village
and Lionshead.
I have reviewed the project and support it. Knowing that all of the components of the project
may not meet all of the demands and preferences of all members of the community, it is
important that the Middle Creek Ilousing Development proceeds and construction begin as
soon as possible.
fi le ://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00003.HTM 091r6/2002
Page I of3
Allison Ochs - Fw: The Middle Creek Project
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "PamBrandmeyer"<pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 0813012002 6:l I PM
Subjectr Fw: The Middle Creek Project
----- Original Message -----
From: <markconvail@ uno.com>
To: <towncouncil@ci.vail.co.us>
Sent: Friday, August 30,2002 5:30 PM
Subject: The Middle Creek Project
> Dear Vail Town Council.
> I have lived in and around Vail offand on since 1978. I have watched
this town grow and develop. I have never participated in town goverffnent,
until now.
> I am opposed to the Middle Creek Project as it is being proposed. I
believe it will be a White Elephant to the Town of Vail if it is
constructed. I have based my opinion on the following points. I appreciate
your time in reading this email.
> . As far as I know, there has never been a study done to see what are the
curent and future needs of employee housing in our valley. If affordable
housing is warranted, let us consider building pockets of employee housing
around Vail that really encourage a viable, dynamic, and diverse community
spirit.
> . Avon is cunently building the Village of Avon. 2300 homes and condos
will be built in the next 3-5 years in this development. Edwards is
developing Berry Creeh 1800 homes are proposed for this area. These areas
are cormected to vail with at good bus system. I believe some of the
affordable housing needs will be satisfred with these new developments.
> . I have been told the T.O.V. has 2 other parcels that should be
considered for affordable housing - by the T.O.V. maintenance facility and
between Chamonix Ln. and Arosa Dr. in West Vail. These are great locations,
easily accessed on the free T.O.V. bus route, they also are located r areas
where pedestrian and vehicle traffrc would not be so invasive.
> . The design of Middle Creek is appalling. It is worse than Timber Ridge
(Valley High = yalley Sfy). It consists of 3 buildings, one being 5 stories
high. (The Planning Commission just rcjected a proposal by the Tivoli Lodge
for a new 4-story structure, as it was in the TOV "view corridor" and did
not fall in the Town's master plan. So why is a 5 story structure at our
front door OK?) The design is in no way aesthetically pleasing. There are
no balconies; they are block buildings that could be made with prefab
housing units. The Town did a nice job with Vail Commons, Garmish Dr. and
Sandstone Dr. affordable housing. Why can they not think about the
architecture that will be at our front door for years to come? Look at the
Rivels Edge in Avon. Look at the Tarnes at the base of Beaver Creek. Vail
Resorts, with their tight corporate shoesfrings, managed to build some nice
looking employee housing, economically.
fi le :i/C :\Windows\TEMP\GW l 00003,HTM 09/tv2002
> . The original proposal by the TOV was to have
^
42-untt facility that
would be puchased by employers for employee housing. Now the town has
placed a $6 million value on this property (which I believe was deeded to
the T.O.V. by Vail Resorts as open space). They want to lease this land to
the Developer for 50 years for free (and then what?). The Developer and the
Planning Board have stated that this sight must have 142 units to make it
economically viable. Why? If so, use another sight or use less of the land
Qess units) and declare the rest of the space "open space" as it was
originally deeded.
> . This is the "Front Door" to Vail. Think what it's lile to drive into
Keystone, Copper Mountain, Winter Park Village, or even Avon. It's all
about the money. Not the views, not the Alpine atnosphere, it's about how
to get as many units into one space, to increase revenues. That is not why
people are attracted to Vail. It is not why most of us live here. As a
community, I believe we would be doing ourselves an injustice by allowing
this pdect, in it's size, shape and scope to proceed.
> . There has been no discussion or information provided by the TOV on how
it is going to handle the increased pedestrian and vehicle traffrc that will
arise should the project be developed. 300 - 500 individuals will be trying
to get to and from town as fast as possible. The Developer has a bus stop
included. Believe me, it'll be faster to walk to town. So, like atTimber
Ridge, we will have a steady strearn of people crossing N. Frontage Rd.,
I-70, and the round-abouts (we all know how visitors have trouble enough
manewering thern, without increased traffrc). And who will monitor the
parking at the Middle Creek facility, when all the parking struchffes in
Vail are full, and parking on frontage road is full, and skier/boarders know
it's an easy walk from Middle Creek?
> . The rents proposed would be in actualiry 65-70yo of an employee's NET
income (the numbers presented by the developer were based on GROSS income).
If an employee had a family, this would mean the other bedmoms would not be
occupied by a "wage earner" making it economically impossible for the
employee to live there. The Developet's numbers were based on each room
being occupied by a wager earner.
> . The Developer also reserved the right to rent a percentage of the units
out at a higher rental rate, if the income of the individual could provide
for that. Who will monitor this? The Developer will also act as the Rental
Management Cornpany. Who will monitor this to be sure fair practices are
being followed?
> . The Town and Eagle County have $ 13 million set aside for this project.
The Developer said it would take $22 million to build. Who will pay the
difference? How can the TOV take on yet another huge debt, with the
Lionshead redevelopment and Donovan Park looming in the near futwe?
> In today's Vail Daily there is an article that's tenor is pro Middle
Creek. They suggest that it is the rich homeowners (ie: Spraddle Creek
owners) who are opposing this project. The writer didn't do her homework.
I have spoken to numerous Vail locals and they agree that the size and
design is completely inappropriate for the Town of Vail. Many even question
the location. Please understand that many of these people work during the
day and are unable to attend Planning or Council meetings, and therefore
have only been aware ofthe upcoming project since the recent coverage in
the Vail Daily. I believe more community awareness would most likely
provoke the need to rethink the Middle Creek Project by the Town Council.
> I appreciate your time and effort. Again, please seriously rethink Middle
fi le://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00003.HTM
PageZ of3
09/1112002
Creek.
> Thank you,
> Constance H. Miller
Page 3 of3
hle ://C :\Windows\TEMP\GW ) 00003.HTM 09/1v2002
Rug 3l O2 Ol:26a
lan Eric Strauch
Jano Enic Strauch g?69212o92o p.1
TO:
DATE:
RE:
VAIL TO'iYN COTINCIL
rO SEPTTMBER2M2
MIDDLE CREEK
I rm wridng to urgc r Nq vote on ttrc Middlc Credt Project
convcnient and affordr ile cmploycc houring continucs to be e critical nccd to thc
longtcrm economic hce th rnd strbility of the Vril communiqr. BIIT es currendy
desigpcd, Middh Creek b not thc lnrwer for the following reNsoncs
TOO MASSIVE for the locrtion The dcoign does not fit into thc quaint alpinc
rrsort chrractcr of tbc villegel will rrchiteciunlly detrect from Veil's "rvorld dr33t
tourirm appcrl, rnd will c6tc scriouc vehhular rnd pcdcttdu rcccsr problcms'
TOO HIGH RENTAL llATES. Thc propccd caot to tcntnts is good but trot so
eerth rhattcring to iurtif tbc invectment eod other ocgetivc inpeetl.
TOO LITTLE ECONO !!IC DIIERSIFICATION. Housing projcctr, hirtorical$'
worh bettcrwhcu thcy trttrast a rclntivdy widc rrnge of incomca'
It may bc a mirtelre to l.dp rotvc the employcehouring p'oblcm with ruch "big
titc*". f"stod,I urgc dretouncil to focur morc otr purthrsingrnd.dccd restricting
rvrilablc home$ rcquir ng nw dwelopmelt' such er plrnned in Lionshce4 to
includc a feir numbcr of Jnpbyee uniL ud building rmrller rPrrtmerb for seh
end/or rcnt
Page I ofl
Allison Ochs - Fw: middle creek project
From: "DIANADONOVAN"<dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" (pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 09101/2002 3:25 PM
Subject: Fw: middle creek project
--- Original Message ---
From : I mGuss_ieR@aol co-m
To : tow_nc,ouncil@ciyai l.eo.us
Sent: Sunday, September 0'1 ,2002 3:10 PM
Subjectr middle creek project
To the Vail Town Council:
Some of you I know and some I do not. I feel I am an aveftrge Vail resident having lived and worked here tor
25 years. I am against the Middle Creek
development.
First and foremost the TOV cannot take on another Huge debt. I feel this project is too big lor the site, poorly
planned and not needed. The development in Avon and Edwards will provide thousands of new units to buy
and rent in the very near future.
I feel the town should look at smaller sites through out the town to put a few employee units.
Please vole against this proiect, once it is built we will regret it for ever. lf major
employers of Vail say we do nol need it, please listen to them. Also it seems so
unfair for all commercial building, and homes in Vail to have a high standard, but employee housing does not.
Gussie B Ross a Vail homeowner.
476-1809
fi le://C:\Windows\TEMP\GW l 00003.HTM 09/tv2002
Page l ofl
Allison Ochs - Fw: middle creek project
From: "DIANADONOVAN" <dianamdonovan@msn.com>
To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer@ci.vail.co.us>
Date: 09/0112002 3:25 PM
Subject: Fw: middle creek project
--- Original Message ---
From : I mGps_sie,R@ao l,,co"m
To : town-qounci@ci.vail,co.us
Sent: Sunday, September 01,2002 3:10 PM
Subject: middle creek project
To the Vail Town Council:
Some of you I know and some I do not. I feel I am an average Vail resident having lived and worked here for
25 years. I am against the Middle Creek
development.
First and foremost the TOV cannot take on another Huge debt. I feel this project is too big for the site, poorly
planned and not needed. The development in Avon and Edwards will provide thousands of new units to buy
and rent in the very neartuture.
I feel the town should look at smaller sites through out the town to put a few employee units.
Please vote against this project, once it is built we will regret it lor ever. lf major
employers of Vail say we do not need it, please listen to them. Also it seems so
unfair for all commercial building, and homes in Vail to have a high standard, but employee housing does not.
Gussie B Ross a Vail homeowner.
476-1809
fi le://C :\Windows\TEMP\GWl 00003.HTM 09/tt/2002
ruLY 2002
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
wwvt.ci.vail.co.us
July 29,2002
Public Service Company
Holy Cross Electric
U.S. West
AT&T Cable Services
To Whom lt May Concern:
a.
o.
o.
e.
f.
U.S. Forest Service
Eagle River Water and Sanitation
Vail Recreation District
Eagle County Ambulance
According to the Town of Vail Major Subdivision Regulations, when a request for a major subdivision is
received, the following agencies must be notified of the request.
g
h.
i.
j.
k.
Department of Public Works.
Town Fire Department.
Town Police Deoartment.
Public Service Company of Colorado.
Holy Cross Electric Association.
U.S. West.
Cablevision company serving the area.
National Forest Service.
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District.
Vail Recreation District.
Eagle County Ambulance District.
Other interested agencies when applicable.
Such agencies shall be required to make recommendations and comments within fifteen (15) days from
the date of receipt of notification that the final plan is available for review. Failure to make
recommendations and/or comments within the prescribed fifreen (15) day period shall be deemed
approval of the final plan Plans are available at the office of Community Development between the hours
ofSAMtoSPM.
I have attached a map of the Mountain Bell site, which is the lot to be subdivided. The development plan
includes approximately 142 new housing units. The project is considered a major subdivision. The
Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on the final plat is scheduled for August 12,2002, at
2.00 in Council Chambers.
lf you have any concern or comments, please call me at 479-2369. I would be happy to go over any
plans with you.
Allison Ochs, AICP
Planner ll
{p *"nn"rror",
PEAK LAND CONSULTANTS, INC.
PEAK I-AND SURVEYING. INL.
PEAK CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
July 15,2002
Allison Ochs
ToV Department of Corrrmunity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Middle Creek Village Preliminary Drainage Report Addendum
Dear Allison:
T\e Preliminary Drainage Reportfor Middle creek village, dated August 27,2001, proposed a
sedimentation pond at the southeast corner ofthe proposed development. Due to desip changes and
recommendations, site constraints will make a pond impractical for the proposed development. ln lieu of
a sedimentation pond, several measures will be taken to promote stormwater runoff water quality.
A curb and gutter and storm sewer system is proposed to carry stormwater through the site. The drainage
system is deiigned with curb inlets and sand oil separators. Per Town ofVail standards, the proposed
Type 13C cnrb iol"ts are designed with a l 5' sump below the inlet to capture sediment from runoff.
edditionally, two sand/oil separators are proposed to capture sediment and oil from parking lot, access
drive, and snow melt runoff. A preliminary layout of these measures is shown on the grading and
drainage plan. A frnal sizing of the drainage improvements will occur in the Final Drainage Study for
Middle Cieek Village, during the frnal plat submittal. All improvements will be designed per Town of
Vail Standards. The proposed system will facilitate sedimentation from site runoff.
Additionally, "Best Management Practices" will be implemented during the construction process to
ensure appiopriate erosion control and water quality measures are taken. Erosion control throughout the
construction process will consist of silt fence, straw bales, and check dams.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerelv.
7U{".'-"r-
Mark B. Tarrall
Peak Civil Engineering, Inc.
970-416-86+4 . F/\X 970476-8616 | 1000 LlON',s RIDGE LOOP . VAIL CO 81657
97O-72G3232 . F,c\X 970-726-4343 . 78436 US HWY 40, PO. BOX 1680 . WINIER PARK, CO 80482
P:\Mountain Bell S ite\ 103 9\Doc s\drainage addendum.doc
$_ ru&a of Colorado
, Q5P Structural Engrneels and Buirders
805 14' Street
Golden, Colorado 80401
Ph: 303 384-9910 Fax: 303 384-9915
Middle Greek Village
SGHEMATIG STRUGTU RAL DESIGN
Date: July 15,2N2
Architectural Building Description
Middle Creek Village is an affordable housing development including approximately 88,000
square feet of residential units, 62,000 square feet of below-grade parking structure., and a
separate 4,400 square foot early leaming center. The project sits on a very steeply sloping site
adjacent to I-70 across from the town of Vail. The residential units are dispersed among
several buildings located on top of and adjacent to the parking garage, each with similar
structural systems but with varying exterior finishes. The anticipated floor to floor height in
the residential units is 9'-6".
Structural Building Description
The first structural challenge will be permanent retaining structures. Based on cost studies and
schematic retaining wall design, a tie-back soil retention system with shotcrete walls,
independent ofthe buildings has been chosen.
The choice of structural scheme is driven almost entirely by low first cost and the ability to
pre-fabricate components off-site and assemble them on site.
The garage is anticipated to have a column grid spacing with approximate spans of 17'
@arking aisle), 26' (drive aisle), and 17' (parking aisle). The upper deck will support plaza
loads (including ground snow), and the residential units themselves, maintaining a 3-hour fire
separation at the residential units. No planters or special fire truck loads are expected. At this
time a precast concrete system is anticipated. The upper deck will be framed with 32" deep by
5'-3" wide double tees with a cast-in-place concrete topping a minimum of 6" thick under the
residential units, with slopes to drains. Columns will be 24 inches square. lower level decks
can be supported with untopped 24" wide, standard l0' double tees. Cast-in-place or precast
concrete shear walls will be required at the lower levels.
Based on the recommendation of Shaw Construction, the residential units will be framed
entirely out of conventional wood framing. Typical floors will be 14" wood l-joists with %"
plyrvood sub-floors. Maximum expected span will be approximately 18', implying bearing
walls at the interior of the larger units. Joists will extend from party wall to parly wall,
running continuous over interior bearing walls. No concrete or tile flooring is anticipated. At
the lowest level of the 5-story sfructure, stud walls will require 2x6 studs at 8" o.c. which will
H:\ ProFt!\0201\cons ulh nb\ 1169 Schematic Strochlral Description 020n5.dc
Schematrc Strucnral Desigr Discussion
be made with offset studs for ircoustic separation between units. Stud spacing will decrease
with height.
Roofs are all pre-manufactured wood trusses. All ceilings are flat; no vaulted spaces are
expected. Dormers, if present, are to be nonfirnctional, and over-framed on top of the roof
sheathing. Roof ffusses will span to front and back walls, and thus roof loads will not be
carried on the same bearing walls that carry most floor loads.
Exterior wallovay framing will be relatively independent of the units themselves, attached to
the exterior walls with a ledger, and supported at the exterior edge by wood columns.
The four and five-story units are intended to meet the requirements of Type III one-hour
construction. One through three-story units will be Type V construction. For the Type III
units, exterior wall framing with noncombustible materials (e.g. metal studs.in place of wood
framing) will be required.
The lateral load resisting system in the residential units will consist of plywood shear panels at
exterior and interior bearine walls.
Design criteria
The struchral design of Middle Creek Village will include consideration of the following
criteria:
o Floor gravity loads due occupancy uses
o Roof gravity loads due to snow (including drifting)
r Wind (including uplift on the cantilevered elements)
. Seismic loads
o Movements due to
o Gravity load deflections
o Wind
o Seismic
o Thermal expansion
o Shrinkage and creep of concrete elements
o Shrinkage and creep of wood elements in buildings taller than three stories
07/"t5/02
Page2 oI2
KL&A of Colorado
AIVKARD
luly 12,2OO2
Otis Odell- AIA
Principal
Odell Architects
32065 Castle Court. Suite 150
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
Dear Mr. Odell,
This letter provides an update to the original noise analysis conducted for the Middle Creek Affordable
Housing Project in Vail, Colorado (Ref: Letter from Hankard Environmental, Inc. to Odell Architects
dated 1/28/2002). The reason for this update is because the layoul ofthe original design has been
changed, thus the noise analysis had to be revisited. As with *re original analysis, tle purpose of this
study was to compare the calculated overall interior noise levels for the proposed structures to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) interior noise goal of 45 dB(A) (Re f: The Noise
Guifubook, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, l99l).
The updated analysis shows that the proposed Middle Creek Affordable Housing project wil/ achieve the
HUD interior noise goal of45 dB(A) using standard exterior wall construction. It should be noted that
this analysis was conducted using peak-hour (loudest-hour) traffic conditions, which typically only occur
for a total of about two or three hours per day. The following provides an explanation as to how the
exterior and interior noise levels were calculated, followed by the results and comparison to the HUD
interior noise goal.
Noise Level Cqlculqtion Methodologt
Similar to the original analysis (Ref: Letter from Hankard Environmental, Inc. to Odell Architects dated
1/28/2002), the exterior noise levels were predicted based on measured noise levels at the site, topography
of the site, peak-hour traffic volumes and speeds provided by the Colorado Department of Transportation,
and an updated desigt layout provided by Odell Architects as shown in Figure l. Noise levels were
predicted for each structure on the top floor using its nearest location to I-7Q which typically corresponds
to the loudest location. Primary factors that affect the noise levels include the distance ofthe structure to
I-70, the location of any barriers or berms that block the I-70 traffic noise, and the amount of sowrd
absorption by the ground. As with the original analysis, no significant noise barriers were found between
I-70 and the proposed structures, and no ground absorption was applied to the calculations as the
proposed struchres are significantly elevated. Thus, the results ofthe analysis should provide a near
worst-case scenario.
103 East Simpson Street r Lafayette, Colorado 80026
phone: (303) 66G0617 e fax (303) 666-1053 r www.hankardlnc.com
A]\IKARD
5
6()Ic
.9
t
Pct
g
o
.,
aD'6
c
tl
o
tt,c
.9Io
gtof
too3
-o
p
ct
tl
oc
.9
o
IJ;
f()
Eo
oEfo
tl
n
-+-
FIGURE I : MIDDLE CREEK ATFoRDABLE HoUSING - NoISE ANALYSIS SITE PLAN
WDATED Middle Creek Afordable Housing Interior Noise HUD Comparison page 2
IfenrrenoIrf,rwrnoNMENTAL
^H;f,*-ffi:.-"-;
Resuhs and Comparison n HUD Noise Guidelines
The results provided in Table I show the predicted interior and exterior peak-hour noise level for the fiont
fagade of each structwe nearest to I-70. The standard amount of transmission loss for exterior wall
construction of26 dB(A) was used @ef. Noise Control for Building and Manufacturing Plants, Loyman
N. Miller, BBN, 198i', Table 6-7). Note that one assumption made here is that all windows are operable
but closed, and that they cover no more than I 0-20% of the exterior wall area.
TABLE 3
UPDATED INTEPJOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FoR TIIE MIDDLE CREEK AFFORDABLE HOUSINC
Proposed
Structure
(--)
Description
(--)
Exterior Peak-Hour
Noise Level
(dB(A)
Standard Exterior
Wall Construction
Transmission Loss
(dB(A)
lnterior Peak-Hour
Noise Level
(dB(A)
Building A apartments with
community c€nter 69 26 43
Building B apanments ot 26 4l
Building C apartments wittr semi-
underground parking 68 26 42
Building D daycare canter 64 26 38
As shown in Table l, the predicted interior noise levels are below the 45 dB(A) specified in the HUD
guidelines (Ref: The Noise Guidebook, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, l99l).
These results were similar to the original analysis, as the locations of each newly designed sfucture did
not move significantly nearer or hrther away hom I-70 as shown in Figure I on the previous page.
As with the original analysis, it was assumed that standard exterior wall construction consists of a 4"
exterior wall with %" thick gypsum wallboard on the inside, %" thick plywood on the outside, and
acoustically absorbent material (i.e. fiberglass) loosely filling the cavity. Standard windows were
assumed to be double paned with a 0.2" airgap. Additionally, because these multi-family structures have
exterior doors opening directly to the outside, all doors facing I-70 were assumed to be solid core wood
(or acoustically similar material) that is 2" thick (or a density of 8 lb/ff) and well gasketed.
Thank you for involving us \i.ith this project. Please call if you have any questions, or we can be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
.-<00 -\ / ;-\ -\- I \_.,,-)IJ
JeffCerjan
Senior Ensineer
UPDATED Middle Creek Afordable Housing Interior Noise HUD Comparison page 3
ironsporlof ion Consultonls
TDA
COLORADO
INC.
Iuly 12,2002
Mchael Coughlin
Coughlin & Co., Inc.
140 E. lfth st.
Suit€ 700
Demver, CO 80203-1035
Re: Middle Creek Development, traffic
Dear Michael,
We have reviewed the revised Odell fuchitects Sito Plan dated July 15 , ?002 for the Mddle Creek
Vail prqect. With no change to the number of residetrial uniG plann6d and essentially tle same
access plan that we discuss in our Imuary 24, 2002 rqon, there is no change to our previous fir.lings
md recommendations.
Since tle new 7ll5l02 Site Plan depicts North Frmtage Road inprovements that we had
recommended we have updated our repod to include this_plan (Figure 2). Several minor toct changes
have been made as well. Please find auac,hed the luly l2t update of our Ianuary reporrt.
Please call me if you have any questions,
Sincerely,
TDA Colorodo, Inc.
C2<' />Z /-
€J/
David D. Leahy, PE
Principal
cc: Lee Masoa Oden Architects
820 l6thStreetMott.Suite424. Denver,Colorodo8O2O2. (303)825-7107'FAX: 825-6004'E-Moil: TDAcolo@ool com
Tralfic Impact Assessment
For the Proposed
Middle Creek Residential & Early Learning Center
oilit&?"T;"'
Prcporedfor
Odell Architects, P.C.
Evergreen, Colorado
Reparedby
TDAColorodo, Inc.
szo td srcd, Suire +24
Dcrvc., CO t0202
1t03) 825:7rW/F*r (303) 825{004
Ianuuy24,20O2
UpdatedJuly 12,2002
Middle CreekTrafic Impact Sndy
Table of Contents
INTROI'UCTION
ST]MMARY OF flNDINGS..... ........ 13
APPENDD(A
Figures
Figrne McinrtyMap.... ............,.........2
Figrrre 2
Figure 3 Exisbng PeakHour Volunnes.......... ................. 6
Figure 4 Peak Hour Volumes at Buildout ...................., ll
Tables
Table I North Fmntage Road Feak llour Level of Service............... ....................,............ 5
Table 2 Vehicle Trip Generation ...........7
Table 3 Peak Hour Level of Service at Buildout.....,. ............................... 9
Table4NorthFrontageRoadlevelof Service......... ...,......................... 10
TDA
Page I Middle C reek Trcffre Imprct Sady
INTRoDUc[oN
This report describes baffc conditions, now and in the ftrture, in the vicinity of the planned
Middle Creek residential and adjacent daycare development in Vail along North Frontage Road.
T\e 6Yz-acta sloping site is west of the Main Vail Roundabout adjacent to the "Ma Bell"
communicaticms tower and an existing daycare ce,ntor, Figure l. A single access drive serves
bdr existing uses. The Middle Creek project consists qf 142 affordable apartrnent rmits and a
contemporary early childhood leaming ce,nter, replacing the exiting cot€r. The mix of studio, I -,
2- and 3-Moom unie is structured to the affordable (deed restricted) housing market for Vail
Valleyworkers. Theestimated315t€nantsarelikelytobesinglesandcotplesemployedinthe
moufain resort s€rvice sector. Sordio units (64 durellings) will comprise just under half oftho
t{tal unit mix. fu strosm in Figure 2, The new childhood leaming center will be situated east of
the residences and will have sqarate access and parking. A total of 245 surface parking spaces
will be prwided for the residential portim of the project and m additional 20 will be part of the
leaming center site.
Residelrts will harre good altemative trasport*ion choices. The site is conveoient to three Tonm
free bus lines serving North Frcntage and the Town's trmsportation cernter in Vail Village. A bus
turnout alongside the main entrmce will permit on-site boarding and aligbting. Pedestrian walla
will conect with the Town's trail system. The Tonm's in+own bus system and transportatim
cemter are a %-mile walk/bike to the east and south. The I-70 pedestrian ove{pass cmnection to
Lionshead Village is % mile (I0-mimrte walk) west ofthe site.
This report describes the expected trip making characteristics of tenants and day care pfros md
worters, evaluate existing and eryected fifiue traffic operating condiriions in the vicinity and
lastly, it addresses the need and scale of suggested access md circulation improvements.
This report contains the following sections:r Iffroduction. Existing & Fcure Road Conditionsr Project Trip Generation and Distribution. Fufire Traffc Conditionsr Recommended Road Inprovementsr Summary of Findingso Appendix A: Lovel of ServiceWorlaheets
TDA
6E .FgF H tFE? F
qo =:gT rr
>6
.9!,tt
=
lta?s
::::1
:;::1
ii'*',
3
8,
lY/II
lu' /t
tI
ri(,a{)
c/d)
14.
ut{
%
I
et,
E'(J
fl
J
\
&c)F6
=@tJ^zz
a
F
t,,ogi#
FI
?
\
\}
,\
.$\
\
(O
\t
\
f
\
$t
E\
E..(,i
(\|
E3
ED
ll.
co
Eooi6
oo
Lo
Eo
oEp
=
o,)
c\r
,'a
rl ',' ,li'
F,,E,,E
'?{i'U&
F
F2
5E
ff
aaxE
tt9
'1
J
i
r1
I
I
i
j
I
I
<E
Etq
gE3
3ec
clt
Egt
. EaF
iE79*
UHEEE
gEH?3
3o
6'
EEEE
Fq
o
e:tr
I
I
Jdl N
EIR5l F
EE
Efi?+\t9
zF
I
z
Y
0o
ol
ol
ttIEIot
Ql<lol'l
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I€l
o.)l
$t\rItll
Fi
ilal
sl
NI
E)ilsTtr{G AND FU'nJRE RoAD CoTOMOWS
This sectim describes existing and frrture traffic condilions along North Frontage Road in the
prqect vicinrty.
North Frontage Road
North Frortage Road is a two-lane frontage road within the I-70 right of way. Graded shoulders
vary from four to eight feet in wi&h. It c€nnects the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges
senving lodgings, the Town post office and commercial uses along the north side ofthe road and
roads branching offto slope-side home sites. The alignmemt is essentially straight with gadual
vertical curves &at follow the geotly roling t€rrain. Posted speed is 35 rph in the project
vicinily. Peak hour traffic counts performed recently' suggest a u:affc volume of about 6,000
vehicles per daypassing the site.
Veil Road
Vail Road connects Vail Village to tho I-70 interchange and the frontage roads serving each side
ofthe inter**e highlvay. The two-lane road flares to add lanes at tle roundabout approaches.
South of interchange twelane Vail Road intersections with West meadow Drive and Willow
Road are Stq*ign contolled.
I-70 Irterchange Roundebouts
The i\{ain Vail I-70 interchange roundabouts were the fust modem roundabouts constnrcted in
the state qf Colorado. The South Frcatage Road rormdaborr is the largest in the state d a 200-
foc outside diamder. The North Frcrrtage Road roundabout is the smallest in the Vail Valtey at
l2G.fod. diameter. Couuts Aken d the North Frcntage Road leg indicate PM peak hour volumes
of 220 wtetngvehicles md 750 exiting vehicles of which 35 came fromthe I-70 westbound off
rary. The North roundabout ftmctios effectively as 3 single 6ir6ulding lane, although vehicles
can physically travel two abreast arormd the ciculating lane.
n*isting Level of Serice
Level of service (lOS) is a method used for evaluding roadwaytraffic qerating condirlions. It is
dependent on many factors includingtrafrc volumes, perceut heavy vehicles, lae md shoulder
wi&lrs. Tho level of se,rvice is determined by calculating the delay oxpoienced by each vehicle.
This delay is assigned a letter between A and F representing the length of delay. At LOS A
motorists will erperience little or no delay. At LOS F mdorists will operience stq and go
conditions and extensivo delay. Delay is used as a measrue of comfort, cmve,nience and
maneuverability of the driver. Delay for the affected iutersections was determined using
Highway Capacity Sofiware, inplememting methodology inthe Highway Capacity Manual, 1994
updated 1997, Transportation Research Baard. \\e intersectim capacity analysis worksheets are
included in Agpendix A.
North Frorrtage Road
For a two-lane, 35-45 nph roadway with l1-foct lanes and 4-foot shoulders, limited passing
opportunities and rrnirrterrupt€d flow the service volumes for each level of service range ftom 125
vehicles per hour at LOS A to 1,755 vph at LOS E, as shown in Table I . The observed
@ecember 2001) peak hour volume along North Frontage Road at the project access is about 415
vehicles in the 8:30 to 9:30 AM peakhour and 535 vehicles during the 4:15 to 5:15 PM peak.
Accordingly, curent two-lane roadway operation is LOS C in the AM and PM peak periods.
t pe,aklaudConsultans, Inc. Thunday l2ll3t0l
TDA
l-70 Main Vail Interchange North RouMabout
According to Lief Ourstm, the Town's roundabout operations consultant, peak hour volume
entering the roundaborf is 2,233 vehicles and at this level the roundabout is operating in the LOS
A range. This indicates there is a cosiderable capacity reserve available at the north roundabout.
ProTect Access
Moming md aftemoon tuming mov€melrt courts at the existing Day Care/Ma Bell access drive
are $o'n'n in Figure 3. Tbe highest single movement 28 westbound right tums frour North
Frmtage Road, occun during the 8;30 to 9:30 AM peak hour, During the PM the highest
movement was 15 left tums ro eastbound North Frontage Road (toward the I-70 interchange)
followed by 14 left tumsy'oz the eastbound direqtion. Daycarc trips appear to be linked
westbornd frotage road trips in the AM atrd the rehrm eastbound trips in the PM. The prevailing
flow of through traffic is eastbound in the AM md westbormd in the PM.
North Frontage Road Level ofService
Mddle Creek
Service FlowVolume
A
B
c
D
E
125
330
610
915
1,755
TDA
Figure 3
Residential and Early Leaming Center Access
AM (PM) Existing Peak Hour Volumes
Middle Creek DeveloPment
A
I
NORTH
No Scote
Existing Daycare/Ma Bell
o (o
OJ
Pege 6 TDA
Page 7 Middlc Crceh Tralfrc Imprct edy
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
hoject vehicle tnp estim*es are based on The Institute of Transportatio Engineen publication
Trip Generation, f Edition 1997. This document is a conpilation of trips rates derived from
traffic counts at similar uses throughout the couutry. Most ITE residential trip ntes are from
traffic cotmts at suburban settings with little or no access to public transit.
Residential Trips
The Mddle Creek project is located along a high service transit corridor with good pedestrian and
bike linkages to Vail and Lionshead Villages. A majority oftenants are expected to work in Vail
establishm€nts urhere long+erm (i.e. '\n'orker') on+ite daytirne parking zupply will be at a
prenrium for much ofthe year. We mticipate Middle Creek residems will be less inclined to
travel locally by car frr work and personal business trips tha tbeir "ITE-apartment" courterparts.
Accordingly, we erye6.daily residemial vehicle trips will be in the order of 20% less than the
ITE derived rate and peak hour vehicle trips will be oneauarter to @e{hird less than the ITE
rde. Urban ceuters with high all day parking costs and good transit access can have transit mode
splits of 25 to 40% in the commute periods. We believe Middle Creek residents could readily
exhibit a collective 30% walk/bus/bike mode split in the commrfe periods. With these project-
specific adjustments we estimate at buildout the resideutial use will geneftf€ 753 daily, 52 AM
and 6l PM peak hour vehicle trips, see Table 2.
Laming CenterTips
The early loaming center will have 15 employee and short{erm spaces. Parents typically park for
five to 15 minrtres for the moming drop offand evening pickup. Using ITE rdes for a Day Care
Cemter, the center is ogected to gqrerde about 470 trfs per day and abort 75 vehicle trips
during each peak hour.
Tabh 2
Estimated Vehicle Trip Generation
Mi ddl e C re ek Deve lop ment
Vail, CO
1. Day Car€ Cer er, ITE Land Uee56
2. AFartm€nl, ITE Land UF€ 22[), adiuded lo 8Oq6 of ITE daily & 7096 ot pe€k hour.
Town Bus Tips
Allhough nct. part of the project per se, buses edering and leaving the residential access &ive are
addedto the project peak hour volumes for operd,ional enalpis purposes. The three bus routes
serving the site oper*e d 30-minute frequency in each directio produciog 12 bus trrps (6 in, 6
out) per hour. These trips are added to project access trips to arrivo d total access drive trips.
AM Peakln Out
PM Peak
tn OutLand Use Size Type Daily
Day Carer 15 Employees
Apartment* 142 Dwellinos
468
753
41
I
35
.13
37
41
41
20
Total 1.221 49 77 7E 62
127 139
Source: Irh Gere/atlnr 6th Effin, hsfttute of Traftportrtlon Engino€rs, 1S7.
TDA
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBIIfiON
Middlo Creek residential trips will distribute oner the surrormding road system based on trip
origin or destination, and ease md directness oftrarrEl. New residential trips will travel west on
the Amage road for food shopping nail and cther local persoal business trips. More distant
fips ousidetho Toqm will be oriented easttowardthe I-70 interchange. Accordingly, we
distribde 50% o'f rcsidatial trips to the west and 507o east ofthe site. Day care trips, which tend
to be link€d to other trips, are distribrred similar to existing entering md exiting parenrs.
TDA
Plgegt,IiddleCreekTrafliclmpactSYudy
FUTTJRE TRAFT.IC CONDITIONS
Future conditions were analyzed assuming project buildout by 2003. An Snnu,al background
growth of 3% was assumed ior the vehicle volume along North Frontage Road not related to the
i*;. This accommodates moderate continuing residential develorpment along the North
F;;;r R";Jtravelshed. For tuture analysis wJ applied the ITE trip rates to early leaming
.*t.r.-Th.r. are somewhat higher than the observed peak hour day care volumes and are
assumed to accouilt for added business due to updating the facility'
Future Volumes
ntg*.l ;ff"tt .trs peak hour volumes expected at the intersection of North Frontage Road.and
Middle Creek Residential and Leaming ientsreccesses. The hrghest turning movement will be
*.rtUo*a right tums - 31 entering the Leamrng Center access in the AM and a similar volume
*ir.-g tft. r-esidential driveway iithe PM peak hour' The highest left tum entering volume will
be 26 rihicles turning into the Leaming Center drive in the PM peak hour.
Future Level ofServicewith Project
North FrontagefaUt"s S and 4 depict tevel of serviie at the two access drives and along two-lane
RoaJ at buildout of the planned Middle Creek housing development and the new Learning
Center, respeciively. Cipacity analysis worksheets are attached as Appendix A'
Residential/ Ma Bell Access
This Stop-sigrr approach will operate in the LoS B range for both the AM and PM periods. This
;; ";;*"rpt"bie level for piak hour operation at a property access-intersection. Left tums
frorn the site will experience short delays (LOS B) in the AM and PM peak hours'
Ea fl y Lea mi ng Center Acress
Simiiar to existing, this approach will experience short delay (LOS B). l,eft tums out of the site
will have short delays, (LOS B)
Table 3
PM Peak Hour Existing/Buildout Level of Service
North Frontage RoailMiddle Creek Proiect Accesses
Movement
Residential
Access
Learning center
Access
Southbound Left -tB NB
Westbound Right JA A/A
Source: tDn Colorado, Inc. Using HCS Unsignalized Analysis'
North Frontage Road, Two-lane Roadway
ttorth Frontage Road east of theproject is eryected to carry approximately 460 AM and 610 PM
peak hour ve,f,icle trips. At this volume, two-iane North Frortage Road will continue to operate at
LOS C during both Peak hours.
TDA
trlorth Fronage Road Level of SeMce
MiddE CrcekMveloqnrert
4it53t 465/610.crc c/c
* S€e Table I
rdl
Figure 4
Residential and Early Leaming Center Access
AM (PM) Future Peak Hour Volumes @ Buildout
Middle Creek Development
,i\
NI]RTH
No Scote
9c\vFto \-
)Tr,,#
--t\
2+p
(n\ol8tol
C)tO /^.g- /8"/.os/5€/s-.-4-._..-
10
?17)
f onty
Leor^ning
Centen
(Y)
F
\FC\
'2 (2 r%
256 Qo4)
N"d-Fr";rE+.;
Page 11
TDA
REcoImft,NDED PRoIECT RoAD IMPRoVEMEMS
Several inprovements are snsgested at the Mddle Creek project access intersections in
conformance with the CDOT Stae Highway Access Code (see Figure 2). These changes reflect
the 35 rnph posted speed of North Frmtage Road" peak hour volumes portrayed in Figure 4, md
fre Category F-R (frotage road) classification ofthe facilfy.
Lefr Tum Lanes
At 23 vehicles in the PM peak hour, the residential access is projected to be near the 25 vehicle
per hour left tum threshold for warrauting a left tum storage lane per the C.ode. This volume
includes 3 westbound rornm buses' fu a marer of saftty, we advise constructing a left tunr
storage lane at the residential access. The projected (for qeratioral analysis) left tum volume of
26 vehicles for the Leaming Center access would just exceed this threshold. Accordingly, the left
tum lano widening fur the residentiaVMa Bell access should e*end to the new Leaning Center
acccs. The portim betweeNr tle two drives can be sFipped as a two-wsy left turn lane and thus
serve as a left tum sbging lane for left tums oil ofthe Gidemial access. This ceuter lane will
provide a larger, more comfortable effective left tum radius ftr buses tuming left out ofthe site.
Right Tum Storagu Lanes
Neitber access me€ts the 50-r,ph threshold required to warraut right tum lanes. Although a right
tum lane wqrld aid Town of Vail busses entering the prqerty, widening for the celrter tunr lane
described above precludes additional North Frotage Road wide,ning alog the prqerty's steep
frontage.
R ightLeft T u m Acce lenti o n Lane s
Right or left tum acceleration lenes ale not needed per the Code at this project for either access.
The two way left tum lane suggested above will serve as a short left tum staging/acceloration lane
for Ioft tums leaving the sito.
TDA
Page 13 Mi&tle &eek Tr!ffr Inpu! Stndy
SUI,trT'ARY OF, tr']INDINGS
elomUinea total of about 1,220 vehicles per day will use the two proposed Middle Creek
residential and new leamrng ceuter developmenf access drives. Residents are intended to be
ulnpfoyra at nearby Town Jroir, t rt"**ts and business establishments. Daily site'generated
;h;it eryected io be about'2O% less than a similar 142-unit apartment complex in a tlpical
;;trb- sCting. Similarly, the combination of daytime parking cost and availability in Vail and
Li""trrLO vilr!*, pro*iriyto Vail Village and, front door accessto three oftle Town's free
;;;;; rugg.-ttr'iOZ less than tlpicat site trip generation during the AM and PM cornmute
periods.
Peak period operation (level of sewice) of each access approach will remain in the same short
6;;;;GoS B) asthe existing daycare/Ma Bell access drive. Lefttums fromNorth
fi#.g"ft"]a wiil experience littl-e or no delay in most cases. I*ft tum storage lanes are needed
"t ""*r-"""ot drive per State Higbway Access Code criteria. The new center lane can be striped
", "
i*" W"y Lef ium Lane. is such, the improvement wilt facilitate left tums (including
ior,- Uut"t) o.t of the residential site. Right tum deceleration or acceleration lanes are not
needed per the Code.
The volume of projecttrafrc addedto North Frontage Road will not cause a change intwo'lane- -
35 to 40 mph higtrway orperation. The road will continue to operate in the LOS C range, with PM
operation nearing the low end of the of the LOS D sewice range'
The nearby I-20 Main Vail north roundabout intenection has considerable reserve capacity to
readily accommodate traffic added by this Project'
TDA
Mi,UI. Cn"k f,".f.fitl^P@ St"4
Appendix A
Existing and Buildout (2003)
Level of Service Worksheets, AM & PM Peak Hours
TDA
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
North Frontaqe Rd. & DaY Care DW 2n1no02
JL\j
Lane Conligurations
Sign Control
Grade
Volume (veh/h)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fr/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median tyPe
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
vCl, stage 1 confvol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
tC, single (s)
tC,2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Stop
0%
28917
0.92 0.92 0.92
30 10 18
None
447
I
0.92
10
.t
Free
0o/o
zzz
0.92
241
D
Free
0%
157
0.92
171
201
4.1
2.2
99
1371
186
6.4 6.2
3.5 3.3
98 98
565 856
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach DelaY (s)
Approach LOS
IrifdBectioh
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU Level of Sewice
251 201
100030
1371 1700
0.01 0j210
0.4 0.0
A
0.4 0.0
10
10
0
coc
o.o2
1
1 1.5
B
10.1
B
18
0
18
856
0.02
2
9.3
A
0.8
25.2o/o
Baseline
tdadensmal-1t51
Synchro 5 Light RePort
Existing AM Peak Hour
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Frontaqe Rd. & Dav Care DW 2t11n002
{-\IJ
Lane Configurations
Sign Confol
Grade
Volume (veh/h)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Mediantype '..
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
vCl, stage '1 conf vol
14
0.92
15
-?
Free
0%
200
0.92
217
D
Free
o%
314
0.92
34'l
StoP
Oto
6158
0.92 0.92 0.92
7169
None
348
vC2, stage2 confvol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
4.1
2.2
99
1211
6.4
3.5
vo
463
6.2
3.3
99
698
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
233 34815 0o7
1211 1700
0.01 0.20100.6 0.0
A0.6 0.0
16916009463 698
o04 0.0131
13.1 10.2BB
12.1
B
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU Level of Service
0.7
28.4o/o
Baseline
tdadensmal-1t51
Synchro 5 Light RePort
Existing PM Peak Hour
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2111t2002Rd.DW
\ !J
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
Volume (veh/h)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fVs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s) '
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
-t
Free
0%
7 242
0.92 0.92
I 263
\
Stop
0%,8 24
0.92 0.92
926
1r
Free
0o/o
170
0.92
185
'!e3
4.4
2.5
oo
1214
None
467
6.6
25
0.92
27
189
6.3
3.6 3.4
95 97
526 828
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
I ntersection Capacity Utilization ICU Level of Service
271 1938009
1214 17000.ol 0.11000.3 0.0
A0.3 0.0
zo
26
0
526
0.05
4
12.2
B
10.8
B
27
0
27
828
0.03
3
9.5
A
1.3
25.9o/o
Buildout
B Baldgya
tdadensmal-1t51
Synchro 5 Light RePort
2OO3 AM Peak Hour Total Traffic
HCM U nsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: North Frontage Rd. & DaY Care DW 2t'nn002
)_+<-\!J
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
Volume (veh/h)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fVs)
Percent Blockage .
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 confvol
vC2, stage 2 confvol :
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
,10
0.92
11
.f
Free
0%
265
0.92
288
t,
Free
lVo
156
o.e2
170
31 ,
0.92u
T
Stop
0%
12
0.92
13
22
0.92
24
203
4.1
2.2
oo
1368
None
496 186
3.5 3.3
98 97
529 856
6.26.4
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capaci$ Utilization
299 203 13 2411 0130034024
1368 1700 529 .856
0.01 0.12 0.02 0.03
10220.3 0.0 12.0 9.3ABA0.3 0.0 '10.3
B
lhlErdee-t6ilS
0.9
28.5%ICU Level of Service A
Buildout
B Baldgya
tdadensmal-1t51
Synchro 5 Light RePort
2003 AM Peak Hour TotalTraffic
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
a11POO2Rd. & Apartment DW
l{-t \\J
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
Volume (veh/h)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (veh/h)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking SPeed (fVs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 confvol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
-t
Free
o%23 217
0.92 0.9225 236
Stop
lVo13 13
0.92 0.92
14 14
Tt
Free
0%
350
0.92
380
24
0.92
26
407
None
679 393
6.6 6.4
3.5
98
608
4.3
2.3
98
1081
3.7
96
375
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to CaPaci$
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
261
25
o
1081
0.02
2
1.0
A
1.0
407
0
26
1700
0.24
0
0.0
0.0
14
14
n
375
0.04
J
15.0
B
13.0
B
14
0
14
608
0.02
2
11.1
B
Average DelaY
Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU Level of Service
0.9
31.6Yo
Buildout
B Baldgya
tdadensmal-1t51
Synchro 5 Light RePort
2003 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic
JUNE 2OO2
I a7/L2/2422 15: 21 couGHL I N : .3436?A'7762 NO.8A6 oaz
Dr!a: 06.2&t002
hrperty Address:
US }TESI PAICEL
Buyrr/Eorowct:
TOEEDETMIIdIqED
LadlltfeQsalfeerpmy
lu.Ellx{rtrls
otr OtderNumbcr: VC8l2ts6
S:IhdOmer:
TITE M(}TJNTAIN STATEI TELEPII( TIE AND TELEGNAPII CO}IPANY, A COI.ORADO COS,EJnJ|TIOI, AS
TOPANCEL T
IIO}VN OF VAII, .I, MTn.!C'TPAL COIIIONAIIG{, AS TO PANCEL 2
ll yor luve uy |trq$der or teqiltr turttrer r.ssldrahcq
For Clofig Asr6uce:
trdbnlrdmBU..
Flcls3 contact om o( ll|c rrlDbrrr bdor:
to? Tlth Alslet trc
vdl I'ltlc Dept
ntgE! Avite
10ts. rB(n{TAGE
P,O BoXSt
vAlI{ ct) Er65,
Plrrp 90-dlF2il51
VEi Vft.41&4*Sf,-h rrib('}tsa
qepoqFg cfodng? Ched. ort l..trd Tlale's wGb ,llc Nt 'tFr.lga.c6
ENMNEcFTNEEs
9175.Oc
TOTA $r?E - 00
RD, W. t rE
g0l!
loo r$tlgl THAIVtr Y(IJ EIOB YOUT ONDENI
Attachment: D
O?/L2/2AA2 15:21
FrOfl Lanc t trIr
COLEHLIN ) 3036?A?T62- -"Fi'i L. Jrarr avtte lviJr;)1 frrt trt I
N0..BA6 DA3.B +/ 11I I lu.: ) ur ll,
CUcryo lltle [suruce Corqq
A LTA COMMITMENT
OUr ordcr Nc VCl,'1!'&
Oret lnf.:Sdrerfrh A
ProtrcrF Add.?sE:
U8 WESTPANCSL
l- Ettectf?e DoD: AFll 26, Z0Ol 0t 5:m P. [4
& Pottcy lo bc Ismcd, Bil PfoFodct llrurcd:
lrrforrrdoaEltdsr
ProFoltl IF[r{]
TOINDETETNffIfED
The Gltsb or Inbrtrt h Or lst dcrcdbd or nlerftd to In tb|! crnnl![rlt $d cowttd bnb 8:
A FeeSlSc
Tlth to thc ectru or iltcr€lt coretrd lrcr.'n te rt lt ed€.tr€ drtr hesl +attd |!:
TEE D.tq,lNTAE{ siTATEt TK.EEEoI\IE aND TDI'ETGBAPH col'FANY' A crtrI)fADo oof,DlolATl(}{' As
TOPAf,CEL T
TiOTYI{ OF YAIT. T, MUIICIPAL COIBC'NAII(I\I, AS IO PATCEL 2
The tod r:fcr!3d to tn tlft Comrdioent t iLrccdbcd rs tolbws:
Str, ATTACIIP EIGKg) BON. IEG,{L D&SCruPNC{
COUGHLIN ) 3aJ6?A?!62 NO.8E6 DA4t S rri3O3525 r ! s:
l.gttt+cRmof
Otr Or{rr No. V(:frfVBd
PARCEL t
A Tn^ct oF r.A llD IN tE8 SOUTIIEAST Ot{E {uAnrmr SOUTHEAST ONS.QUARIEn, SDFlrot{ 6,TowltSHIP s sorurtt, RAHGE f0 w$ir oF TEs dIH p. [&, tr {cI F couNTy, ioronnoq l,ronsPAXfICUI.ANLY DESCEIEED AS Ft'LLOff[
BE€INN|NGATrr FoINTEEING tt?0.20 FEErNorItst6 DEcnffisi 0t MrrurEs ts sEcoFfl)swEStIAnOM 1!Slt SourHEAsT CrllsfER oF sECrrcN 6, TowlirltHtps sorlnt, RANSE E0 $EST oFTllE 6TlI P.l!t ; THHricE Nonfir 00 DEcrEEs 0o MINUTES lat.il FffiT; rng.tcw xonta rr
DEGUEES 34 illI\iUTES WEST 1.TI.6? FET; T}IFTCE SOUTE I'O DFGilNS 09 IUiIUTES WEST
1O?.OO FEFT; T?INCE SOUTE 26 DEGREES I? MIM]TES wEsTst.E rEETi TtIENc&SotJnIff DDGREES 3ll rgNUrES wEtr t!0.00 FEr; fiik{@, soulE 36 DDcnEs 2i MINUT"ES J(
SECONDS WEST 65.'4 FEET; TIENCE SOII1H fi| DEGNEES36 MINUTES 30 EECSNDSEAST4rr-9:l EEET ToirlE EIINT oF BEGINNING, couNTY oF EAGIE, srAtE ot colrtADo
TOCTTEN WITTI AFI BIffiMEFII IOX, ACTESS TO ANO EENESS FT(}V IIIE ADOI'E.DESCIUBEDliacr EY PEDB'TTTAN' vEHrcur.ar' AfD n'!o.mR TnAEFtc, F(nAEruaL AIYD Bni@
TEIIPHoNEAI\IIT Et,EcTruc Fowm uI{Es ANI} FonBItRIED WAIE& SBSm, ets, AND ('IIIE[
UTILTIIFS TO SilD TRACT OVN,AND ACI(X}S 1TIE FOIJ.OIIING DESCRITED iNONiNrY, rcf9Tr:
A TBACI oFLAND IN TrrES_orJTunAsrc{r-QUAt1En, soUTEnASf oN&QUAf,& SECIION 6,
TOrJUhISFIP 5 SOUIS. X61|'g ,o WE!'T OF TIIE dIIl p.ltit , EACI,E O(xJIrfTf, COt mAIlO, ltilB
PAIXTCUI.AII.Y IIESCNIIED .AS FOI.I,O$E:
BEGlttr{NG ar A F$NT DEING Lt?0.20 FffiT NoRrH 36 DEG,If,EE$ 0L MD|IJTE$ 2s sEcoND t
H'ESr nrou tHE so{JlEAsf c\}rNEn or scTToN 6 TowNsHIps sorJlF, nANGS r0 wIsT OrTffi 6tE P.!4i TEENCE soulH |l0 DE(nErs oo notlUlEs 4G2s fEEIi TEBNCE N(nrlr f,lDEc&ms 36 MINIJTEB 30 $Eco!{Ds wEsr 42.4t Fwt'; Tl@f(3 smIlTI ur DEcEEs 4p
MINUIE8 srElT SLll fnBT m THF NofTIl IIGIIT OF rvAY LINE oF $tTEteTATg 70; IEE{(ENOnIT 74 DEGXEES Z1 MIN'UTES 35 SFCONDS WEST ,o.OO FBf AI.oNC THE NONI]E NreF r OF
WAY UI\nE ffi INTNSTAIB 7Oi TEET{CE NOrIE $ DEN@S 4' MnIUTEI 8A5T D:A2O FEr;
TEEFrcE S{XJTII TI DEGNSEE 3d MINUISS 30 SECONIDS EAST 4rL'3 SEFr TO TE, FoFrr O'
BEGXNNINq ml'llTr oFEactx, sTAzt (f cor.()nAlto.
NorE TllE FttAL Ffi.Icr DoEs N(yr IN
^tl|:r
wAy cuArANrEE fl,INsUtE rr8 Dru8t{slq{B
oF rrrE ADovE DltserulED IAND, TE LEGTTL DEScEPIIwr [s DEBIV@ rB[tM lEE cEdN oF
TTTI.EAI{D (ntLY AITI ACCUTATE SUTVST CAN DETETMIII'E TEE DDIENEIONS,
PAFCEt2
a TnacTotrLANtr r{ TffiSqflI| IIALtroTTHESoImIEASTQIJAIXts& I|ECTION 6,
Ttx[hfsHIP s soulll RANGE t0 *Esr tr TIIE 6Tlt PRINCIPAL MTruDIAN, &rcIJ cqrNni
COI.SADq M(Ulll PA*IICIJTABLY DESCRIBEIT AS FOLLOWIT
DEGIITINBIGAI A IOINT TTIAT III N (lO DDCNtsS$ 2' MInIIIIES If ffiCI)NDS W A DUTTANCE C8
6s6'60 ffiTRIgM THE sdrlEAstr ff)il{En oF sEcTIoN 6, T(nvNsEIPs soulu, IANGE F
fl'tsgf OF THE 6TH FruI\|CtsAL MBIDTAN, IETNG Tffi TNUF FOINT OF BEGINNING9
AISo.8'ENG A FoI!{T oN Tm NOnXEmLy tIffiT otr WAy oF INItBSfAtt 70i
THEITCE FI OO DEG:IMS U MINUTB T6 SEC1(X{D8 W AI.ONG TEE EA9T UNE of SIID 88CTON
@?/L2/24A2 15r21 C0UGHLIN ) 3036?27162
| | | ..9 Jgr| ..vva-4r.r. Ja. J.l. ,{irt lrttt I
N0.846
r'rgtt ) 9t rU
005
tgtEcRPn(ll
6 A DBTANCE OE. 6J3.{O RETI
THET{CN I9 DXGRTES }7 [dINIITES Zr SECOI'ID8 W A DISTAN6 ER 2$g,76 TEET TO A
FOTNT ON IE EaST notnlDAny IJNE or vAIUFsTATo PATCE DILINq
THENGE S l,O DBCAEE| 07 MINUTES U sB@NDS N AI'NG SAID EASI IiOONDARY UNE
DNSTANCE G 35L21 FET TO A PqNT ON A GtIrVq 3AD CURVE AT.SO DEGIG ON TISNMTHEru,Y NE.HT OF WAY tr INTInSTATETOs
THENCE ALONG SAID NOX]rHEf,LY RIGIIT tr WAY ON TTIE BOLLOWNG' OOUNSES
l) A DIsma(L ov wl.&2 EEEr ,tl.$[c TEB AIc or A cunvE It] IEE ilGItT, IAIII cUR'EAvNcA cENtrAL ANGT,E oF 0l DEcnEEs 56 MINIITE$ ls sEcoNDs, A RADIUS oF JtttrEEr' AND A GrutD EBARING N !5 DEcnns Jl MIIiruTtss 10 sncff{Ds E A DtsrANG c
204.60 FEAII
2) N B! DEniRffiE 13 MINUTEE 06 SCONDS E A DTSTANCB oF zu.il, trEETj
3) N 34 Drerrms ss MIN(ITES S0 SECONDS E A DISTAN€E oF3r9.70 FEBQ'
4) S ?9 DPCf,EES 55 MINLITE$2I SE@NDS EA DITTN@ Otr M,4OEftr;Ti
-
S) S 59 DEGBEES !I' MI!ruTES Zr SECE,NDS E A DISTANCE tr il1$ Fgirio s 74 DE('nEES :il MINUIES 35 SECI)NDS n A DISTANCE sF zt{.70 FIBT;
D S E DEGXEE$
'6
MINUIES 29 SECOT{D8 E A DTSrANCE OF
'16.gt
rEI;t) S 7T DEGNEES 33 MINUTK 45 SBC$I{DS D A D|STANCE OF rgf.To FEEr TO rgS INUS
FOTNT OF BEcINn[Nq q]IrNly (F EtcLE, STATE @ coloxArro.
EXCEPTTHAT POruTTON ffi IAND DE CRIBED IN WAXNAIfTY DEED, TECEFIION rr40ro, '
ZTt, PAG 419I FE&D OP NrcOru IN lTK OE'IICB OF CI,EIK AND XECIOIDEf, OF EAGI.E
CO|JIrlrY, Ct[,o&ilto.
N(}ltl If,E f,lNAl, Fcil.rcY D(Es NoT E{ ANY wAY GUAIANTE oB INEUIE rEE DIm{s
OF rIG ABO\IB DI'.sCruEED IAND, THE'T.RGAL DESCNIPIION IS DENTVTD rNOM IES CHA
TITT,EAND SILY AN AOCIJNAIB SUIVEY CAN DETENMNI lRB DIME{ST(nFT
(l|r Ortlrr f{o, VCZU436
aooK
/8,
0,0r
A7/L2/2AEZ 15:21 CBT.IGHL I l.l ) 3436?A716? .
- - .-; ; .v rtt. .rwL rrr. J+. Ja ,/1Ft 'tt,|
NO.8A6
r|Jrr64D r lE: t.ry|3 (' t,t *v
oa'
ALTA COMM]TMENT
sii*A&B.Serdonl
(nlgullt'ngnre)
Tlre funodng ort rfu rct1uft*crcnts to bo ccrrrdled wlihl
ourord*No. YC172436
Item (e) hpt b rr tor lba soeomt of Ur gr{rlort or |ttorgogotr of thc fiU ccnrl&l|tht tor tt* erlfe sr
tn&|tstE btlsutd.
Ibtts (b) haPar htilmra(s) crea{ng 0F €FbtB or lnbtcst to be ltrsutd nNurl !€ exccu,cd ud r1{y tlled for rrconl,tr-t$lti
IHs (c) FbytFn ot rdl Ertrr cltalut or anil3flttelb lcvicd nl arffidtd a$M dE s|ldlct Fdtrg rlfth an &edpoyauc
Iqtt (d) Addtotd r4dttlurB, tf ury dteclooed balor:
TE8 COM}fiIlI@\|r 6 BON !{PONMAUSN C{LY,
^ND
NO FOItrCY WILL EE XSSUED
PUE|UANTHESSI(}
A?/L2/2482 15: 2l
rr_gtrr Ltl(tu rrLtt:
cOuGHL I l.1 + 3A367A? L62_ - ii i <- ,rrrr Avrr. {v r rrr J.! AU u9,
NO.8A6 DA?
;39JOa5rln: F g, rltr€q, gt rv
The polky or Doltclcs to rDe ls'r|ed wlll corBttr €{ceF(mD lo ore foltovlrg tuh|' tbe,an .ro dhDo*d
o( to llre cTltCsctiol cf ore Corapony;
I, nEilB or chiE|' ot f ardc3 tn F66esrlo|r trt dhln by {r p$[c rtcoda.
2. Erstmeobr or clifE 03 errcraG, tDt shov|t bt lfic Fdillc rlctrfd8
3. Discteprlcr, codlcb b bomdart flnes, rhDftge tn ang ertmu|lrilt, fld itt hcts sldch r core, * drfc, sdirpector of e preroisor muld drclosG srd *hlch rc Dt rhovn blr rfre pl$c ncod
4 AW ,ttaq or dghl !o il llcn, tor ecrirlccs, lrbor or rtrbrii rtrttbtor! or br=Cb trrlohaL lryo*t h| lrr simtEh!*fiqt [rpnik rtottlc,
5. D.bcts' lle|re, clr@ha|ce+ odvcrc dolrc or otbrnu&rr, lf ry, otlcA frr[t qEr3rd|E In ttr prt[ c rrcor& orfttdtE flbcquenl to d* {&ctlw t& horwf hl plor b he daD fu poprc{ ldfucO rcqdFs ot n ur{ fonedlF b eitsh or bilrtcl or urtgage oErcon covctpd bt tlts Comdtr[t'
G. 'Itrcs or cawtd rrsrsetErig *fdch Brs Dol €htn rr erhthg llc|re bt !! F|His ncordr. o tbe TteE|r!'ey'r ofilt.
7. IJem tor urydd Frtr &d sencr chrrsrs, if ry,.
t. Dtdlhn !r ortr'rpollc' vil b. rttItcctb &e rlortngr, |t ry, hotd ln Scc{qn I otilM{cB h*d
ALTA COMMITMENT
Scln&leB.Sosdon2
(Exepaiols)(hr orderNo. Vg,,77+r6
9. TIGIIT CPNOFNIETIoNOFA VEIN OI'IODET(}ETIR,*CTAND NE!,[OYE1116OIE
TH&NEFff)l|t SSOULD THF SAME BE I'OUND TO PtsNRTNATE ORINTEf,SECT TTIE FIEMtrSEli
AS nESEfvExl lN IrNIltD SfAIES pAtFrtT nEct)nDED MAf 24, u0+ At DOOK/a AT
PAGB 503.
UT NTGFT OF WAY T(xt DTTf,RES OI CANAIS CONSTRUCTED EY TI|D AUTEONNY tr TIfi
rlNlrED SfAIESAS nEsEnvP tr{ t NIIED $TAlEs PATBIT aEcotD@ MAY 24' 1904,
IN E(x}tr.' AT FAGSTOS.
11, WAXTRAND $IAIEE ruffiS, DHicE AND Dmffi rucFnil
12. 8IGflT C'F WAY 40 IMT IN ffIIlg AS DESCTISED IN COfiIDE}dNAIION DON BIG,ST OT WAY
AWAID@ !O TTIE UNITFD STAIEII OF AMEntC{ IN INCTNUM${T NNS)NDED AUGT'ST 1&lFs rNtqrs 116A1t PAG83.S.
13. IIGHT tr W^YAS (}trUTNTI,D TO TgB STATE OF COLoRADO IN EISTRI.III'g{T NECIINDED
IJNE t, 19t{t rN B(rcK 1}7 AT PAGB 465.
I+ XIGITT OP WAY AS (;NANTED TO Tffi trI.EIVIING LUMBEA. AND METCANTII.B CON{PANY IN
E?/I2/2AA2 15:21 COUGHLIN ) 3O36?E?162
ALTA COMMITMBNT. -...
Srhcdde B . Secthn2
(&rcepfionr)
Th. po$cy o? polllle3 to h irwoi wlll contnln crocFlons t0 ha folloryhg |elef,of tD thG $nirlrctloo ot tlre Couplrryr
N0. 845
.,{rE ta vr 4s
oag
5 9,. I r
Our Order Ho. Vntlffr
me qnrrredrrywel
TNSTTI,IITENT NE(KNDED JANUANY 13, T9{' IN B@K 12? AT PAffi Sf,,.
l5' IIcETs' wAY EISEMENTA$ GRANT0D m c,|s FAcILnuEs, tNc. tN INSfBUMETTnEmnDED FffilIlAnY t?' 1956 IN Bq)IE l9! AT PAffi r49 AND br D(xttt 19! AT pAGE
16l Alilt nmofiDID MAnaE 9r rqr6 [rl BooK 192 AT PAcE2tr3 AI{D AT PacE 2oit.
16. EASEMENTAS @/\NTFI' 11O VAIL WATEN.AND SANITATT('IV DXSTilCT [I n|STTUM!!JTNEAOTDP APNL 7I T96f IN E(EI( I92 AT PAGB 365,
T7, TEn}6' COi{DITTOTI$AIiII' PBOVIIIIOF'S OtrNOFIEXCT,USNTE UNDER,SXOUND RIGHI Or WArEAsErdrT As Gx/rNrDD To H(}I.Y c?loes Er.sctxrc assoclATroN, INc. tBconDED .[JNE0E, tt94IN lmf etri{TFA@344.
l& EXISIT{GLEASUiTIND TB{ANCIExL
a?/).2/2A42 15:21 COUGHLIN ) 3@367A?t62- -' ;; ; -v-r*.J- Ao rri. I
N0.8A6 0b9
;303629: rS5 n tO,, t lr'qtE r ut J,l,
I
r lllln8
IEtu
,F
LA ND TITLE GUAR4NTEB coMPJtNY
DISCLOSURE .STATEMENTS
Nots! M b tM 10,ll"l32, noicc ls ftrretr dvfi ahert
1] 9 tS.l rll_ltrrF t rry bB tocrnd b, ",iai Errg dsrrcr.E) A ctdi[c.& ol' T!e, De l&drg errlr ffing Jutsrrolor ry te otunce hm .h ccruryThafltrrc f,ihorled.e!l[
c) Tb lrrlomEdorr ngnrur! rpchr dborcb ed rb borDdqtce or$rh dsircs !ry b offied outlr Eoad ot cornv comnrsro*E, or cfirry ch* md r*or{er, or ne coi& n"o*or.
Nocs ffive ScpE Dtcr L lttr g-xs 30:1046 rETdR' tht an dronrnf mdroC fol rcon@ oin dt dst d ncrrdrrc ofilcc.cfrNrtondn r bp rnigh of u harr or ino nu r l.rq- ,rght -o bootr|Eh cil d l€.sl ors hcll of sn lrlr Ib dcdr Eir -du"r rtt"y tearFt to ccorl ot tlc elry doc6rdoc'Et cqtonB Gr.cF !hrr, dc tEqrd'tnE|rt br an op rrrgd rhall ,bt m|f b do'cr;di urlqg rb,o srfth cpi.e & F'vrdud ror r.Gon&rg or fi||ng tntomi*on * rtr op rnrrln or u" dmrrne
Nob! ColDtrdo Dtilslol of hcrlrnt Rcgdrdor a$! nrarylr C ot Artclc r.11 Eqq[1;E 3Et'Dea:tddc cdf shell b rqFonrlUc for Cl m*r rtfch rprar of rcord Ffr h 6r fnc, oi ccordrgvlqqr thc drre crrdty codrrb nE cr'rtg ail B t. poEtuG tor r-orarg m0lhg ol tqaldoolDmv n3rithg ftlto 0|G nurartoiwtdclr rrr oa*f'. Fmvt{nd a|!J r:il oth GrrE|recow coldrs ln crarrug of flr rru@d E{''!c[oD d b rupolnrdr roi r"oorurE |blcgd doffi e,oDl t trrrmdon, .*cnPdon nnb*s vil not'4peq *r m ornr.ce noehtlcy d th l*ndrrs hllcfl \rberr lcfltd-
Nor", A|ltrdrn nrrhfldc'e rrea n,obcdon to. tE ouEr r!ry b ffdr.stc (arrflcaDy by ddcduror Er€Dd-' ua 4 ori sc[core B, sccthu 2 or ilrr couilbrri tnom th Oriiic nftry o tlErEo ||l|on rondaF E|lr ltr frlorstug cotdtiorE:
A) Ib In{ drscrlbcl t| SchutF A of tldr cordtunt nuat bc r rlrglr ffiS reridepc *tict!Irdules a codoldilc or tltaloosc Edt
B) No hbor cr nret dr lrrc bcar trrntslred by nclraffca or rqbdd.rrn lcr prpceer clco!8ttctol 0n ate |ul dcsttlbql ln Scft.dd€ A of dJo CqturloEt|t *onin'pef C nuOrnc) rts cbqry !!!* Fcder qr @opdrr fidryrt rrderdtyiw a: c'wt *,r|trtelrcdffic'! qd u8lcid.rnn's [mr.
D) _TIE Oo"'ti|. trFrt tcreleE I{t reut of [: qEopd.b pirduD.
E) ts |br hr brcn arutc(oD tE|'' crsrs-or ri4or riryan ur.bfilcr. or| ft FFro r, b !crl* sdrldh dr Ea|lE lrll. to 6o Dab 0f d! cordroaq rL rcqurunw b o!tsb cornrEefor tntotd llcns wtll bt|l*t dtchf,||D of sttb comdto ffondq asdrl hlrtilotr
0r b rb !dhr, fu Esr&r d or rb councor; FlEil 0f tb wem riam fdve!.cdtd rr'ts4t Apcenatc crflrfrctry b b oapq, -f, ,V;ddfl.foc rny bc n*crrqy dbr o rrudrdou ot ft drE rld |rforru{oi ty O" Crryq,
No cowngo Flll bc glres rrrr{rr ry d|r|rEfilrrr for bDot or rmlrrld (or rhlcl lb tarrmrlb cot[ubd tor ef tgEeil b lqr.
Nolct Pu*lrdb Ctrll !1f.11,13, u(ce b lrnby gveu
A) Tbt lErE le rrcorbd culdaro 0st a nirrral rrAC trr bco senr4 IGEsc4 0r ofieillcccon4tcc osn ft sulbG .rEe sil fur IEF b . rftbdc ulnllllod dri e ldrn prtT
hol& ronr m dl fifirrt h oll €Fr, olter dmfq 0r gpottrcrrnl er:rgr h fb ppcrtrl and
B) Thr puh daetrr €ruc rqr r'c|d. eE dEhr b o'rtrrd u'c oo rop& fiuFfu oErufre onrrd r perrnlrrloD
THr notlcc qdlcc b r'rr-r'r polly corrrrilncme cottifitE r rdrnr{ eevennce Instsrrrnr
C|xccFo4 or etceldotB, In Sd|0djc E, Secdon 2.
Nofffug lttrc|n codlrd vlll b tlettttl fo obltpt* the conply b Frovlde oS 0f tlE goyc6gca
telonsd lo hettln uderr he elow condi{olt qE Mly sedsfled.bcuEg@
E7 / L2/2E,8,2 15:2i C0UGHLII.I ) 3436?A?162 NO.865 DtArrweorsrlr,: F lr !1
JOTNT NOTICE OF P&IVACY POLTCY
Flddlry lhdond sngnetar Group ot comperdu/chrcago Trtre tnrr'me conporry rnd
Iand fith Grr:,rrntec Cornparry
Jult 1, 2ool
gffi iffi
In the courpc oC otrr buslnccr, ve ]rry rollecl Sorsonal In?0tTrsdon Nborl you fton th toltorrbg 6or[ct$
I fbon rpplcetble or oltr_gorrE_we rEllvc llotD yo[ cr your at6rstzed rrrc€n8urb!;ffi Itrff l*Ht.dt'trtoDtra;ni;;'tfi 'E*i#6d;'dQ;G,';Gffi 616'o'othEi
: HeT"ffiErffiffifiut,tr1*t- € m€' [ar '! .idEr our dbrcdr ro' hn
' !l[D cotErlEt l? ottpr tepordrf, cgericr.
ou Po[chr Regerdrng the Prorccdon ol tfie conlld3rttrlltf rnrt sccuritt ot yoE ptr8oErl ldo]r!il lon
lY9 petrgltegdcul. cltuonic nd poce$nl cir$uq{r b Flr.csyooFenord hlormrrton tourusulodredffi f l*wfr IEStr"?S*:"tT"F;F;,mf""ffi,#.ffi #;a;nff 6iil-
Our Policlrs aBd &rcdces Regrrding the Sharlng of your petronal Infomtdon
wq -tqyglnn ymr F:rcord rutbrfirdor st[r o|e drttr&+ flcl Ns lqul{F coNrFlG3, agmq rd otrr realqi!U! tclcrutt servlr pvUqr. Wr r&o n4r dedoc ydrr R,n o];ilnlr;fi;E---'
:ffi*F,H#f,ffi ffi S#"fr HS$*Eg*ffiTffi"H!.hsoro*rt b ollst vlt[ rhlm vi gler fu loffi nrlodrg og*rurs lor F fiH of ,er"kcr drc vc Hbvc gourwnd0lhbnst
!r lflfuu vc wfll dtrntose yorr RrronC fforrLinn riclffi H?;B$"#ffi.'.++*l-ri;ar;;a;ffiri.v;:tff t9_"*"e*#ffi Hffi f :Y
'" ;i';ilaiiIiiff;G4 ;f,Tiffi 4$Sfig[Sfl"#,.'*i"J*S'iffi*a-&lffi6E' rcedcd
ffilk lHffi.Iffiffit""i;iffid:iFffi;f*'.r 1r b rEr'| d.crErb tn oc Frrilc
xught to Atc€s Your Fcrsotrd lDtonnetlon orrd ADlllty to cor"xct E'rgu Or R4rrcrt Chngr3 (}DdfioI
ffi E.*l!i$"r.tl#f f;i3*'fi .ffiTffi ffi,*ffi itr$,lqF'..''r0rdq'I-g!_qE+FT! g !4}rtDl o[ toJq Ramd lronnan wc Ertrv? ft ,€lt, ,rffiffi t.r, oqEgE r ltaforru re b crrr ut co€19 tsl|€rt h twpfirg o srrb rt{DJII -
AII rqrN|6 $ffiltd lo dE Flrt [lt-N49[rl Ihddd Gmg of CorrFie#CHcqp Tfdr ITEEG! CD4$g$alt li tn vrtrfog, U |ttUveac ro'qcGUirwtd triraar---
Ptiverf, Cord- lr' fficrrffi8nT.ffiffi'*SehBrbcs, CA 9tU0
Muldpb Productr or teryloca
g wC pfodd! tou rellh tiltc tl n ono ntdd Frart or rrilhe, yoU trrrv tEcdgo tratt ttrr orr FlyrC, n odr.tonr ss. Wc ahloglr! t'or oV fronvedcnce Aii nrry-crfoc you
F.E|s 9ADt/.SO!.CE
PEAK LAND CONSULTANTS, INC.
PEAK LAND SUBVEYING, INC.
PEAK CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
s7c-476-A644. FAx 97+476€616 ' 1@O LION'S RIDGE LOOP'VAIL. co 81657
Letter of Transmittal:
Attn:
Date: b/ I o/ o Z
Job #: /h24
v", lild)b Ge"b Rentu S,ba,H-t
We are sending you: Attached: Under Separate Cover Via:
Wd(@.a OvernightMail TwoDaylvlail Fax Pick-up Modem Otheq
We are sending the
following items:
Origimls
Specifications
Copy of Letter
Change Order
Samples
Disks
Other
Copies Description Date
These are
transmitted:
561 trpproval
As Requested
Reviewed
nEJeur{Jsg
. For Review &
Comment
For Your Record
Other
6 2tr 3L ff6 te,tiot kbn,VU*(/a/o>
I 0x t I FEt lb-p- 1,lr*,'4*.t/ plo't-
Remarks:
Copy to:
o o
MAY 2OO2
O D E t- I- A R C H I T E C T S PC
Name of Project: Middle Creek Affordable O.A. Project Number:
Housine
0120
Locatlon:
Applicable Gode:
Code Gheck by:
Building'C'
Vail, CO
I997 UBC
Bridqet Venne/Tonv Nutsch Date:5-20-02
SECTION
1. Occupancy Classification:
Principal Occupancy:
Others:
Chapter 3
R-1
s-3 Table 3-A
2. Occupancy Separation Required
Occupancy to
N/A
Occupancy -+ Hours Table 3-B
R-1 s-3to
to
-+3 Table 3-B
s-3 --+ I Table 3-B
-)
--)
--)
to
to
3. Construction Type:
4. Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area:
Garage (S-3, B occupancy)
Living Units (R-1 occupancy)
lf adjacent to open area on two sides:
lf adjacent to open area on three sides:
lf adjacent to open area on all sides:
lf over one storv:
Type lll I -hour (R-1)
Type I (S-3. B)
Unlimited
13,500 sq. ft.
Section 505.1.1
27,000 sq. ft.Section 505.1.2
Section 505.1.3
13,500 sq. ft.
ODELr- ARCHrrEcrs, P.C.
^f ! hrtecrurc Plrnn Ing Inreriors
Section 504.2
lf Sprinkled:NiA
Total Allowable Living Unit Area: 54,000 sq. ft.
Building Area:
Total area of parking garage (S-3 6l ,740 sq. ft
and B occupancies)
Area of living units north of area 34,203 sq. ft.
separation wall (R-1 occupancy)
Area of living units south of area 26,200 sq. ft.
separation wall (R-1 occupancy)
5. Maximum Allowable Height:
Feet:
Stories:
Building Height:
Feet:
Stories:
Section 505.3
Section 506
Sixty-Five (65) ft.
Four (4)
Approximately 65'
Five (5) --one-story increase for
fully-sprinkled
7. Fire Resistance of Exterior Walls -(see Occupancy Type and Gonstruction Type)
Garage:
Bearing:Two (2) hour non-combustible Table 5-A, but not 6-
A
Non-Bearing:One ( 1) hour non-combustible Table 5-A, but not
6-A
Living Units:
Bearing:Two (2) hour non-combustible Table 5-A
Non-Bearing:One ( 1) hour non-combustible Table 5-A
8. Openings in Exterior Walls -(see Occupancy Type and Gonstruction Type)
Garage: Unprotected Table 5-A
Living Units: Protected openings less than Twenty Table 5-A
(20) feet
9. Windows required in Rooms:
Window Area required: 10 sq. ft. minimum, l0% of floor Sections 3.10.4,
area in dwelling units 1203.2
Five-point-seven (5.7) sq. ft. in
sleeping areas
10. Pedestrian Walkways - size required:
Garage:
Living Units:
11. Minimum ceiling height in rooms:
Garage:
Living Units:
As specified rn Chapter 10
As spe cified in Chanter 10
Section 3 I 1.4
Section 310.4
Seven (7) feet mrnimum to any Section 3 I 1 .2.3.3
obstruction
Seven feet six inches (7'-6")Section 310.6.1
ODELL ARCHITEcTS, P. C.
Aruhrteclur e I)lannrng Interiors
H :\Projects\0 I 20\Code Rev|ew\MCkCode_ReviewbldgC.doc
12. Minimum floor area in
o
rooms
Living Units:
13. Fire Resistive Requirements-Garage:
Exterior Bearing Walls:
Interior Bearing Walls:
Exterior Non-bearing Walls:
Structural Frame:
Permanent Partitions
Vertical Openings:
Floors:
Roofs:
Exterior Doors:
14. Fire Resistive Requirements-Living Units:
Exterior Bearing Walls:
Interior Bearing Walls:
Exterior Non-bearing Walls:
Structural Frame:
Permanent Partitions.
Vertical Openings:
Floors:
Roofs:
Exterior Doors:
Roof Coverings:
Boiler Room Enclosure:
Electrical Rooms:
Telecommunications Rooms:
1 5. Stairway Construction:
lnterior:
Exterior:
Seventy (70) sq. ft. (not less than 7'
rn any dimension)
Section 310.6.2
Hours
Hours Table 6-A
Hours Table 6-A
Hours Table 6-,4'
Hours Table 6-,{
Hour Table 6-A
Hours Table 6-A
Hours Table 6-A
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours Table 5-A
Hours Table 6-A
Hours Table 5-A
Hours Table 6-,{
Hours Table 6-A
Hours Table 6-4'
Hours Table 6-4'
Hours As per Fire
Marshall's request
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Section 602.4
N/A
I
Type A roof
Reinforced concrete. iron or steel
Reinforced concrete. iron or steel
Oopr-l Ar{cHrrEcrs, P.C.
Architecture Planning Interlors
Section 602.4
H:\Projects\o | 20\Code Review\VCkCod€-Revrewbldgc.doc
ODELL ARCHITECTS
Name of Project:
Location:
Applicable Code:
Gode Gheck by:
Building'B'
Middle Creek Affordable
Housing
Vail, Colorado
I997 UBC
Bndget Venne
O.A. Project Numben
Date:
0120
May 28,2O02
SECTION
1. Occupancy Glassification :
Principal Occupancy:
R-1 Chapter 3
R-1 Table 3-A
2. Occupancy Separation Required
Occupancy to Occupancy -+ Hours Table 3-B
N/A
to
to
to
IO
-+
--)
-+
--)
3. Construction Type:
4. Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area:
lf adjacent to open area on two sides:
lf adjacent to open area on three sides:
lf adjacent to open area on all sides:
lf over one story:
lf Sprinkled:
Type V I -hour
10,500sq. ft.Table 5-B
Section 505. 1. 1
Section 505. I .2
Section 505.1.3
10,500 sq. ft.Section 504.2
ODELL ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
A fchrtecrure l)lann ing lnteriors
Section 505.3
Total Allowable Area:
Building Area:
Area of living units (R-1
occupancy)
Total Building Area:
5. Maximum Allowable Height:
Feet:
Stories:
Building Height:
Feet:
Stories:
7. Fire Resistance of Exterior Walls -{see
Bearing:
21,000 sq. ft.
8,736 sq. ft.
l1,010 sq. ft.
Fifry (50) ft.
Three (3)Table 5-B
Approximately Thirty-five (35) feet
Three (3)
Occupancy Type and Construction Type)
One ( I ) Hour Tables 5-A, 6-A
Section 506
Table 5-B
Non-Bearing:One (1) Hour Tables 5-A, 6-A
8. Openings in Exterior Walls -(see
Group: R-1 Occupancy, Type
V-l hour construction
9. Windows required in Rooms:
Window Area required:
10. Pedestrian Walkways - size required:
11. Minimum ceiling height in rooms:
12, Minimum floor area in rooms:
Occupancy Type and Construction Type)
Not perrntted less than five(5) feet
Unprotected openings permissible
t0 sq. ft. minimurn, 107o of floor
area in dwelling uruts
Five-point-seven (5.7) sq. ft. in
sleeping areas
Table 5-A
Sections 3 10.4,
310.5,1203.2
As specified in chapter l0 Section 3 10.4
Seven feet six inches (7'-6")Section 3 10.6. 1
Seventy (70) sq. ft. (not less than 7'
rn anv dimension)
Section 3 10.6.2
13. Fire Resistive Requirements:
Exterior Bearing Walls:
Interior Bearing Walls:
Exterior Non-bearing Walls :
Structural Frame:
Permanent Partitions
Vertical Openings:
Floors:
One (l)
One (l)
One (l)
One (l)
One (l)
One (l)
One (l)
ODELL ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
Archrlecrure l'lanning ln teriors
Hours
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Tables 5-A, 6-,{
Table 6-A
Tables 5-A, 6-A
Table 6-A
Table 6-A
Table 6-A'
Table 6-.4
Hi\Projects\o1 2o\Code Revi€w\MCkcode Revrewbldgb.dot
Roofs:
Exterior Doors:
Roof Coverings:
Boiler Room Enclosure:
Electrical Rooms:
Telecommunications Rooms:
14. Stairway Construction:
lnterior:
Exterior:
One (l)Hour Table 6-A
Unprotected Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Type B roof
Any permrssible material Section 606.4.2
2x wood or non-combustible Section 606.4.3
materials
ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Architecture Planning lnteriors
H:\Pojects$ I 2o\Code Review\lvlCkCode_Review bldgb.doc
Io
APRIL 2OO2
NING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, April 8, 2002
NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME
o
PLAN
MEMBERS PRESENT
Site Visits :
MEMBERS ABSENT
1:00 pm
1. Middle Creek - 160 N. Frontage Road2. Lodge at Lionshead - 380 E. Lionshead Circle
Driver: George
7,^.\I
I I t-:tt tLl
l\-,r_/11
NOTE: lf the PEC hearing
DINNER
extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearinq - Town Gouncil Chambers
6:00 pm
2:00 pm
1. Swearing in of reappointed PEC member Erickson Shirley and appointed PEC members
George Lamb, Rollie Kjesbo and Gary Hartman - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk.
2. Election of 2002 Chair -
Vice-Chair -
3. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmental Commission to discuss a proposal for a conditional use permit to allow for a
private educational institution and a request for development plan review to construct
employee housing and a private educational institution within the Housing Zone District and
setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an
unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle
Creek subdivision.
11:00 am
12:00 pm
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Local Housing Authori$, represented by Odell Architects
Allison Ochs
4. A request for a rezoning from High Densig Multiple Family (HDMF) & Medium Density
Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1), to allow for the
redevelopment of the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 7 , Tract I
& Tract J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1"t Filing and Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey.Planner: Russ Forrest
5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, for a text amendment to Title 12,
Section 2-2, to amend the definition of "Fractional Fee Club'and to amend Title 12, Section 16-
7A-8, to amend the Use Specific Criteria & Standards, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Applicant: Rob LevinePlanner: George Ruther
6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Title 11,
Section 11-5, Prohibited Signs, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for certain off-site
advertising signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: George Ruther
7. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the
remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C,located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Block
5, Vail Village 1't Filing.
Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam HopkinsPlanner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL APRIL 22,2002
8. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen
Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion
of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special
Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot
2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development
District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second
Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to
amend the study area defined in the Llonshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting
forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West I Lot2, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 2"o Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West / Lots E and F, Vail Village
Second Filing.
Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical CenterPlanner: Allison Ochs
TABLED TO MAY,I3,2OO2
9. Approval of March 25,2002 minutes
10. Information Uodate
/ Appointment of PEC rep to AIPP and Open Space Committee
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planne/s office located at the Town of Vail Communi$
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published April 5, 2002 in the Vail Daily.
Oi
Monday, April 8,2002
Planning & EnvironmentalCommlssion and Design Review Board
Joint Worksession for Middle Creek
2:00 o.m. in Town Council Chambers
Members Present Members Absent
05 min Introduction and overview of ground rules Gary Severson
Facilitator: Gary Severson, NWCCOG
Time Topic
05 min Overview H zone dislricl
10 min VLHA and goals of project
10 min ldentilication of issues from applicant
05 min Topic clustering
05 min Break
75 min Open Discussion
15 min Public Comment
05 min Next steps
2 hrs 35 min
Presenter
Allison Ochs
Mark Rislow
Otis Odell
Gary Severson
Gary Severson
10 min Overview of project and process to date Otis Odell
10 min ldentification of issues of PEC and DRB meetings Allison Ochs
I
It
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board
Department of Community Development
April 8, 2002
A request for a joint worksession wilh the Planning and Environmental
Commission and Design Review Board to discuss a request for a
conditional use permit lo allow for an Early Learning Center and a request
for development plan review lo allow for the construction of employee
housing within the Housing zone district and setting forth details in
regards therelo, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell'7an unplatted
piece of property, located at'160 N. Frontage Rd.ito be platted as Lol'1,
Middle Creek subdivision.
Applicanl: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell
ArchitectsPlanner: Allison Ochs
il.
PURPOSE OF THE JOINT WORKSESSION
The purpose of this joint worksession with lhe Planning and Environmenlal
Commission and Design Review Board is to review the proposal to locate
employee housing and a private educational institution at the site known as
Mountain Bell. Specifically, the purpose of this worksession is as follows:
. Provide an overview of the Housing zone districtr Understand the goals of the Vail Local Housing Authority and the project. Provide an overview of the project and process to-date. ldentify and clarily the issues of the Planning and Environmental Commission
and Design Review Board. ldentify and clarify the issues of lhe applicant.. Provide a forum for open discussion on the project. ldentify next steps in the process
THE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
In June of 1999, the Town Council directed the Community Development
Department lo create a new zone district, with the primary purpose of providing
for sites lor employee housing. The Staff Memorandum from the Planning and
Environmental Commission hearing on the new zone district is attached for
reference. The Town Council adopted Ordinance No.3, Series of 2001, on
second reading on March 6,2001. Ordinance No.3 included the following
statemenls:
. WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail
has held public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with
the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; ando WHEREAS, the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission of the Town of Vail
has recommended approval of these amendments at its January 22, 2001
meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Vail Town Council;
and. WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the
proposed amendments further the development objectives of the Town of
Vail: and. WHEREAS, the VailTown Councilconsiders housing a high priority and
recognizes the Town's role in providing quality living conditions for the
co m mu nity's wo rkf orce., WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council recognizes the need to provide for
adequate sites for employee housing within the Town; and. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it reasonable, appropriate, and
necessary to adopt a new zone district to encourage and facilitate the
development of employee housing; and. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public
health, safety, and welfare to adopt these amendments to the Zoning
Regulations.
The Housing zone district was amended by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2001.
Section 12-61 of the Town Code reads as follows:
ARTTCLE r. HOUSTNG (H)DTSTRTCT
SECTION:
12-61-1 : Purpose
12-612: Permitted Uses
1 2-61-3: Conditional Uses
12-614: Accessory Uses
12-61-5: Setbacks
12-61-6: Site Coverage
12-617:. Landscaping and Site Development
12-61-8: Parking and Loading
12-61-9: Location of Business Activity
1 2-61-1 0: Other Development Standards
12-61-'l l : Development Plan Required
1 2-611 2: Development Plan Contents
1 2-61-1 3: Develooment Standards/Criteria for Evaluation
12-61-1: PURPOSE:
The Housing District is intended to provide adequale siles for employee
housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee
housing, cannol be adequately regulated by the development standards
prescribed for other residenlial zoning districts. ll is necessary in this
district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each
development proposal or project lo achieve the purposes prescribed in
Section 12-1-2 ot this Title and to provide lor the public welfare. Certain
nonresidenlial uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended
to be incidenlal 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, lo harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure
adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the
allowed types of uses.
12-61-2:PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the H District:
Deed restricled employee housing units, as fudher
described in Chapter 12-13 of this Title.
Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space.
Pedestrian and bike paths.
1 2-61-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H District, subject
to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance wilh the provisions
of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as
determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission )
to the use of employee housing and specifically serving the
needs of the residents of the development, and developed in
conjunction with employee housing, in which case the
lollowing uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use
permil:
Banks and financial institutions.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Heallh clubs.
Personal services, including but not limited to, laundromals,
beauty and barber shops, lailor shops, and similar services.
Retail stores and establishments.
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 lhe purpose of
subsidizing employee housing on the property and,
B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property.
The GRFA for dwelling units shall nol exceed 30% of
the total GRFA construcled on the property and,
C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with
employee housing and,
D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses
and buildings on the site and are compatible with
buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
o
Outdoor patios
Public and private schools and educational institutions, including
day-care facilities.
Public buildings and grounds.
Public parks.
Public utilities installations including transmission lines and
appurtenant equipment.
Type Vl employee housing unils, as further regulated by Chapter
12-13 of this Title.
1 2-61-4: 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 wilh 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 permitted residential uses.
Other uses cuslomarily incidental and accessory to permitted or
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
12-61-5: SETBACKS:
The setbacks in this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone
dislrict. 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 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 wilh
buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
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 fl. setback shall nof 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:
Site coverage shall not exceed fifty{ive percent (55%) of the total site
area, At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission,
site coverage may be increased it 75o/o ol the required parking spaces are
underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving
o
provided within a development, and that the minimum landscape area
requirement is met.
12-61-7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least thirty percent (30%) of lhe lotal site area shall be landscaped.
The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall
be fifteen feet (1 5') 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 Chapler 10 of lhis
Title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required
setback area. At the discretion of lhe 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 Environmenlal 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 services.
B. A limitalion placed in lhe deed restrictions limiting the number ol cars
for each unit.
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to,
rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or slaggered
work shifts.
1 2-61-9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVIW:A. Limilation; Exception: All condilional uses by 12-61-3 of this Article,
shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except
for 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 to be used for outdoor display
must be located directly in front of the eslablishment displaying
the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property.
Sidewalks, building entrances and exils, driveways and streets
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,
developmenl standards in each of the following categories shall be as
proposed by the applicant,
Environmenlal Commission,
prescribed by the Planning andas adopled on the approved
development plan:
A. Lot area and site dimensions.
as
and
B. Building height.
C. Density control (including gross residential tloor area).
12-61-1 1 : DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED:A. Compatibilily With Intenl: To ensure the unified development, the
prolection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the
surrounding area and to assure lhat development in the Housing
District will meet the intent of lhe District, a development plan shall
be required.
B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan
shall be in accordance with Section 12-6112 of this Article and
shall be submitted by the developer to the Administrator, who shall
refer il to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which
shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting.
C. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and
Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with
Section 12-3-6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental
Commission may approve the applicalion as submitled, approve
the application wilh conditions or modifications, or deny the
application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental
Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance
with Section 12-3-3 of this Title.
D. Plan As Guide: The approved development 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 of this T]lle.
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 the
applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of this Title prior to the
commencement of sile preparation.
1 2-61-1 2.. DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS:A. Submit With Application: The following information and materials
shall be submitted with an application for a proposed development
plan. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified
by the Administrator if it is demonstrated that the material to be
waived or modified is not applicable to the review crileria, or that
other praclical solutions have been reached.
1. Application lorm and filing fee.
2. A written stalement describing the projecl including information
on the nature of the development proposed, proposed uses,
and phasing plans.
B.
3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing
conditions of the property to be included in the development
plan, including the location ol improvements, existing contours,
natural features, existing vegetation, walercourses, and
perimeter properly lines of the parcel.
4. A title report, including Schedules A and 84.
5. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (sile plan,
floor plans, elevations, etc.), if applicable,
6. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed
development including a square footage analysis of all
proposed uses, parking spaces, elc.
7. A site plan at a scale not smaller lhan one inch equals twenty
feet (1" = 20'), showing the location and dimensions of all
existing and proposed buildings and slructures, all principal
sile development fealures, vehicular and pedestrian circulation
systems and proposed contours and drainage plans.
8. Building elevations, seclions and floor plans at a scale not
smaller than one-eighth inch equals one foot (1/8" = 1'), in
sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of
uses and scale and appearance of the proposed development.
9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in
relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than
one inch equals fitly 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
development plan.
11.An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to
depict the proposed development in relationship to existing
development on the site and on adjacent parcels.
12. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals
twenty feet (1" = 20'), showing existing landscape features to
be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site
development features such as recrealion facilities, paths and
trails, plazas, walkways and waler features.
13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter '12
of this Title unless waived by Section 12-12-3 of this Title.
14.Any additional information or material as deemed necessary
by Administralor.
Copies Required; Model: With the exception of the model, four (4)
complele copies of the above informalion 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 formal
review of lhe 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 distribution to the
Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board
and Town Council may be required.
ilt.
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 to
demonstrate lhat the proposed development plan complies with all
applicable design criteria:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale,
massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent
properties and lhe surrounding neighborhood.
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
communily as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic,
are designed to preserve and enhance the natural lealures of the
site, maximize opporlunities 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.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation syslem designed to provide
safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and
throughout the development.
E. Environmenlal impacts resulling from the proposal have been
identified in the project's environmental impact report, if 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.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
On March 11,2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission voled to table
the request for development plan review and the conditional use permil for lhe
Early Learning Center at Lol 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. The following issues
were identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission as critical
concerns that need to be resolved prior to receiving final approval:
1. Submittal of a final landscape and grading plan, in accordance wilh
Sections 12-6|.-'12 and 12-11-4, indicating additional opportunities for
landscaping, berming, etc.2. Revisions to the vehicular and pedestrian circulation at the Early Learning
Center with particular reference to pedestrian safety, a drop-off area, elc..3. Submittal of a noise mitigalion plan, indicating berming and landscaping
to alleviate noise from l-70.
4. Revisions of Buildings G and H to allow for less building height at the
front setback and to allow for additional for landscaping to butfer the
buildings on private property.5. Revision of the pedestrian circulation through the site to allow for
vehicular and pedestrian separalion.6. Relocation of the recreation area uphill from Building C to allow for a
more useable, sunny recreation area.7. Revision of the rooflines, focusing on the prevention of roof runoff and
snow shedding onto parking areas and pedestrian walkways.8. Provision of written approval from CDOT stating that they will approve the
proposed landscaping in lhe CDOT right-of-way.9. Revision of Building A to allow for additional stepping of the roof and
grealer articulation of the building.10. A recommendation that the Design Review Board review the proposed
entry into the enlire project, specifically the garage doors at located at the
south side of Building A.
In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission had the following
comment and concerns:
1. The bulk and mass of the buiHings need to be reconsidered and
adjusted.2. The heights of the buildings along Frontage Rd. need to be reduced.3. The vehicular and pedestrian circulation and drop-off at the Early
Learning Center need to be reconsidered.4. Building height should step with the topography of the site.5. The amount of cul and fill is excessive. As proposed, the project is not
environmentally f riendly.6. Consider roof run-off and snow shedding onlo pedestrian walkways and
parking areas.7. Additional open space and recreation areas are needed on lhe site. This
will allow for greater snow slorage opportunities. lnterior landscaping is
totally inadequale.8. Building bulk and mass should be at the back of the site, not along
Frontage Rd.9. The proposed surface parking is exlremely visible and not very well
screened.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Middle Creek then appeared before the Design Review Board on March 20,
2002, tor a conceptual review. The following were their preliminary comments
and concerns:
'1 . Generally, the proposed buildings are too massive, too blocky, and too
large. Bulk and mass for the enlire project needs to be reconsidered.
The buildings are tall, long buildings swimming in a pool of asphalt and
concrete.2. This is a tremendously important site and development on this site will be
the first impression thal guests will have of the Town of Vail. Al such a
highly visible location, the development needs to be done with a sense of
v.
excellence. lt must not appear to be affordable housing and must meet
the standards of the Town of Vail.3. There is no aesthetic connection between this proposal and the Town
itself. This proposal does not have a lyrical, romantic quality, or relate to
the scale of buildings in Vail.4. Foof ridges are too long and massive. For example, Buibing A is 200 ft.
long wilh only 6 ft. of off-set. This does not meet the intent of the Design
Guidelines.5. Parts of the site are underutilized (e.9. covered parking areas).
Development should be clustered on the site to minimize site disturbance.6. Look at the Tarnes as a good example of high quality employee housing.7. Strike a balance between cost, quality, and location.8. There is a concern about how the buildings appear from Vail Mountain.
From a dislance lhe back buildings will read as one building and be
similar in appearance to Timber Ridge.9. Sile planning and site design need improvement. The development
needs to be concentrated with less sile disturbance,10. Landscaping needs to be reconsidered. The majority of the proposed
landscaping is on CDOT right-of-way, instead of on the subject property.
There is a lack of inlerior landscaping. The site is asphalt from foundation
lo foundation.11. The play area al the Early Learning Center does nol seem very well
developed.
NEXT STEPS
Middle Creek has been scheduled for anolher worksession wilh the Planning and
Environmental Commission on April 22, 2002, and for a final review with the
Planning and Environmental Commission on May 13, 2002. To remain on the
May 13, 2002, Planning and Environmenlal Commission agenda, a complete set
of plans musl be submitled to staff no laler than noon on Thursday, April 25,
2002. Another conceplual review with the Design Review Board has been
tentatively scheduled lor May 1,2002.
10
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environmenlal Commission
Departmenl of Community Development
January 22,2001
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend Title 12
(Zoning) of the Town Code to allow for the crealion of a new zone district, the
Housing Zone District.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Allison Ochs
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
As part of the Town of Vail's objective to encourage affordable employee housing, the Town
Council directed staff to create a zone district with the primary purpose of providing sites for
employee housing. The development standards of this zone district would be prescribed by
the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of a development plan, similar lo the
General Use zone district.
On June 15, 1999, the Community Development Department presented to the Town Council
a proposal to creale a new housing zone dislrict. The Planning and Environmenlal
Commission reviewed the proposal at a worksession on Augusl 23, 1999, and gave the
general direction that the new district was needed. One Planning and Environmental
Commission member suggested that lhe district depart from the General Use district formal
and have specific development standards createc.
On November 13,2000, the Community Development Department again presented the
proposed Housing Zone District. The Planning and Environmental Commission gave
specific direction regarding the new proposed zone district. On November 14, the Housing
Zone District was presented to the Town Council, who also gave direction to staff.
December 19,2000, the Town Council directed staff 10 return lo the Planning and
Environmental Commission with the proposed changes to the Housing Zone District.
On January 8, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposed
Housing Zone District again. They had specific requests, including to clarify the roles of the
Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission in the review of
setbacks, and to amend the parking section. The meeting today serves as the final Planning
and Environmental Commission discussion on the Housing Zone Dislrict. Staff is requesting
that the Planning and Environmenlal Commission make a final recommendation to lhe Town
Council regarding lhe proposed amendment to the zoning regulations.
II. ROLES OFTHE REVIEWING BOARDS
Plannino and Environmental Commission:
Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council.
The PEC shall reviewthe proposallor and make a reammendationtothe Town Council on
the compalibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive
Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requiremenls are provided. The statf
advises the applicant as to compliance with lhe Zoning Regulations.
Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any lext
proposal.
Town Council:
Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments.
The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the
proposed text changes lor consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on
the general wellare of the community.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Statf recommends approval of lhe proposed amendment to Title 12 (Zoning) of the
Town Code to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the Housing Zone Districl
subject to the following findings:
1. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development
objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use PIan.
2. That the proposalis consisfent and compatible with existing and potential
uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of
Vait.
IV. TEXT OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
All additions from the Jan. 8'n memo
have been underlined.
ARTTCLE r. HOUSTNG (H) DTSTRTCT
SECTION:
12-61-1 : Purpose
12-612: Permitted Uses
1 2-61-3: Conditional Uses
12-614: Accessory Uses
12-61-5: Setbacks
12-61-6:Site Coverage
12-617: Landscaping and Site Development
12-61-8: Parking and Loading
12-61-9: Location of Business Activity
1 2-61-1 0: Olh'er Development Standards
12-61-1 1 : Development Plan Required
12-61-1 2: Development Plan Contents
12-61-1 3: Developmenl Standards/Criteria for Evaluation
12-61-1: PURPOSE:
The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for atfordable and employee housing
which, because of the nature and characteristics of affordable and employee housing, cannol 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 lo provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidenlial uses are allowed as conditional uses,
which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of lhe District. The
Housing Dislrict is inlended to ensure that affordable and employee housing permitted in the District
is appropriately localed and designed lo 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 ol uses.
12-61-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the H District:
Deed restricted employee housing.
Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space.
Pedestrian and bike paths.
1 2-6F3: CONDITIONAL USES:
Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H District, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the Planning and
Environmental Commission ) to the use of deed restricted employee housing and specifically
serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with deed restricted employee
housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit:
Banks and financial institutions.
Eating and drinking establishments.
Health clubs.
Personal services, including but not limited to, laundry mats, beauty and barber shops, tailor
shops, and similar services.
Retail stores and establishments.
Dwdling units (not employee housing unils) subject to the following criteria lo be evaluated by the
Planning and Environmental Commission:
A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing
on the property.B. Dwelling units are nol the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units
shall not exceed 30% of the total GRFA constructed on the property.
C. Dwelling units are only crealed in conjunction with deed restricted employee housing.D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and
are compatible wilh buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
Outdoor Patios
Public and private schools and educational inslitutions
Public buildings and grounds.
Public parks.
Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipmenl.
12-61-4: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the H District:
Home occupations, subject to issuance ol a home occupation permil in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12-14-'l2 of this Title.
Minor Arcades
Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or
recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary
for the operation thereof.
12-51-5: SETBACKS:
The setbacks in lhis district shall be 20'from the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of
the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations lo the setback standards outlined above
may be approved during the review of a development plan subiect 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 environmenlally 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. Variations to the 20 tt. setback shall not be allowed on property lines
adjacent 1o HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties.
D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits
that could not othenryise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards.
12-61-6: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed fifty{ive percenl (55%) of the total site area. At the discretion of the
Planning and Environmental Commission, sile coverage may be increased il 75% of the required
parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts ol surface paving provided
within a developmenl. and that the landscape area requirement is met.
12-61-7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and
length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifleen leet (15') with a minimum area nol less
than three hundred (300) square feet.
12-61-8: PARKING AND LOADING
Off-street oarkinq shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No parkinq or
loadino area shall be located within any required sehack area. At the discretion of lhe Plannino and
Environmental Commission, variations to the oarkinq standards oullined in Chaoter 10 mav be
approved durino the review of a develooment olan subiect to a Parkino Manaqement Plan. The
Parkino Manaoemenl Plan shall be aporoved bv the Plannino and Environmental Commission and
shall provide for a reduction in the oarkinq reouiremenls based on a demonstrated need for fewer
oarkino spaces than Chaoter 10 of this title would reouire. For example, a demonstrated need for
a reduction in the required oarkino could include:
A. Proximity or availabilitv of alternative modes of transportation includino, but not limited
to. public transit or shuttle services.
B. A limilation placed in the deed restrictions limitinq the number of cars for each unit.
C. A demonstraled permanent prooram includino. but not limited to. rideshare oroorams.
carshare oroorams. shuttle service. or slaooered work shifts.
12-61-9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY:A. Limitation; Exception: All conditional uses by 12-61-3 of this Arlicle, shall be operated
and conducled entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such
activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a condilional use
permit and the outdoor display ol goods.
B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used for outdoor display musl be located
directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the
establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways
and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display.
12-61-10: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H Dislrict, development standards
in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental
Commission:
A. Lot area and site dimensions.
B. Building height.
C. Densily control (including gross residential floor area).
12-61-11: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIBED:A. Compatibility With Inlent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the
natural environment, lhe compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure thal
development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a developmenl
plan shall be required.
B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan shall be in
accordance with Seclion 12-6112 of this Article and shall be submitted by the
developer to the Administrator, who shall refer it to the Planning and Environmental
Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting.
C. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission
shall be held in accordance with Seclion 12-3-6 of this Title. The Planning and
Environmenlal Commission may approve the applicalion as submitted, approve the
application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision
ol the Planning and Environmenlal Commission may be appealed 1o the Town
Council in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of this Title.
D. Plan As Guide: The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide
for all development wilhin lhe Housing District.
E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan will be
F.
12-61-12:
A.
considered in accordance with lhe provisions of Section 12-9A-10 of this Title.
Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and any
subsequent amendments thereto shall require lhe approval of the Design Fleview
Board in accordance wilh the applicable provisions of Chapler 11 of lhis Title prior
to the commencement of sile preparation.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS:
Submil With Application:The lollowing informalion and materials shall be submitted
with an application for a proposed development plan. Certain submittal requiremenls
may be waived or modified by the Adminislrator if it is demonstrated that the material
to be waived or modified is not applicable to the review criteria, or that other practical
solutions have been reached.
1. Application form and liling fee.2. A written statemenl describing the project including information on the nature
of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans.3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the
property to be included in the developmenl plan, including the location of
improvements, existing contours, nalural features, existing vegetation,
walercourses, 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,
elevalions, etc.), if applicable.6. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development
including a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces,
etc.7. A site plan al a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'),
showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buibings
and structures, all principal site development features, vehicular and
pedestrian circulation systems and proposed contours and drainage plans.8. Building elevations, seclions and floor plans at a scale not smaller than one-
eighth inch equals one foot (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 improvements in relation to all
adjacent properties at a scale not smaller lhan one inch equals fifty feet (1"
= s0').10. Photo overlays and/or olher acceplable visual techniques for demonstrating
the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property
in the vicinity of the proposed development plan.
11. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed
development in relationship to existing development on the site and on
adjacent parcels.'12. A landscape plan at a scale nol smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1'
= 20'), showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed,
proposed landscaping and other sile development features such as
recreation facilities, paths and lrails, plazas, walkways and water features.13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 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) complete 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
formal 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") tormat ol all of the above information and additional copies for distribution
to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Town
Council may be required.
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 lo demonstrate that the proposed developmenl plan
complies with all applicable design crileria:
A. Buibing design with respecl 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 lo the site, the surrounding neighborhood
and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthelic, are designed to
preserve and enhance the natural fealures 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.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulalion syslem designed to provide safe, efficient and
aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughoul the developmenl.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmental impacl report, if 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.
REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
The review criteria for a request of lhis nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal
Code.
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development
obiectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan.
Staff believes the following land use plan goals/policies are applicable to the
V.
proposed zoning code amendment:
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through
private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town
of Vail with appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands
for a full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded, Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
Staff believes that lhe Housing District is compatible with the Medium Density
Residential and High Densily Residential land use calegories, as identified
within the Vail Land Use Plan. Medium Density Residential allows for
densities of 3-14 dwelling units per buildable area, while High Density
Multiple Family allows for densities of 15 or more dwelling units per buildable
acre.
That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and
potential uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character
of the Town of Vail.
The provision of affordable and employee housing has long been held to be
a goal of the Town of Vail. This zoning code amendment will allow for
housing sites to be developed in a manner compatible with existing and
potential uses in the Town of Vail.
Generally, meeting the need for atfordable housing in other communities has
been accomplished through inclusionary zoning or incentive zoning.
Inclusionary zoning is a planning lechnique which encourages or forces the
private sector to provide housing which is deemed "affordable". Typically this
is done by: (1) providing bonuses, often in the form of additional density, for
the construction of atfordable housing; (2) pay in lieu fees or; (3) to require
a developer to set aside a certain percentage of the units as affordable
housing. The Town Code already has numerous incentives within the
Zoning Code, including allowing Type lll EHU's in manyzone districts without
effect on density or GRFA. In addilion, within LMU1, LMU2, PA, and SDD,
employee housing is a requirement of developmenl approvals to mitigate the
need for employee housing created by the development. Many communities
accomplish similar goals by establishing a PUD designation (similar to our
SDD process) whereby developers apply for this designation and receive
bonuses (often in the form of additional density) for the provision of
affordable housing. Very few, if any, communities, apply this type of
designation as the primary zoning on the property.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
March 11, 2002
A requesl for a conditional use permit to allow for an Early Learning Cenler and a
request for development plan review to construct employee housing within the
Housing zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto, 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: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell ArchilectsPlanner: Allison Ochs
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects, is
requesting a final review of a development plan to allow for the construclion of 142
employee housing units and a condilional use permit to allow for the relocation and
expansion of the Early Learning Center on the site known as Mountain Bell, located at
160 N. Frontage Rd. / Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision.
HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERW
The Mountain Bell site was annexed inlo the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 8, Series of
1969. In 1974, as part of an agreement wilh Vail Associates, Inc., regarding bus service,
the property was deeded to the Town of Vail. A portion of the site is owned by Qwest
and is the site of the Mountain Bell tower. In addition, ABC and Learning Tree are
located on the site. The remainder of the site is currently open space..
On September 24, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the
following requests:
1. A major subdivision, to allow for the planing of the site known as Mountain Bell.
The subdivision will be known as "Middle Creek Subdivision," and will consist of
Lot 1 (the housing site, known as Middle Creek Village), Lot 2 (the Mountain Bell
tower site), and Tract A (the open space parcel).
2. A Land Use Plan amendment, to change the land use designation from "Open
Space" to 'High Density Residential"of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision.
3. A rezoning, lo rezone Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdvision, from'Natural Area
Preservation District" to "Housing Zone District".
The Planning and Environmental Commission approved the major subdivision requesl,
and forwarded recommendations of approval to the Town Council for the Land Use Plan
ilt.
amendment and the rezoning request. With Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001 , Town
Council approved the rezoning of the site, and with Resolution No. 6, Series of 2001,
Town Council approved the Land Use Plan amendment. Both approvals are conditioned
upon the filing of the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision, and the approval of a
development plan for the site.
This application has been before the Planning and Environmental Commission on
numerous occasions over the past few months to discuss the developmenl plan for
Middle Creek in a work session format. The applicant has requested a final review of
the proposed development plan for Middle Creek and the conditional use permit for the
Early Learning Center. lf approved, today's review by the Planning and Environmental
Commission will be the final review by this board. The applicanl will be appearing before
the Design Review Board at a future date.
ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
A. Development Plan in the Housing Zone District
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,
and with the Town's Design Guidelines.
Plannino and Environmental Commission:
Action:The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final
approval/denial of a development plan in the Housing zone district. The Planning
and Environmental Commission is responsible for prescribing the following
development standards:
1. Selbacks,2. Site Coverage,3. Landscaping and Site Development,4. Parking and Loading,5. Lot 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 lollowing:
A. Building design with respect 10 architecture, character, scale, massing
and orientation is compatible wilh the site, adjacent properties and lhe
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Buildings, improvemenls, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a funclional 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 sile,
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 recrealion areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe,
efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to lhe site and throughout
the development.
E. Environmenlal impacts resulting from the proposal have been idenlified in
the project's environmental impact report, if 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.
Desion Review Board:
Aclion: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a developmenl plan
in the Housing zone district, but must review any accompanying Design Review
Board application. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the
proposal for:
1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and
surroundings,2. Fitting buildings into landscape,3. Conliguration of building and grading of a site which respecls the
topography,4. RemovaliPreservation of lrees and native vegetation,5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site,6. Acceptability of building materials and colors,
Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building
forms,
Provision of landscape and drainage,
Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory slructures,10. Circulalion and access to a site including parking, and site dislances,'11. Localion and design of salellite dishes,12. Provision of outdoor lighting,13. The design of parks.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements 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.
Stafl provides a staff 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 Environmental 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
7.
8.
9.
B.
Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with
modifications, or overturn the board's decision.
Conditional Use Permit
Plannino and Environmental Commission:
The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for approval/denial
of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is
responsible for evaluating a proposal for:
1. Relationship and impact of lhe use on development objectives of the Town.
2. Etfect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reterence to congestion, aulomotive and
pedestrian salety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Etfect upon the characler of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed use.
6. The environmental impact reporl concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of the Town Code.
7. Conformance with development standards of zone district
Desion Review Board:
The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Conditional Use Permil,
but musl review any accompanying Design Review Board application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. Development Plan in the Housing Zone District
The Department of Communily Development recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission table the applicant's request for development plan
approval. Staff believes that there are numerous issues that are still to be
resolved, and that the application, as currenlly proposed, does not comply with
the crileria as outlined in Section 12-61-12: Development Standards / Criteria for
Evaluation of lhe Town Code. The issues idenlified by staff are further discussed
in Sections Vl, Vll, and Vlll of this memorandum.
B. Conditional Use Permit for the Early Learning Center
The Community Development Department recommends thal the Planning and
Environmenlal Commission table the applicant's request for a conditional use
permit to allow for the Early Learning Center based on the analysis provided in
Section Vlll of this memorandum, and that the application, as currently proposed,
does not comply with Section 12-16-6: Criteria; Findings, of the Town Code.
tv.
v.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
Proposed Use:
excess of 40o/o
Employee Housing, Early Learning Cenler
A complete zoning analysis is attached for reference.
DISCUSSION ISSUES
In March of 2001, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No.3, Series of 2001, which
adopted the Housing zone district. Then, through Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, the
Town Council rezoned Lol 'l , Middle Creek to the Housing zone district. Much like a
Special Development District or lhe General Use zone district, the Housing zone district
requires the Planning and Environmental Commission to prescribe development
standards, including lot size, density, gross residential floor area, height, etc. A zoning
analysis has been attached for reference. The following issues have been identified by
the staff:
The site is zoned Housing zone district, which was adopted by the Town of Vail in 2001.
Its purpose is as follows:
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 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.
A. Densily
The applicant is currently proposing 142 dwelling units. The proposal includes
64 studio units, 18 one-bedroom units, 18 two-bedroom unils, and 42 lhree-
bedroom units. The Land Use Designation for this site is "High Density
Residenlial" 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 acre or
31 dwelling units per buildable acre. This is a proposed total of 244 beds on the
vt.
site. In the Housing zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission
prescribes allowable density. Staff has provided density comparisons ol other
projects:
Develooment
Timber Ridge
Pitkin Creek
Vail Commons
Rivers Edge
The Tarnes
Zonino
SDD
SDD
cc3
not in TOV
not in TOV
Number ol Unils
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 zone
district 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 unitsDensity: 19.6 du/acre
Pitkin Creek Park, located at 3971 Bighorn Rd. / Pitkin Creek Park:
Special Development District No.3, Pitkin Greek Park, was adopled in 1974, The
underlying zoning is Medium Density Multiple Family zone district. Pitkin Creek
Park was developed as an affordable housing project, with commercial elemenls,
and received deviations to the design guidelines and density requiremenls. The
affordability provisions expired after 7 years, and the units are now sold at market
rate.
Zoning: SDD No.3, underlying MDMF
Lot Size: 8.29 acres / 361,112 sq. tl.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, with major commercial uses and
deed-restricted employee housing including 53 for-sale units and 18 rental units.
Zoning: CC3
Lol Size: 6.568 acres / 286,082 SFLUD: Community CommercialUnits: 71 dwelling unitsDensity: 10.8 du/acre
B.Parking
According to the Housing zone district, the parking requirements as outlined in
Chapter 12-10 of the Town Code 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 and approval of a
parking management plan. Section 12-61-8: Parking and Loading, of the Vail
Town Code, slales:
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this
Titte. 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 for fewer parking spaces than
Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for
a reduction in the requhed parking could include:
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation
including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services.
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.
The allocation of parking spaces is based on dwelling unit size. Chapter 12-1 0 of
the Town Code requires 1.5 parking spaces for units less than 500 sq. ft.; 2
parking spaces for units 5001o 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 Soaces
64 studio units
18 one-bedroom units
18 two-bedroom units 2
42 three-bedroom unils 2Total 243
The applicant is proposing 243 parking spaces, meeting the parking requirement
for total spaces, as prescribed by Chapter 12-10 ot the Town Code. However, a
deviation to the parking requirement is required for the size of the parking
spaces. As currently proposed, the spaces are configured as follows:
110 tandem spaces (45%)
133 single spaces (55%)
103 compact spaces (42%) 25% is allowed by the Town Code
140 full-size spaces (58%)
1E
1.5
96
27
36
84
o
c.
143 covered spaces (59%)
100 surface spaces (41%)
The applicant has increased the percentage of enclosed and covered parking.
Previously, lhe applicant was proposing to enclose 36% of the proposed parking.
With this currenl submittal, the applicant is proposing to enclose 59% of the
parking. Staff believes that this is an appropriate percenlage of enclosed parking
for this site. The remaining surface parking must be screened with site walls,
berms, or landscaping.
The applicant has provided a parking managemenl plan which is attached for
reference. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to
approve the development plan, this parking management plan is included in the
approval.
Snow Storage
Title 14, of the Town Code states:
All required parking and arcess 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 l0% of the required
parking and access areas.
The applicant is providing snow storage equaling 20oh ol the proposed paved
area. The minimum requirement is 30%. Staff believes that the amount of
snow storage must be increased to meel the minimum slandard.
Setbacks
Section 12-61-5 of the Town Code describes the setback requirements:
The sehacks in this district shatt 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 betvveen
buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other
e nvi ron m e ntal ly se ns itive areas.
B. Proposed building setbad<s 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 setbaeks 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 HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved
D.
vil.
by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of
this Title.
The applicant is proposing the following setbacks:
Front - 8 fl.
Side- 74 ft.
Side - 20 ft.
Rear - 10 ft.
As further discussed in Section Vll of this memorandum, staff believes that
deviations to the 20 ft. setback are appropriate on this site. However, staff also
believes that there musl be adequate areas for landscaping to buffer buildings
and uses from the l-70 corridor. At some locations adjacent lo the property line,
buildings are proposed 1o be over 50 ft. in height. Staff believes thal the building
heights in these localions are inappropriate, given the residential character of the
zone district. In addition, the site is generally graded to a 2:1 slope, making large
trees dilficult 1o plant.
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT
The following crileria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed
development plan. lt shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the
proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.
Adjacent uses to the project include the following:
. Solar Vail - a multiple-family housing project currently zoned High Density
Multiple Family.r Tract C, Vail Potato Palch - an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area
Preservation District.. Parcel B, Spraddle Creek Ranch - an open space tract currently coned Natural
Area Preservation Districl. This property is adjacent lo Lot 1.c l-70 Rightof-Way - land owned by CDOT but located within Town of Vail
boundaries. As a road right-of-way, there is no zoning on the property. This
property is adjacent to Lot 1.. White River National Forest - land owned by the United States Forest Service
outside of the Town of Vail boundary.
While the site lacks many direct neighbors, this sile is of extreme importance as it is
visible from the main entrance into the Town of Vail. The grades on the site run east
to west, and staff believes that the building design and siling must be sensitive to this
orientation. The siting of buildings and improvements must be responsive to the
topography of the site. The majority of the proposed buildings on the sile are
oriented east to west, with the exception of Buildings G and H, which the applicant
has oriented north to south. Most buildings which are located adjacent to the North
Frontage Rd. also are oriented also east to west, to minimize grading and retainage.
Staff continues to believe that east to west oriented buildings are more efficient for
this site. However, staff believes that il is necessary to vary the roof lines of the easl
to west oriented buildings. Stepping the main roof ridges, adding significant north to
south dormers with useable GRFA, adding offsets in the buildings, stepping
foundalions, etc., will help to minimize the height, bulk, and mass ol the buildings,
making lhem more compatible with the site. Building A has a the roof ridge that is 80
ft. long, thal changes 4 ft. in elevalion, then conlinues an additional 90 fl. in length.
Staff does not believe that this is the type of roof form appropriate given the visibility
of the site. Statf also has concerns regarding the snow shedding and water runoff
from the roofs, given the design, that snow will be deposited on walkways and
parking areas. The Design Guidelines slate:
Roof lines should be designed so as lo not deposit snow on parking areas, trash
storage areas, stairways, decks, balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs,
snow clips, and snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas from roof
snow shedding if necessary.
Stafl believes that additional consideration needs to be given to snow shedding and
roof design. The use of dormers will allow lor root drainage to be directed to a
common location, and will minimize the need for gutters.
Overall, staff does not believe that this criteria has been met.
B. Buildings, improvemenls, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a lunctional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding
neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
Staff believes that the buildings, improvemenls, uses, and activities associated with
the project are not designed or located in a functional and responsive manner. For
example, the recreational amenilies at the back of BuiHing C are adjacent to a 43 ft.
wall. Staff does not believe that this will function well as a gathering place. Staff
does not believe that the proposed buildings, improvements, and activities have
been well-integrated into the site.
The buildings on the north side of the site have limited views of Vail Mountain, but
the carports have spectacular views. Adding units above the carports and
cantilevering the living space over the drive might eliminate bulk and mass from
some of the other buildings.
The setbacks in the Housing zone district shallbe 20 ft. According to Section 12-61-
5: Setbacks:
The setbacks in this district shall be 20'from the perimeter of the zone district. At
the discretion of the Planning and Environmentat Commission, vaiations to the
setback standards may be approved during the review of a development plan
subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria:
E. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation beWeen
buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other
e nvi ro nmentally se n s itive are as.
F. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light,
air and open space.
G. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with
buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
10
c.
H. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or
other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by
conforman ce with prescribe d setback standards.
Building G is located 8 ft. from the front property line, and Building H is located
10 ft. from the front properly line. The heighl of Building G al this elevation is 53
ft., while the height of Building H is 58 ft. While staff believes that deviations to
the 20 fi. setback are appropriate, this building height at this location is
excessive. Staff believes that it will be difficult to visually screen the buildings
with any sorl of significant landscaping as the grades are relalively steep, and
leaves very little room for landscaping on the applicant's property.
Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designedto 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 limits of disturbance for the west podion of the property keeps development out
of the riparian corridor. Staff believes that this is a benefit of the development.
However, there is a significant number of large cottonwood trees being removed.
The applicant needs lo submit additional information about lhe number and size of
the lrees being proposed.. As stated above, staff has some concerns regarding the
lack of open space area and landscaping localed on the site to buffer the buibings
and uses. This site is highly visible as the major entry into Vail, and as such, the
uses of the site musl be screened appropriately. In addition, landscaping and open
space butfering will help to reduce the noise from the highway.
Staff believes that because the applicant is not providing many recreational
amenities or useable open space areas on site, it is necessary to tie into existing
areas. The nearest park is the Sandslone Tot Lot, which is located beyond Red
Sandstone Elementary School.
A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe,
elficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the
development.
This site, due to its topography, is a dilficult site to access. Staff believes thal lhe
vehicular circulation through the site has been designed to be as efficient as possible
and meet the Town's regulations regarding access. Staff also believes that the
verlical pedestrian circulalion through the site, allowing pedestrians to access the
upper portion of the site through the stairway at Building B, is an efficient and
aesthetically pleasing solution to a difficull problem. However, staff is concerned
aboul the lack of separation between the vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the
site.
Staff also believes lhat a bike path must be conslructed from this project east to the
Main Vail Roundabout and west to the pedestrian overpass into Lionshead.
Staff has concerns about the exterior walkways lo enler into units on many of the
buildings. To enter into a unit, a residenl will have to walk past the windows and
entries of other units. Staff believes that the buildings should function more like
D.
11
Building C, where there is vertical circulation and the exterior corridors have been
eliminated. The Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board,
and staff have discouraged this type of circulation patlern in other projects, including
the Westhaven Condominiums and Antlers, stating their concerns with an outdated
circulation system.
In addition, statf has concerns regarding the walkway between Buildings G and H,
which appears to be cavernous and uninviting.
Additional informalion is required regarding site lighting, which slaff believes is an
imporlanl aspect of pedestrian circulation. However, staff believes this can be
considered at the Design Review Board.
Staff has concerns regarding the lack of a drop off area at the Early Learning Center,
and the lack of a separation between the parking area and lhe entrance to the
building. The applicant has indicated that to the nodh of the parking lol, there will be
a walkway adjacent to the building. At its maximum width, it is 3 ft. wide, then
narrows to 2 ft. Staff believes that greater consideration should be given to the
entrance and walkway to the Early Learning Center, specifically allowing for greater
separation of pedestrians and vehicles.
Greal concern has been given to separate the housing from the Early Learning
Cenler. However, parking for the housing has been located adjacent to the Early
Learning Center.
The integration of a bus stop into the development is a positive improvement to the
development of the sile. The bus is able to enter the site enlirely, not blocking traffic
on the Fronlage Road, and exit the site in both directions. Staff believes the
applicant has met lhe concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission and
staff concerning bus lraffic.
Staff does not believe that this criteria has been met.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary
mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development
plan.
The Environmental lmpact Report, which was also reviewed during the major
subdivision request, has been included for reference. Staff believes that by. limiting
development to the east side of Middle Creek, the project has limited its impact on
Middle Creek. In addition, the development has not encroached onto lhe 40yo
slopes, located on the northern portion of the site.
According to the Town of Vail hazard maps, Middle Creek Subdivision is located
within a Medium Severity Rocklall hazard and Moderate Hazard Debris Flow. A site-
specific study has been completed by R.J. lrish, dated August 16,2001, and is
attached. The consulting engineering geologists acknowledges that the risk of debris
llow from the Middle Creek Valley lo be high during lhe lifetime of the project, wilh a
volume described as "small to quite large." The reporl indicates that the entire site is
located within a high hazard debris flow area. The report also suggests that the risk
could be minimized by mitigation measures. The report also acknowledges that the
12
risk of rocklall is medium during the lifetime of the projecl. Mitigation recommended
by the report includes dislodging exposed boulders by hand prior to construction. lt
further slates that any boulders would likely be trapped in lhe channel of the creek.
The hazard reports have been included for reference. Staff believes thal the site
plan should indicate a limits of disturbance fence, as was required at Booth Falls lor
the miligation syslem. In addition, the hazard mitigation plan also indicates large
trees to screen the berm, but the landscape plan indicales shrubs and bushes. Staff
believes that the berm must be screened similar to the screening requirements for
the Boothfalls mitigation berm was required to be landscaped.
An Environmental lmpact Report has been completed by Stewart Environmental
Consultanls, Inc., and has been attached for reference. The reporl slates that while
the proposed development of Lot 1 will have an impact on plant and animal
communities presently inhabiting the property, the loss of the 6.5 acres does not
represent a significant impact to plant and animal communities. The report
recommends thal all trash dumpsters need to be made bear-proof and exterior
lighting will need to be minimized. Bolh of these must be a condition of approval.
The report additionally states that the impact to Middle Creek could include runoff
from paved parking areas. A drainage study has also been included.
F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans.
The Vdil Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to this
request. The applicable goals include:
1,0 GeneralGrowth/Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environmenl,
maintaining a balance belween residential, commercial and
recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent
resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, waler and olher
nalural resources should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a
case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted lor
some low intensity uses in areas lhat are not highly visible from
the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and
developed with sensitivity to the environmenl.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
5.0 Residential
5.1 Additional residential growth should conlinue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where
high hazards do not exisl.
13
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through
privale efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the
Town ol Vail with appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace
demands for a fufl range of housing types.
The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies lhe Mountain Bell Site as
"approximately half of the property is intended for affordable housing and the
remainder of lhe site will remain open space.' The Comprehensive Open Lands
Plan is intended to identify and recommend actions for the protection of sensitive
land and open space, not as a guide for development of other properties.
The Land Use Designation for this site has been amended to High Density
Residential. The High Density Residenlial designation is described as follows:
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.
The Vail Land Use Plan describes the Mountain Bell site as Tract 35 and stales:
The Mountain Bell microwave facility and tvvo day care centers are
located on a 25 acre site owned by the Town of Vailwhich is north of l-70.
A portion of this site under the microwave facility is owned by Mountain
Bell. Paft of the entire site in located in an area of medium environmental
hazards and should continue to remain in its present use, with possible
expansions of the day car centers. lt may also be an option for the
cemetery, further discussed later.
REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
In addition to the request for development plan approval as required by the Housing
Zone District, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the relocation of the
Early Learning Center to the eastern portion of the site. Schools, including day cares,
areaconditionaluseintheHousingZoneDistrict. AccordingtoSectionl2-16-1:
ln order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title,
specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a
conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics,
conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located
properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects
on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is
intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such
conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location
and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development
obiectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties.
14
Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for
conditional use permits shall be denied.
CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the
Town.
The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the following goals with regards to
communily services:
6.0 Community Services
6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth.
6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development
through balancing growth with services.
6.3 Seruices should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs
of peak periods.
In addition, the Vail Land Use Plan states that this site is to be used lor
future expansion of the ABC and Learning Trees Schools.
Statf believes that this use is an important use for the Town of Vail and
will have a positive impact on the Town.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
Statf believes that the relocation and expansion of the Early Learning
Center on lhis site is a benefit to the Town. According to the summary
provided by the applicant, the Early Learning Center will provide early
learning services for 45 preschool age children, with 12 full{ime staff
members, and 2 part-time staff members. The Early Learning Center has
approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and includes a 4,300 sq. ft.
outdoor play area. Staff believes that it is beneficial to have this use
located on this site, which is cenlrally locate in the Town of Vail.
An important consideration in the review of this conditional use permit is
the possibility for future expansion. Due to the parking, the proximily of
the building to its property line, and the amount and location of play area,
future expansion possibilities are limiled.
Effect upon traffic with particular relerence to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
The applicant has proposed 20 parking spaces for the Early Learning
Center, including 3 compact spaces. In addition, there is additional
parking for the housing project located adjacent to the parking for the
2.
3.
15
o
Early Learning Center. Because the times that the parking for the
housing will be used are opposite the times that excess parking will be
needed for the Early Learning Center, these spaces will be used for
overflow parking from the Early Learning Center.
Parking for uses nol listed in Chapter 12-10 of the Town Code shall be
determined by the Planning and Environmenlal Commission. A memo
has been attached from the applicant which explores the parking
requirements of other communities. In each case, Boulder, Denver, and
Lakewood, lhese municipalities would require 18 spaces. ln addition,
statf has reviewed parking requirements as outlined in "Otf-Streel Parking
Requirements" Planning Advisory Service Report Number 432. lt
provides some of the following requirements:
Aurora, CO - two spaces for each three teachers and one off-street
passenger loading place lor every eight pupils. With the proposed Early
Learning Center, Aurora would require 17 spaces.
Orange County, CA - one space per stafl member, and one space per
live students. With the proposed Early Learning Center, Orange Counly
would require 21 spaces.
The Public Works Deparlment has done traffic counts at the Early
Learning Center and has found that at times there are more than 25 cars
at the existing facility to drop otf children. Staff is recommending 25
parking spaces be provided for the Early Learning Center. The Planning
and Environmental Commission sets the parking requirement for uses not
listed in Chapter 12-10 of the Town Code.
Some communities have extensive requirements regarding access and
parking. Specifically, St. Louis Counly, MO, requires the following:
Two spaces, plus one space for every employee on the maximum
shift; a paved unobstructed pick-up space with adequate stacking
area (as determined by the Department of Planning) shall be
provided in addition to standard driveway and paking
requirements, or one space for every six children; a safe
pedestrian walkway system (as approved by the Department of
Planning) through parking areas to the building entrance, with a
safety zone a minimum of 15 feet in width between parking
spaces and the front of the building entance, shall be provided in
addition to standards driveway and parking requirements.
Staff has some concerns regarding the safety of the parking area and the
interaclion wilh pedestrians entering the building with small children.
Staff believes that a separated sidewalk or entryway into the Early
Learning Center musl be provided.
Staff also has concerns regarding snow storage for the Early Learning
Center parking lot. The Town Code requires an equivalent of 30% ol
paved areas to be provided lor snow storage areas. The applicant has
provided 1,795 sq. fl. of snow storage area adjacent 1o the Early Learning
16
B.
Center parking area. The Town Code would require 4,091 sq. ft. ol snow
storage. While the applicant has agreed lo a snow managemenl plan that
would allow for snow to be hauled olf-site, staff does not believe that lhis
is an adequate area to store snow.
4. Etfect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
sunounding uses.
Staff believes thal the use is appropriate for the character of the
surrounding area. The maximum height ol the Early Learning Cenler is at
41 ft. and that is the height of the tower element. The building is primarily
a 2-story building, which staff believes is appropriate given the heights
and mass of the adjacent employee housing.
The Early Learning Center is 20 ft. off the side property line, and 14 fl.
from the fronl property line. While the Housing zone district does permit
deviations from the 20 ft. setback, subject to review by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, staff has concerns regarding the ability to
buffer the building and the play area with adequate landscaping. This
buffering is important when considering the noise level from l-70. The
Vail Mountain School has recently installed an air-conditioning system
because the windows of the classrooms cannot be open during class
because of noise issues. Staff recommends that a landscaping and
sound berm, which will include large trees, be included in the landscaping
plan for the Early Learning Center. Because the play area is located up
to the property line, there is limited room for landscaping on the
applicant's property. As proposed, all of the landscaping is localed on the
CDOT right-of-way. CDOT allows trees that are 4'+ in caliper to be
planted 30 feet from the edge of the road. Staff believes that this should
be further considered.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of lhe use is in accordance wilh the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would nol be detrimental to lhe public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in lhe vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each ol the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
17
t
otoo{(,
6
E
o
o
ott
E3ttoE
outL
-o
E
uJ
-o
o
(J
E
uJ
o-
-o
o
Eo-ct oC
(!
F
ao-
o)ro
o
aroro
I!
o-
E
'tr
E
o
UJ
8
Io
.ottq,
_o
I
o
uJ
.o
8.o
(,
E0-
UJ
-o
.E()
ollj
-oEoll
(,
E
'€(!
!)o.\l AI e(\l
(\l
uJ(L
oJul
rol.-
CD
1..(D
C!
|g oc
o
o
(o€
(oF
!?(o .o .o N qto(o
otcl
G'8 cttl o oo
6l
oo
6o
lJ)ro
ol
(0 (0 o
.!c .!
Eo
Bnto
v?(\l(\I
FIDq
(r,
(o Co
nl (t
IuE
E
@
ro
nt(ll ol
I
lr)<{6l
E
$'
o
dc (!a!
og
EI:
@
ro
(9ro .Dn!t
rJ)
C\I
(\l
@(o
I
o
atl G ag
c
.gr
co
Eo
-9o
oosoo
ogttp
=o
al,
ttqcIt
J
@
It?
F.ro
(\l
N.
a/)
lo ol (t ro
o!
ID
ro6l tf,ol AI
toc)
(!(!
lr,l
Ec
D
J
@
ra)
!ot':
(o (o ot(i)(o;
@ ol (o
6
o
o
EE
t:o
oo-@
€NF.
c.,
o (o
RI
r!o
o
o
Itg
tt
@
u?
Fr+
!l.
ol(o
ao @ <o<o
d
Not ol ro @6l
dc o o
|r)(o
o
osI
=o
ou)q
(o t
t:
N
O)
nt (t
oi(gc
ol
.g
oN
u
tl
a
\
@ Fo
Or"
Fol @ q)o)@ol
ro
(t,o)(\I ol aool (D F
(!
6
'6.r
LL
o
(t)
R
=E
@
6
ot
Y
6d)
(r)
oqg
q)
oo
q,
tn
I
E
C|
o
E
o
0)N
tn
E
<J(!a)
F
o
GI
tJ)
-o
U'
E
o o