Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0909 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT Yt~UR PROPERTY ~~~ PUBLIC NOTICE ~~~~ NOT4CE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Tawn'bF~~,,/ Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the ~,~ Town of Vaii an September 9, 2(102, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In '~,~ consideration of: 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 Vail Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance wi#h Section 12-8D-6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley ~rivelTract F,Vail Village 5~" Filing and 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7~" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc. Planner Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available far 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 incited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2'438 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479- 2386, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 23, 2402 in the Vaii Daily. ~. ro>~u oi~ ~~~. '~ i • PLANNING AND ENV1RONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, September 9, 2002 PR~D,JECT ORIENTATION f -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC 1NELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : ~~~,~ ~:~ ;; > 12:00 pm 1:00 pm PA Zone District Tour Driver: George !o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:DO - 6:30 Public Hearing -Taman Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council 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 and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Bab Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Rutherl'Warren Campbell 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far a public utility installation, located at the East Vail Water Tank, 5004 Snowshoe LanefSummer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision, a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housings 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 Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther ~. ,t TO1tiN ~F Y~1IL ~ MEMBERS ABSENT ''a I 5. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lvt, 395 S. Frontage RoadlLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 6. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12-SD-6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivelTract F,Vail Village 5t" Filing and 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7t" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc. Planner: Bil! Gibson STAFF APPROVED 7. Approval of August 26, 2002 minutes 8. Information Update The applications and informatian about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town a# Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 far informatian. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification.. Please call 479- 2358, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September fi, 2002 in the Vail Daily. • • 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PtJBLlC MEETING RESULTS PUBLIC WELCOME Monday, September 9, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- NO LUNCI-f Community Development Dept. 1:30 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Jahn Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo P~IEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman George Lamb ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 public Hearing - Tcswn Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruttier MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 2. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council 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 and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Bab Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner; George RutherllNarren Campbell MOTION; Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesba TABLEI3 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 VOTE: 5-0 ~, T~4YN QF f'~IL ~ 3. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for a public utility installation, located at the East Vail Water Tank, 5©04 Snowshoe Lane/Summer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Tawn of Vail Planner: BiII Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-9 TABLEI] UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 4. A request far a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow far a private educational institution and development plan approval to constrtact employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell°lan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.lto be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Ghas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 5. A reques# for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot, 395 S. Frontage RoadlLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1 sc Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 6. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12-8D-8 of the Vail Town Code, to allow far improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivelTract F,Val Village 5th Filing and 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson STAFF APPROVED 7. Approval of August 26, 20[2 minutes MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-~ 8. Information Update The appiica#ions 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. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hear notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • MEMCIRANDUM TU: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC?M: Department of Community Development DATE: September 9, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The Department of Community Development is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission review and clarify the height requirements in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district, as further described in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. II. QESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Department of Community Development is requesting that the Planning and Environmental CommsSlan review an administrative interpretation of the maximum height calculation far structures constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use -~ zone district. In recent discussions regarding the calculation of the average maximum height, staff has concluded that further clarification is necessary to ensure that the intent of the regulation has been met. Specifically, staff recognizes that there are multiple methods of measuring average maximum height and numerous questions about how to implement the height calculation. Section V. of this memorandum outlines these methods and questions in greater detail. This request is brought to the Planning and Environmental Commission for review and consideration pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Vail Town Code. III, BACKGR(7UND Qn December t5, 1998, the Town of Vail adopted the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In adopting the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Vail Town Council adopted an average maximum height calculation for improvements constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district. The reason, in part, for adopting an average maximum height calculation was to respond to building height and massing criteria within an already built environment. Unlike development in other areas in town, where maximum building height is calculated based upon existing ar finished grade, which ever is more restrictive, redevelopment projects in the Lionshead Mixed Use-t zone district must be responsive to the existing conditions, improvements, and the project`s relationship to existing buildings and infrastructure. To address these concerns, ft was determined that an alternate means of cafaulating building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district was necessary. ~, .~~,•., P.~.,~~/ IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town ofi Vail Zoning Regulations Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and believes the foClowing sections are relevant to the review of this request: Section 12-2-2. Definitions GRADE, EX1STl1VG: The existing grade shall be the existing ar natural topography of a site prior to construction. GRADE, FlIV1SHFD: The finished grade shall be the grade proposed upon completion of a project. HEIGHT: The dr`stance measured vertically from any paint on a proposed or existing roof or eaves to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the roof or eaves. W ithirt ar~y building footprint, height shat! be measured vertically from any paint on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said paint an a proposed or existing roof. Section 12-3-3..Appeals A. Administrative Actions: Any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set Earth shall became final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or In the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) fallowing the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. B. Appeal of Administrative Actions: 7. Authority: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Tawn administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth, except fhat appeals of any decision, determination or interpretation 6y any Town administrative official with regard to a design guideline steal! be heard by the Design Review Board. 2. initiation: An appeal may be initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decisian, determination or Interpretation by any administrative official with respect to this Title. 'Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title. The alleged adverse Interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the genera! interest In community goad shared by all persons. The Administrator shat! determine the standing of an appellant. !f the appellant objects to the Administrator's determination of standing, the 2 Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall, at a meeting prior to hearing evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the appellant. 1f the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) determines that the appellant does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal snail not be heard and the original action or determination stands. 3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination ar interpretation within ten (f 0- calendar days of the decision becoming final. if the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or aTown-observed holiday, the fast day for filr'ng an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's decision shah become final at the next Punning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up acrd modified by the Board or Cammissr`on. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for the appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filing of such notice of appeal will require the administrative officio! whose decision is appealed, to forward to the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) at the next regularly scheduled meeting, a summary of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to 6e heard before fhe Planning and Enviranmenta! Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) on the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The Planning and Environmental Commission {or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional thirty (34) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any interpretation or determination made by an administrative official. 5. Findings: The Planar°ng and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this Title have ar have not been met. 12-7H-11: Heaht and BuI~C: 3 Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71) with a maximum height of 82.5' feet, as further defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment .Master Plan. All development shall comply with the design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Flexibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. B. Lionshead Rederrelopment Master Plan Staff has reviewed the Lionshead Redeveioprt~ent Master Plans and believes the following sections are relevant to the review of this request: Section 2.1, Purpose of the Master Plan din part) This master plan, developed over a period of two year and with extensive involvement by the community, is a comprehensive guide far property owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning public improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment and new development of public and private properties. Chapter $, Architectural Design Guidelines (in part) The scope of the Design Guidelines includes all criteria related to the architectural design of new and remodel projects within Lionshead, along with site planning criteria which relate directly to architecture. Section $.4.2.3, Building Height (in part) Maximum Heights Maximum height is defined as the distance from existing ar finished grade - whichever is more restrictive - to the ridge of the nearest primary roof form to that grade. lNith this in mind, the Average Maximum Height of any building steal! not exceed 7f ft. Notwithstanding the notion of Average Maximum Height, the Absolute Maximum Height of any building sha11 not exceed 82.5 ft. Absolute Maximum Height shall be determined by interpolating existing or finished grade through the building footprint and measuring the vertical distance from the ridge of the highest pn'mary roof form to imaginary plane created by the interpolated grades. Calculation of Average Maximum Height The intent of implementing an Average Maximum Height far buildings is to create movement and variety in the ridgelines and roof farms in Lionshead. Toward that end, the Average Maximum Fleighf of a building shall be calculated based upon the linear footage of ridgeline on primary roof farms. Any amount of primary roof form ridgeline that exceeds 7f ff. must be offset by at least an equal amount of primary roof form ridgeline 4 falling below 71 ft., with tl~e distance below 71 ft. equivalent to or greater than the distance exceeding 7i ff. The average calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof forms across an entire structure, not separate individual roof forms. Additional Requirerrrents/Exceptions All buildings, regardless of permitted building heights and massing principles, shall conform to all established Public View Corridors (see Lionshead Master Plan). Special "landmark" building elements, such as chimneys, towers, or other unique architectural forms, may exceed the Absolute Maximum Height, subject to approval by the reviewing board. This provision is intended to provide for architectural creativity and quality of building form, and shat! not be used as a means or circumventing the intent of the building height limitations. In addition, regardless of final building height, buildr`ngs shall avoid monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, and shall provide visual interest through the use varied peak heights, roof farms, gables, and other appropriate architectural techniques. V. DISCUSSION USSUES Staff has identified a number of different methods of calculating building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district. Depending upon the method of calculation, a project may or may not meet the intent of the average maximum building height regulation. Staff has provided three drawings which illustrate the building height calculations issues. 1-list, Figure $-15 has been taken from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Fib ~-13. P'urlians of°brrildirr,g urea exceedirr,~ 71 ' nnrst be nJ~set ht' pardons u•lricl7 fall beintis ,~ 71 °, b}~ an erluivalerrl onroa,rrr ofaren. ~r~ The second set of illustrations indicates the issues which staff has identified with the calculation of average maximum height as outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. fihis illustration is attached for reference (Attachment A). As height is measured from an infinite number of points, calculating an average can be difficult. When measuring maximum height, it is relatively simple to determine at what location the highest point of the building is. With average maximum height, because the grade below the building is not at a constant elevation, there are an infinite number of points from which height can be measured. 5 ©ne possible alternate means of calculating may be as follows: 1. Identify the primary roof ridge(s) 2. From the center of the ridge, mark a point at every 1 Q ft. slang the ridge. 3. Measure the height of that point to the nearest grades} at the edge of the building.. 4. Take the average of the identified points,. 5. For each point that exceeds 7i ft., there must be a corresponding point that falls below 71 ft., at an equivalent distance. By taking a height measurement at 1D ft. intervals along the primary roof ridge, staff believes that the intent of the average maximum height calculation may be met. Additionally„ this allows for a more systematic and consistent method of calculation for average maximum height. A second method of calculating building height in Lionshead may be to adopt a methodology similar to that used for buildings located in the Commercial Core I zone district. If adopted, the methodology may be similar to the following: 1. No more than 50% of the building coverage area of primary roof forms may be higher than 71 ft. In no instance shall the absolute maximum height of any building exceed 82.E ft. 2. Up to 50% of the building building coverage area of primary roof forms) may be built to a height of 71 ft. or less. 3. With this in mind, the average maximum height of any building shall not exceed 71 ft. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Listen to a brief staff presentation on the calculation of the average maximum building height for structures built within the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district. In addition, staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide clarification and interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district. 6 .+ t~ .. .....- _._.- ,~ _--. t" rl, +. ....+.i. ~ . ~ rru tr r.. s, r.. ~!"i It ~l ... it ..r 1. i. r ~ l.f~ ,...~ Q !+'' W R ~. Q W ~ :!G` ~~~ ff ~~ ~~,lS'3~ ~~ ~~ ~~ a4~ ~~~~ ~~,t~ rr~ ~~~ ~ __-- I ~i~ --.~~ -~ ar ar ^~ r ti~.11~ ° ~° ~~ ~~~~~ ~ • C~ ~ ~' '~ ~ ~' °~ ~ -~ ~ _ -- _~ `~ r i ~ { ___ _~ ~~ .~~1~ ,. ~~ 1 r ~~~ r ` _~ :~, ~~ ~-~_ I t i y -~-, ~~ 1 ~ .~ S~ ~ .- ~~~~~ c~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~- ~~ ._ ~- ~- -~' ti Attachment: A Y~2.5 ft.~ 71 .average r`! X9.5 ~.. i _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ 1 l00 ft. Discussion of Ar+erage Maximum Btailding Height September 9, 2fl02, Planning and Environmental Commission • ~ Evergreen Lodge V A I L August 12, 200 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission Department ofDevelopment 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO $1b57 Dear Commission & Development Staff: Having reviewed plans for Middle Creek I wish to voice bath support and concern about the project. First, I do favor development of reasonably r~riced employee housing that is of respectable quality, thus encouraging residents to behave with respect for their surroundings and neighbors. The Mountain Bel1/Middle 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 axe 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 passible, keeping rents per bedroom below $6~0 per month would be important. Second, the sketches of the proposed buildings appear to be imposing and too much f©r the small site. Granted, the Mountain Bell tower and the school are not examples of exceptional architecture, however, 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. Sincer ly, arnela Stenmark Genera111!lanager General Partner 250 South Frontage Road West • Vail, Colorado 81657 177f1 n7f, 7Gif1 rnv C]~f1 /17F,_A~YbIf i.n.rr.ra~rcrnrpr~ntirf'tif rnm t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.t c ,C ~ ~ l.rc~ ~~~ ~, ~ [~ ~,~C r 1. r r ~' (~ f ~~ ~f~" '~ ~ c. V ~1~~ ~'~: fem. ~{~ ~~ ~ 1! ~ ~ ~ r ~ r s r .~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~~~~ ~ ~~c ~~ ~~~ ~ o ~ ~ r~J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u ~ s r ~ d ~ ~ L,.L ~ ~'G f 1~ l N ~ ~~ t~ / ~ 1 t d A y g~/~/a ~Z 9 ~~ ~n~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~d~ ~ ~d~ . ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ U~~ y-~76-363 • ARTHUR KELTON JR 225 WALL STREET VAIL, COLORADQ 8165x7 97U-476-799a 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. ART $/ 12 • DEAR MAYOR KURZ ~ ~ . PLANNING & EN111RDNMENTAL 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 DD NOT NEED ALL OF IT IN ONE LOCATION, ESPECIALLY DNE WHICH IS SO VERY VISIBLE AT THE °1=RONT DOOR TO VAIL°. THE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE TO SPREAD THE UNITS NEEDED. THE wHUD WIRTH PARCEL" AND THE TIMBER RIDGE SITES COULD PERHAPS ABSORB THE NEEDED UN-1TS. EACH DF THE ALTERNATE L_ OCATIONS W©ULD ALSO HAVE AVAILABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS THE IROQUOIS NATIONTHE IMPACT DN THE "SEVENTH GENERATION BUlLQING THE LARGEST SINGLE PROJECT AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE TOWN -THE 15~ THING SEEN AS YOU EXIT ~-7D AND THE VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN AS YDU SKI DOWN AT THE END OF EVERY DAY DOESN`T FEES. SYMPATHETIC TO ALL WE ESPOUSE AS A WORLD CLASS RESORT. LASTLY, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THIS LAND WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE AND THE REMO'VEABLE OF THOS TRACT WAS DONE TO CREATE A SMALL POCKET OF 4(? EMPLOYER HOUSING UNITS: - SINCERELY, ELAINE KELTON .~ ~, ~-, ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ` ' ~-~.- .. ,. ~' ~ . ,~-~ ~, ,~ _~ ~ ~- r, ~ , .~-~ ~ ~. ~f ..~--~ -~~~-- T~~. ~` ~ ~ ~~, ~~~ . _ ~ 4 } ~~ ~ G~ ~, ~ ~~~ s ~~ S Page 1 of 1 Pam"Brandmeyer„` Fw: 11~ounta~Bel[YSite Proposed hkgh-density haul°:, , ,. .... From: "D1ANA DQN4VAN°" <dianamdonovan~msn.eom~ Ta: '"Para Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer ci,~ci.vail.co.us~ Date: ~112/fl2 12:53 PM Subject: Fw: Mountain 13e1i Site -Proposed high-density housing ----- Jriginaf Message ----- From: Ronald Snow To: towncauncil~ci.vail.co.us Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: Mountain. Bell Site -Proposed high-density housing Gentlemen, `~Ve have just Teamed of the effort to change this dedicated open space to high-density development, V4'e understand that this site was donated to the town as a permanent open space and to preserve the entry to Vail as a mountain community and not as a congested urban core. Violation ofthis trust by public officials 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" develapnient project, let alone ahigh-density use are impassible and incompatible with this site. The location is not remote from neighbors willing to protect it from irrational development but is central 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 of the Vail experience. On behalf of all owners and residents, please do not indulge in planning that is sa short sighted. The Lianshcad iinpravements and other Village plans have proceeded with much mare deliberation and thoughtful planning. High-density additions an open space must be deliberated and planned even more thoroughly. Sincerely, Ron anal Mary Snow ~fl l Scorpio 135tiTv Meadow Dr. Ran Snow Da YQU Yahoo'? Hc1t.labs, a Yahoo! sen~ice -Search Thousands of New Jobs fi]e;Ir'C:1Vi~indo4~~s1TEMPIGW}fl00fl1.HTM SJ12/02 Page 1 0~~ 1 Pant Brandme~,rer - Fw: Mountain Bc11 Affordable Housing Project _~._~.....,.._.w.."_, _~...-. _ _. dianamdonovan a~msn.c ,n~ ... a... , ,,:: ,... „:..,s -~.,....._ ., .. ,.., , Prom: DIANA DONOVAN" < (,, o > To: "Patti Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer arci.vail.co.us> Date: 5,'12/02 12;50 PM Subject: I=w: Mountain Bell At~ordable Housing Project _____ Original Message ----- 1 rom: <Mjoemchugh@aol.cam> To: <towncouncil a~ci.vail.co.us> Cc: <jflanio~ttCvaiI.net> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2[1[12 12:05 PM Subject: Mountain Bel] Affordable Housing Project > We are Easi Vail property owners and believe that floe proposal far the > develop~taent of the Mountain Bel] site is not compatible with the desired > hcaut_y afVai]'s main entrance and is in direct conflict with the planned > °'1=rout Daar" 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 Vai] tries to convey. > Additionally, we understand that the east of the project will render the necessary rental rates decidedly unaffordatrle to the overwhelming majority of > the seasona] employees far wham it is intended, thereby defeating the purpose > of the entire project. > I`he alternative proposal set forth by Gai] Steadman in the August 7th issue > of the Vail Daily makes a lot more sense from many perspectives. > > Sincerely, Brenda 8 Joe McHugh, 4{]14 Bighorn Road, Vail • file;:/r'C:1WindowslTEMP1G~~' ~00002.HTM 8112/02 Page 1 of 1 Pam Brandmeyer- Fw: l17ountam Belt Site Proposal, , ..... __ ... ., ,...._.. ........ ,..~.~a.. ~.... ..,.. ...... FraYn: "'DIANA DONaVAN" <dianamdanavan~a,?msn.com~ To: "Pam $rand~neyer" ~pbrandmeyer~ci.vail,co.us~ Date: 8!1212 12:48 PM Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site Proposal ---- Original Message ----- From: Scorpio404 To: to~vncouncii@ci.vail.co.us Sent: Sunday, August 71, 2002 11:19 AM Subject: Mountain Bell Site Proposal Dear: Mavar and Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review Board We, as property owners, believe that the size o#'the proposal far the Mountain Bell Site is incompatible with the beauty and world-class scenic image of Van's main entrance. We urge the Town of Vail to signi#icantly reduce the size of the housing project ar move it to a more appropriate venue. While «re all reca,gnize the importance of al'fixrdablc employee housing, we urge the Town to presence 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 ~~=here it is neither appropriate nor affordable. There seeiaas to be much Hoare appropriate land available (i.e. the ruins'") far this purpose. Thanlt you far your consideration in this matter. Debora Morris and S.J. Prapualenis Scorpio ##4a4 • file: ~'C:1`VindaG~~s'~.TEMPIG~~'4(-00Qi.HTM 8!i?/02 Page 1 of 1 Pam Brandn~e~yer Frv: Day Care Cen#er From: '"DIANl~ DONCDVAN" <dianamdonovan(c~insn.com> Ta: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer~ci.vail.co.us> Da#e: 81]2102 12:18 FM S~bjec#: Fw: Day Care Center ----- Original Message ----- Fram: EMercyjr@aoi.com l"a: towncouncil~ci.vaii.co.us Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2flQ2 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. It is an essential employee benefit which is much needed and is a logical use that would be compatible with the site. Affordable housing must be a priority. If 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 33Q. • • file:/iC:1V4'indo~,Ts1TEMPIGW (fC~t}02.HTM 8112102 Pale 1 of 1 Porn Brandtaiey~er - F~~-~: 117ountai.n Bell S~#e , _.... ,.~.... ,..., ~ ,. , ., , ,. , ,, .. .. .. ..~ Frain: "DL41'JA D©NOVAN" ~dianamdonc~van(cr~msn,cam~ To: "Pam Brandmeyer" ~~brandrneyer~ci.vaiLca_us~ Date: $112/U2 12:09 PM Subject: Fv~~: Mountain Bell Site ----- Original Message ----- From: andy wessner To: tawncauncil c~,ci,vail.ca.us Sent: Friday, August i~9, 2Q02 3:34 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Site Dear Council Members, am supportive of putting affordable housing at the Mountain Bell site, but hope that in apprauing any project you will keep the fallowing in mind:. 1.the project be of sych a size as to blend into the terrain and forested area in the vicinity. fn particular, the taller trees an the site should be preserved and the buildings} landscaped so that visual intrusion is minimized; 2. I think the drawings I have seen which involve a 5 story structures}, have buildings which are probably too high far that particular location. Can the height be lowered to 2-3 stariesd 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 I-70 exit too narrow (icy in winter) is not adeguate for people to travel by foot. It either needs to be widened...or some sort of foot bridge put acrasslunder the Interstate.lf foot access is not provided, tihEre will be a traffic problem at the rotary. If a fact 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 Wiesner te1:970-476-6138 filealCa~'indawslTEMP1G~W}[10001.HTM 8112102 Page 1 of 1 Pam Brandmeyer - Fw: Mountain Bell Site From: "DIANA DC~NC]VAN" edianaindonovan~.msn.com~ To: "Pam Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer[c~ci.vail.ca.us> Date: $f 1 x/02 1 ~; 54 A1VI Subject: Fw; Mountain Bell Site ----- Original Message ----- Pram: SANewsam@cs.com 70: towncouncil c~ci.~ail.co.us Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2Q(l2 4:20 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Site Dear: Mayor and Tawn Council Planning and Environmental Cornnlission Design }teview 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 Val's main entrance. Please, significantly reduce the size of the housing project or move it to a mare appropriate venue. V+Ihile we all reco~~tlize the importance of al-fbrdable en3playee housing, 1 urge you. to preserve and protect Wail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Village. As at all other resorts, employee hauling 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. Newsom ~J flle://C:14'L%indowsiTEMP',GV4' C1~Q(701.IITM ~fl?IQ2 Page 1 of 1 ect am ~ ran meter ", ,` wµ . ountain..Be11 Pro~ ..... ...... .. w :, ... .., ... ..... _....... ,.... ~ ...., From; "DIANA D~ONUVAN" <dianamdanovan(cimsn.cam~ 'To: "'Pang Brandnteyer" <pbrandmeyer~ci.vail.ca.us> Date: 8f12~'02 10:31 AM Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Project ----- Original Message ----- From: <MWK18~l~aol.cam~ To; <tawncouncil~ci.vail.co.us> Sent: 'Thursday, August 08, 2002 y:24 AM Subject Mountain Bell Project ~ Dcar Mayor and Town Cnuneil, I am President of the Alpham Candaminiurn Association at 12I Va'est Meador~~ Drive. I speak far aII of our owners when I express concern about the proposed Mountain Bell Project. Tlie massive size of the eniplnyee 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. Va'e. highly oppose the present plan and feel that it must he re-visited in another form. Thankyau far your consideration, Margie Keli • file:~`lC:l'~?~~it~dows'~:TEh~`IP1G1~~; ~0[101.HTM $f 1?~Q? Page 1 ot~ 1 Pam Brandmeyer Fw Mourltam Bell Site Fram: "DIANA DONOVAN" ~dianamdonovan u~msn.com~ To: "Pare Brandtneyer" <pbrandmeyer(cc~ci.vail.co.us> Date: $f12/02 1.0:30 AM Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site ---- Origina4 Message ----- Pram: Gretchen Busse Ta: Vail Town. Council Sent: Wednesday, August Ol, 2402 7:39 PM Subject: Mountain Bell Site Mr. Mayor and Tawn Council, We as property owners, believe that the size of the proposal for the Mountain Beli 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 Iocation..We urge the Town to preserve and protec# Vail's image as visitors first enter our beautiful Viiiage. As at all major resorts, employee housing should nat be the first visual visitors encounter, Truly affordable employee housing should not be attempted where it is neither appreciate nor affordable. Len and Gretchen Busse • • l e://C:1W'i~ulcnvslTEPv1PIGW j 00002.HTiv1 8f 12102 ~ '.Pam Brandmeyer - Itr twn of vail vs mountain bel.dat page ~ p ^^D^F^D^D:~E^F^c3^DPaul J. and Katherine W. Dudzinski 3309 Canadian Park Way Fort Collins, C~ 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, CQ 81657 e-mail ~towncouncil c~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~Ss 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 b^l=eautiful 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 we11 aware of the exciting plans that are being created for al! of Vail, including the Vail Front Door and Lionshead, etc. and are anticipating playing our part in helping it happen, We would be much 9ess interested in participating if this ill conceived project at the Mountain Bell Site goes through in its current form, It 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, Sincerely, Paul J. Dudzinski, M.Q. Katherine W. Dudzinski Z^yj+N^^^b^!^^DSET,^yjr.H^CJ^GjiyY^'YYY^F^o^~3^'^^-p^'/<?^^^^^C~^^^C^yji6^yy`^^ U-p^'/4DSl=T°^}ijr.H^^€CLst^YYY'~YYY^F^"C^^^Y<^^ ^'^C]^G'^^^}ry^^^"^~1^6^^^^^^yy6^yy~ ^^^=p^'/~DSUM'G^Paui DudzinskiHDNI^STYL^oe^~D^yy^D^STYL^F^a^^^F^"^F^a^F^TC7F Page 1 0#-1 Pant Brandmeyer - Fw: From. .....',DIANADONOVA...~ :_:...~.,: ,,..,. ~._-...~......,,.,,, :,,,,.,, ,.., , ,,,.„ ;..,,..,,,~ ,:,.,.; ..u,..~.,... ~.......,. N" <dianantdonovanLmsn.com~ To: "Path Brandmeyer" <pbrandmeyer(a3ci.vail.co.us> hate: 81I2lQ2 If1:26 AM Subject: Fw: ----- Original Message ----- From: ~Bill_Morton ci~'ackrnorton.com~ To: ~towncouncil ciei.vail.co.us~ Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 20Q2 3:29 PM Dear A~Iayor and Town Council Planning and Environmental Cotttrnission L3esign Review Board: I have reviewed the plans, size and scope of the building. for the proposed Mountain Bell Site. I just rt~anted to drop you this note to tell you that I believe that it does not fit with the look and the image. of the stain entrance to Vail. I had spoken with several of you, and again via this note encourage you to significantly reduce the size ar move it to a more appropriate location. All of us recognize the importance of affordable employee housing, but from all that I can assess, 1 don't believe it's truly affordable nar appropriate. Sincerely, William Morton • • file://C:1V1,'itldc~ws1TE119P1GV~' } 00~(}2.HTM 811 X102 Pale 1 0#' 1 Porn Brandn~eycr~ ~F~.~~l~7ae~r~taan Bell Siteyoppos~hon :., . ~ : . , :. ..,, .. .~ _.,. .:..:, ,_. .... _ _ ., ,., Frain: "L]IANA DQNDVAN" ~dianamdanovan(u~msn,cam> 'Cce: "Pain Brandmeyer" ~pbrandrneyer(~ci.vail,co.us> 1)atc: $112102. 1U:21 AM Su6jeet: Fw: Mountain Bell Site opposition ____- ~R~tnal Messabe ----- From: <Mikhalcy[:aol.com> Tu: <towncounci] ~i%ci.vail.cu.us> Sent: 1~fednesday, August 07, 2(102 10:33 AM Subject: Mountain Bcll Site opposition > Dear Mavor & Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission Design > Review Board: > We as property owners, believe that the sire. of the propptied affordable > housing prujec[ at the Mountain Bell site i~ incompatible with beauty and ? world-class scenic image of Van's main entrance. > 1~4'e urge the Town of Va] to significantly reduce the size of the housing > project or move it to a more appropriate venue. While we al] recognise the > importance of affordable employee housing, we urge the lawn 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 sltou]d not be attemptcd where it > is sleither appropriate nor affordable. 7 ~1nCCrely, > Mike I-Ialey > 1 Fb0 Meadow Dr., #3 > Vai1, CO iilc:IlC:`~,~'Jind©ws1T~MP1GVti~i00~)O~.HTM 811210 Page 1 of l Pam Brandmeyer - F~,v: n~Totttatnin veil Site Pro,~ect From; "DIANA DflI'~IOVAN" <dianamdonovan(a~msn.cona> To: "Pam Braladmeyer" ~phrandmeyer~ci.vait.co.us> Date: 8112'02 10.14 AM Subject: Fw: Mountain Bell Site Project ----- C)riginal Message ----- T'rom: "tinny Gulp" rgculp~vail.net> To: <towncouncil~;ci.vail.co.us> Sent: Monday. August O5, 20t)2 9:46 PM 5uhject: Mountain Be11 Site Project } Dear Town Gouncilpersnn, > I'laa worried that we are awfully close tcl starting something that isn't > S~c71ng to deliver what anybody wants. 1'ln worried about why is in the. driver's seat on this Middle Creek (Mountain Bell site] ]sousing project. > My concerns include: > I . Vail resident's assets altd tax dollars are going. to build rental > ltouing for employees of businesses in the Town of Vail. I don't > believe this is an appropriate use c7f taxpayer dollars, I think it is > fine if the TGV huilds housing for THEIR employees, but I believe > building/'providing housing for private business's enapioyees ought to be > done by private sector money. > 2, There are those who think this is costins; floe TOV nothing. Wrong. > The value of the ]and at the entrance to t%ail 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 return on a huge asset. Additionally the > council has spent tens of thousands of dollars in the planning phases, > 3. The entrance to Vail will be changed forever. It is like putting > TilaaberRid~e as our ]first greeting to guests. {Yes, once a town council > thought TilaaberRidge looked good') > 4. I understand that tkle ren~5 will shake out at a minimum of $b50 a > hed. Is that affordable? Given the site, costs could easily escalate > resulting in even higher rental rates. > Additionally I have ec7ncel-tls. given the current economy, that this > project. may actually 6e underfuladed. Today's dollars are not what they > were a month ago. I'm ulaeasy that there will be lot<5 of comer cutting > in the construction. C}ncc 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? > There will be much redevelopment in Vail Village and Lionshead in the `-• next five years. This will prof=fide 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 naakin~; the > units look good and fit info their location. > 1 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. > tinny Culp 7 • fi fie:l/C:11~'indo«-s1TEMP`~,GtV , 00001. HTM 8!12!02 Paul .~. and Katherine W. Dudzinski 3309 Canadian Park Way Dort Collins, CO 80524 and Skaal Hus I, Unit #4 X41 W. Meadow [?rive Vail, CO 81657 August '7, 2002 Town of Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road, West Vail, C© 8t 657 e-mail ~towncounciiC~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 BeII 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. 1Ne are well aware of the exciting plans that are being created for all of Vail, including the Vail Front Doar 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, It 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. • Sin erely, ~ Paul J. Du inski, M.D. Katherine W. Dudzinski HARLEY G. HIGBIE, JR. 1600 Broadway, Suitc 14Q0 I}2tlV~r, C~ ~Q2Q~ 303-861-42 30 Fax 303-830-1465 August ~z, 2aa2 The Town of Vail Vans CD Sf657 We are very much aware of the need for employee housing. During Vai!`s very first winter we were forced to bed down employees in the laundry roam of The Lodge, causing Mack Tweedy and me to try to initiate an employee housing project. We failed. As much as we favor the concept, the prapased project at the Bell site is too big and tQO prominent. 1t would be unfortunate for the entrance to Vail to be defined by a housing project. Qur image is tc~a important. A smaller t~uilding that is well-hidden, or another location, would be our preference. Sincerely, Lorraine and Hanle Hi ' 9r. 07!29!2002 19:56 9704762993 KASSahJ CO • Elna and Bruce. Kassnn Thursday, August 08, 2QQ2 Dear: Mayor anti TDwn Gauncil Planning and Er~vizanmental Comnnission Design Review Board Vtile, as Vail grageriy owners, have studied the plans for the Mountain Bell Site and arc quite disturbed. Too denude this site of its beautiful trees to build such a large (an nit very attractive) structure seems out of synch with our desire to have Vail a more beautiful glace in which to live anti to visit, We suggest the Town of Vail significantly reduce the size of the hc+using project or move it to a more appropriate venue. Affordable employee housing is important. But locating it at our maim entrance, in its current configuration, seems to defeat the purpose of a mare attractive Vail. Signed: C7 ~~.~ ~.. l~'I zs~o 8,~~ rra~.,,~aM I°.~~P PAGE 01 • rams-horn 416 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE RHONE (970} 476-5646 VAIL, GOLORA~O 81657 August 7, 2Q©2 Town of'VaiI Town. Council 75 South Frontage Road, West Vail, CO $1657 Dear IVlayor and Town Council FAX (970) 476-0301 • For several months we have been following the discussions regarding the Mountain Be11 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 else believe first iznpressians is a critical issue to Vail as well. We have only one major entry to Vail and this is not the appropriate Tocation for affordable housing. We urge you to evaluate this issue carefully as the effects of this decision are very long term. Sincerely ~~ No pan D. Kurtz, Pres~nt Rams Horn Condominiu Association • Aug 26 Q2 04:24p Anne L. Eason To: Vail Town Council, PEC, and local Editors 870-476-7859 X~ : ~(l.~l~' ~~~ Once upon a time there vwras $ smakl town which thought itself so grand, such a 1E"llorld-Class Resort, that it didn't need humble amenities as modern fire stai;~"~, cor~rienient day care fac~'~ities, or even an adequate amount of affordable housing #or its employees. There are better uses fear our land, its citizens claimed, place those things elsewhere, best of all ~i Valley. Or hide them somewhere, in the forest, behind Safeway, or on someone's private property,1ike Vaii Resorts. Of course, this is our town of Vail_ Now that the town, through the Reef Estate TransFer Tax and other means, has bought up and tied up' rr~re than- 30E°Ib tyf the land within its boundaries while the federal government owns most of the land outside of them, we have run out aF alternatives tQ using scams of our precious fend for siting some of the above mentioned humble but necessary amenities. Reasonably, f believe, municipal leaders now want to use some far these purposes. Mountain BelUMiddle Creels is the only unencumbered vacant parcel within the town's borders large enough to allow economical achievment afi these oommon purposes. Have the protests of the powerful artd moneyed opponents merit to match thou political weight? Here's n'+y reading of them. 1.Not a# Veil's prom Dour Batchelor Gulch with its Ritz-Carlton and rnega'houses has seasonal employee housing in Vail Resorts' River Edgy and The Tams et its front door. Both are actually reasonably to quite attractive, far ~..,~, ~. so than the ski area parking lot which also graces this front door. In Vail Village have we forg©tten that "a highway runs through it? 'Vllhy not v~nell-designed txamtnunity facilities at the l-7© interchange? 2.`Wrong use The Executive Director of the Village Homeowners Association, the primary opposition group, has long .advocated putting a freight distribution facility for ~liage merchants on this site: is that a better, more attractive use than the proposed one? Or would opponents prefer more expensive housing for mostly absentee homeowners, or additional high end retail for visitors? Could it be that private developers are safnrating over this 22 acre-parcei~ I-think the proposed uses for the common-good arm the best long-term use vfthis si2able pan;.e1. 3.Wrong Design 'The Housing Authority's developer initially proposed a cluster of eight 2-5 story buildings on the parcel. This design was rejected as too sprawling, having too much impact on the environment Parking Tots hidden behind the buildings and visible only from Vail Mountain were rejected as unsightly. A higher rafio of parking spots to residents than exists at Vail Resorts' River Edge was demanded. 'The resulting design was ivao-stories of buried undergrourtid parking p.2 Rug 26 t72 04: 2'~p Rnne L. Esson 97fl-476-7859 p, 2 C and a more `massive, `consolidated 3 buildings, the highest again a 5-story structure, all utilizing just 2 acres of the site. How is the proposed 97,000 sq.ft. for 142 apa~r[ments, X52 beds, more jarring than the 8f700 sq, ft, houses dotting the Spraddle Creek hillside? Why does Middle Creek need so much parking? Why underground? How many locals have such a convenience? After all, the proposed faci[ites are extremely cornrenient to the Village, the bike path, and the bus route to West Vail shopping. I suggest protesters who doubt this convenience take a bus ride and check this for themselves. Mast foil-time residents agree the free town buses are one of the best municipal amenities in Vail. 4.Place It ElsewherelLet Someone Else Da [t A trade far enough Forest Service land can bee anticipated about the same time as the Second Coming. Vail Resorts is doing pretty close to its share for employee pausing and has been far some time. The need is far greater than individual merchants can supply though many maintain pausing units for their employees. 9:We Dan't Need It Surveys show Eagle county has consistently a vacancy rate aF less than 1°r6. Ta look at summer rentals in a past-9!'11 year is misleading to say the least. The gap in supply is for affordable hausir~g units for the six winter months. imagine a good snow year when the huge re#ail expansion below Dowd Jct. Domes on line. Vail wilt no longer be even vaguely competitive in the labor market. Those who live Down Valley will prefer to work Down Valley. To resurrect a metaphor used before in focal housing discussions, even the fanciest cruise ship must make roam ors board for its crew. The most hopeful thing about the uproar aver this housing proposal is the parallel to previous successful, even acclaimed locals' hauling projects. Every one of them was bitterly protested and denounced by n~lghbvrs, e.g. Vail Gammons, the Potato Patch units, the West Vail ones. I suspect the protesters' plaints will be similarly forgotten if Middle Creep becomes a reality. As the President of the Vi{loge Homeowners proposed, °lets stop fighting and get together to build sensible and affordable housing." Like faoldilacks lets find a design that is dust right° for this site. Anne Essan • Monday, August 26, 2602 9 0:10 AM To: Mary Caster -Town Council f P1=C From: James Lamani, 8275856 Page: 2 of 5 VAIL VILLAGE H~ME[~WNER ASS(]CIATIf)N, IN~C, President -Alma Kosloff Secretary -Ellin Caulkins Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director - Tim Lamani I]irectors: 3udith Berkowitz -Dolph Bridgewater -Bob Galvin -Ron Langley -Bill Marton - Gretta Parks Ta: Mayor and Tov+.n Gouneil Planning arad Environmental Conunission Design Review Board Frain: Jinn Lament Date: August 26, 2Q02 RE: Review Criteria Commentary Middle Creek Housing Proposal for portions of the Mountain Bell Site. The fallawirig is submitted with respect to Town of Vail required review criteria for a develvtiiierit plan in the H zone district. The Association, in order to provide a summary of issues raised by some of its members and constituents, provides th:e followizag on behalf of several property owners, who have presented their comments and concerns in writing and otherwise, to the Town Gouneil, Plaau~ing Gomrnission, and Design Review Board. These parties reside ar own property in the surrounding neighborhood and the Vail eanarxaunity at large. Vail Village anal its affiliate subdivisiotls are the surrounding neighborhood_ its property o~rners, residents, and visitors directly view or experience the site in either accessing or in occupation of their destination, pr©perties, and businesses. Conclusion: We have shovtim in our c , , _ ., ent~rv smith resrsect to each of the required review criteria, that the ni~iect fails to attain significant comnliance. ,Therefore, it is tivithin votxr authority to deny anuroval of the nroiect. «'e resnectfuUv request you to do so. Summary: The project fails to attain compliance l'or the following reasons. A. Building design vtiZth respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhaad. Comment: The buildinb design fails to achieve a compatible relationship of its architectural, character,. scale, mtassing and orientation with the site, adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood. The architecture, character, scale, massirttg agtd orientation of the proposed buildings are inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • The mass of the project presents a scale and orientation that magnifies the disparity between it and the surrounding neighborhood and nateu•al open space. + The proposal has no compelling architectural predecessors (antecedents) in the surrounding neighborhood or adjacent properties. The surrounding neighborhood is composed of onday, Aug~eSt 26, 20112 90:10 AM Tv: Mary Caster- Town Council / PEC From: James Lamont, 8275856 Page; 3 of 5 buildings having an Alpine ar Tyrolean character integrated into the fabric of a cohesive townscape and landscape.. The proposal alleges its architectural antecedents to be an Italian hillside village. It therefore is incompatible in all characteristics with its surrounding natural and architectural antecedents, I • There is nQ location rr7thin the Torun of Vail where a large continuous (monumental) structure is allowed bn an isolated site so that it singularly intrudes its mass or architectural character upon the surrounding townscape, neighborhood, or natural landscape. The proposal occupies a site that has visual preenxinence. The insensitive development proposed for the site will cause it to blight and dominate a preponderance of views from the surrottndit~g neighborhood, particularly the main tourism entrance to Vail Village. • The proposed residenntial eoinplex does not conform or attempt to share a common architectural vernacular v~7thin the regulators? design guidelines unposed upon buildings approved in the surrounding neighborhood. • The proposed residential complex will visually dominates and creates a distraction or conflict with the cohesive townscape and aesthetic harmony of the surrounding neighborhood and natural landscape. , • Art inadequate amount of open space and landscape buffer is allocated to give a landscaped . setting and S~isual buffer between the residential complex and its surroundings. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. Comment: The isolated location anal difficult topography of the site combine to create a dysfunctional development plan far a high density year round or transient tenant residential and day care population for the following reasons: • Increased reliance on personal transportation thereby creating a hardship and inconvenience for tenants because of excessive distance to the primary locate residential support service center in Vest Vail, i. e. grocery stores. Excessive building volumes and site grading to accommodate on-site parldng are unresponsive to existiaitg site condition as all natural site features in the vicinity of the improvements are significantly diminished or destroyed. . • Mitigation is inadequate for traffic and safety hazards caused by pedestrian and bicyclists desiring to access the surrounding neighborhood throubh the main Vail roundabout. • Aggravation of social, economic, and public safety conflicts among tenants, as occurs at other similar types of projects in the community, because of the excessive intensity of homogeneous population and use. 2 Monday, August 26, ~U02 iQ:14 AM 7a: Mary Caster- Town Council 1 PAC Fram: James Lamant, 8275858 Page: 4 of 5 • Subjects the tenant population and improvements on the site to increased threat and damage from natural l,as;:iruis. • Increases the community's economic burden by use of municipally owned public land and resources to provide employee housing, well beyond the capacity of the sites occupants, tenants, their employers, or the municipal government to adequately subsidize within. their financial resources. The inability of the community to financially subsidize affordable housing on the site has caused the developer to attempt to offset the lack of a subsidy with a development plan and improvements that are incompatible v~zth development standards accepted and inxposed upon the entire community C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural Features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and molten possible, are integrated v~°ith existing open space and recreation. areas. Comment; It is unacceptable to remove or re-contour nearly all-existing vegetation south or east of the Communication Tower Building to near the eastern boundary of the site. • The proposal significantly diminishes the functional and aesthetic qualities of the site's open space that will result because of the massive re-contouring of the site in order to accommodate parking and residential improvements. • The mass of the primary residential structure neither preserve or enhance of scenic landscape feature on or adjacent to the site from surrounding properties. • The development plan does not take advantage of existing landscape nor does new landscape improve the aesthetic of the buildings or the site to the same degree that the site's existing development is merged t~7th the natural landscape • The development plan makes less than adequate attempt to provide access, use or opportunities for the public to use the site or to integrate it existing open space. • There is inadequate landscape and open space buffering between the residential building or care center and surrounding properties as experienced from surrounding properties and the entrance to the Town of Vail. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed tv provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. Comments: • The amount of surface circulation and parlartg does not create a safe or aesthetic between the entrance to the site and the main residential complex parking structure because they are londay, August 26, 2002 '!0:'16 AM Ta: Mary Caster-Town Council! PEA Frvm:.lames Lamont, 8275856 Page: S of 5 crowded bey adjacent entry structures. The natural landscape buffer that presently exists should . ~r,.ain instead of being replaces by buildings. • The aesthetics of the pedestrian and vehicular circulation between the Frontage road and adjacent buildings does not provide for adequate landscape buffer. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigation measures are implements as a part of the proposed development plan. Comment; The proposed development plan has not speciffced how the debris flow and rock fall hazards vtiPill be mitigated. The impacts, design and location for natural hazard mitigation measures must be irrclnded in the development plan so that their impacts are knon~-, untderstoad and evaluated with the cante~-t of the x-evie~v process. • It is unacceptable to locate a children's Day Care Center in a kno~m rock fall hazard or to place the residents and their personal property at risk due to natural hazards that are subject to unpredictable frequency and life threateniing ferocity. The installation of mitigation measure should be included in the development plan because of the fallowing: • Potential for adverse affects upon the surrounding natural landscape and the aesthetics of site improvexne~ntts as vie~~ved fraaxn adjacent properties and surrounditxitg neighborhoods. • Transference of impacts to adjacent properties or areas on the site resulting in a greater degree of potential threat or damage. • Mitigation measure may have an adverse effect upon the affordability of site improvement, which is the stated purpose far the use of public lands atitd the site. F. Compliance ti-zth the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. Comments; Neither the Vail Comprehensive Plan nor other applicable plans provide the basis either by substantive fact or analysis for the intensity of use or development being proposed by the development plan, ~I I Past Oityce Box 2~8 Mail, Colorado 8165$ 'xelephone; (970) 827-5684 '~jnice ~.IdaiUFAX; {970) 827-5856 e-snail: ~~•hal 1a vail.net w~~~.vailho~neowners.com nTeasisux I __ - FROM THE BACGRGE CF-E~lI~E 1 Vail TOWn COUnGi! 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 8657 town c©unc!!~cl. vaif.ca. us (9~0} 479-1$60 phone (97D) 479-452 fax FAX Nth, 970 4761747 Aug. ~ 2t~0~ 12:5SPM P1 ! am writing in support of the proposed Middle Creek rents! development for local employees an the si#e comrnanly kncawn as "Mountain Bell.' The need for employee. housing grows every year, and while the Town of Vail has made strides in providing far-sele aptiQns, an affarda'dle rental development. is much needed. ' ~ ~ ~`ResitEents 1~ving ~niithin tavVn l~currdanes are essential to the year round viability of the community, as well as the economy. This locatlnrt !n particular has the advantages of being on the Town's bus route and bike path, as well as being within walking distance of 1!a!1 Village and Lionshead. ! have reviewed the dens"ity, rental rates, and elevations of the proposed development plan, and feel that the project is very appropriate at this sate. Please feel free to cantaot me should you have any questions. i~CtmMC.. U,N , ~-~pll ~ Cety ... _.. ,. .... . ~y _ .~w. • Page 1 oi' 1 3udy Rodriguez -Middle Creek .r,,,.,,,.. .. ~. , ~ , , .. , ~ ~ .. Frain: ~Summer1111(aaoLeom> To: <commdev~~'ci.vail.co.us> Date: 08/29,'2QD2 7:36 PM Subject: Middle Creek CC: <ghaldner(c~vaildaily.corn>, <awilliams(dlvpl-law.com> I am writing in support of Middle Creeit. The need for employee housing is obvious. This plan is beautiful, affordable and extremely well-located (where else?). The decision made an this project will determine whether Vail continues to be the charming inclusive resort conununity it is, or is pushed by art elite few into being "exclusive" with all the nastiness and divisiveness that a ward implies, This will be the project that will herald Vail T©marrow and the preservation or destruction of the quality of life in this Valley we know and lave. • file:f/C:1Window~s~tetnplGW} 00001.HTM {?8/30/2x02 Approved 31231D2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC WELCOME Monday, September 9, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- NO LUNCH Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman George Lamb 1:30 pm ~o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.rn., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:(lQ pm A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vai{ Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave a presentation, per the staff report and stated that staff is looking far clarification and not an amendment to the adopted master plan regarding the calculation of average maximum height, Erickson Shirley stated that it would be helpful for him if staff could break down the request into specific questions the board should answer. George Ruther stated that the overall question was, "How do you measure average maximum building height in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan?" Erickson Shirley asked what were the specific questions which would answer that overall question. John Schofield suggested a question such as the defnitian of grade and height which were defned already in the Code. Doug Cahill stated that he read the Master Plan to say as using a plane created by the mare restrictive grade and a plum bob be moved around within the footprint of the building. Erickson Shirley believed it was clear that height is defined in the Master Plan as being the distance from the roof ridge and existing ar finished grade, which ever is mare restrictive and secondly, "The average calculation shall be based an the aggregate linear footage of primary roof farms across an i entire structure, not separate individual roof farms." ~. ~y Fr ~7^ ,{ 1i 1V~71Y VI' ~li~~ Approved 9l2~lQ2 George Ruttier stated that he believed it was not that clear. He said he could came up with several ways to interpret the document which would al! give different results. Rollie and John agreed that one of the problems was that the drawing is based an a flat site, not on the topography which exists in Lionshead. John Schofield brought up that at the time the Master Plan was being done, he believed that a survey was done through out the Lionshead area, which included multiple spot elevations. He believed if the information was stiN available it may be beneficial to help substantiate the board's determination, George Rather stated that he would check to see if it still existed. Chas Bernhardt presented a mathematical equation, which took the difference in height from two points an a roof ridge and divided by an interval to be determined. John Schofield suggested that grade should be interpolated under the building to create a plane to measure from. Doug Cahill asked if George Rather would write that up Erickson Shirley asked that a drawing accompany it. George Rather restated the request, in order to clarify what he heard, Chas Bernhardt clarified his variables included in the mathematical eguation. He said paints along the ridge would be measured over a determined distance step and that difference would be divided by that distance. Doug Cahill asked if the could add that no more than 50 percent of the building height could be at 3.2.5 feet.. Jahn Schofield stated that he felt the DRB would never approve same of the buildings as proposed in the staff report, even if they met the Fetter of the Master Plan. George Rather stated that he didn't understand, under Chas's proposal, how each segment was handled over the length of the entire roof line. He said each segment would have an average height and then those segments would be averaged together to make sure that the overall ridge height is at an average of 73 feet, The Commission agreed that height should be measured from the most restrictive grade either existing, or finished. John Schofield stated that he felt that primary ridgeline needed to be defined. Doug Cahill stated that dormers were not a primary roof form, but they should be measured for overall height, George Ruttier stated that the Master Plan called out dormers as secondary or special architectural features to be considered a primary roof form. John Schofield asked. if George Rather had enough feedback. to write something for the next meeting. George Rather stated that in some cases such as on a steep site, the height of a building could be higher if measured from the eave_ Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this to September 23, 2002. 2 Approved 9!23102 Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motian. The motian passed by a vote of 5-0. 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vaif Tawn Council of an amendment to Section 12-7A-7 (Height), Vail Tawn Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accornmadation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant; Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner. George RutherfWarren Campbell MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 3. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow far a public utility installation, located at the East Vail Vlfater Tank, 5004 Snowshoe LanelSummer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant; Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND; Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-(} TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 4. A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for 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"fan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.fto be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: A1lisan Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0 TABLEQ UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2DD2 5. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot, 395 S. Frontage RoadfLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 15T Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs 1NITH D RAW N 6. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12-$D-6 of the Vail Tawn Cade, to allow fiat improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F,Vail Village 5`~' Filing and 498 Vail Valley DrivelTract B, Vail Village 7`" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson STAFF APPROVED Affirmed 3 Approved 9/23102 r~ 7, Approval of August 26, 2002 minu#es MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED A5 iREA© 8. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular afEice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 Sauth Frontage Road. Please call 479-213$ for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • LJ 4