Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-02 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session ,' ~ 1 1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Tuesday, July 2, 2002 1:00 P.M. NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. ITEM/TOPIC: Continued Revenue Discussion. (1 hr., 15 min.) Bob McLaurin • Update on High Priority Alternatives. • Conference Facility. 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of Ordinance #14, SDD #6, Conversion of Hotel Rooms to EHU's. (30 min.) Russ Forrest 3. ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of Ordinance #15, Rezoning of Lodge at Lionshead to Lionshead Mixed Use I. (30 min.) Russ Forrest 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Bears and Garbage Discussion. (20 min.) Russ Forrest Dwight Henninger Matt Mire Greg Hall 5. DRB/PEC Update. 6. Information Update. (5 min.) 7. Matters from Mayor and Council. (5 min.) 8. Executive Session: Legal Matters (C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). (15 min.) 9. Adjournment. (4:05 P.M.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2002, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, July 16, 2002, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. F: m caster/agendas/ws/2002/070202 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager ~- RE: Revenue Discussion DT: June 27, 2002 We have scheduled one hour on Tuesday afternoon to continue our discussion regarding revenues. During this time we will be following up on the high priority items you identified at the last meeting. These high priority items include: mill levy increases, implementation of 1985 General Obligation debt, formation of a Business Improvement District, Partnership Revenues, and an increase in Development Fees and Parking Fees. As we discussed at the last meeting, our objective was to fund services at current levels and restore the capital projects funding at the levels mandated in the charter. The Council determined this amount to be approximately $5 million per year. PROPERTY TAX REVENUES The Council discussed an election to increase the TOV mill levy. At current valuations, one mill generates approximately $563,000. A four-mill increase would generate approximately $2.25 million. The critical next steps include determining how the additional revenues would be used, explore ability to mitigate Gallagher Amendment, explore public opinion on this issue, assess impacts of other state and local ballot issues for November, review tax rates of surrounding communities. Use of additional revenues As I indicated at the Council meeting last week these funds would be used as follows: • $250,000 Fund new fire company • $2,000,000 Fund capital projects Although I have long been an advocate of a West Vail Fire Station, these proposed new funds are not earmarked for a specific location, but would increase fire protection in the upper valley through increased fire personnel. These additional personnel could be located in West Vail or at atwo-company station in main Vail. This cost of this additional fire company is estimated to be $250,000 annually. The balance of this revenue ($2,000,000) would be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund and would be used to fund various capital projects. Otherwise, the Council could identify specific projects to be funded with these funds (e.g. Village Streetscape, Lionshead Improvements, I-70 noise mitigation etc) Assess Public Opinion On The Revenue Issue At the Council's direction, a public opinion poll has been formulated. The poll was conducted between June 25 - 30. The results of this questionnaire will be available on Tuesday. We intend to discuss the results with you at that time. Attached to this memo is the list of questions that were asked. As directed, we tested both the conference center and the TOV infrastructure question. Other Ballet Initiatives The November election will include races for Governor, House of Representatives and County Commissioner. In addition to these elections, Eagle County may have a term limit question and the Colorado River Conservation District may have a question. At the State level there may be at least 3 initiatives, all pertain to the election process. These include a question asking to do away with the caucus process, asking to allow same-day voter registration and a question allowing for mail ballot elections for all elections As you are aware, there is a local group working to fund a conference facility on the North Day Lot. This group will be making a presentation to you Tuesday to discuss this matter. Although they have not yet formally requested to be on the ballot, I believe they anticipate doing so in the very near future. This group is currently anticipating a question that would increase the lodging tax by 2.5% and an increase in sales tax by 1 % to fund this facility. Obviously, if this initiative goes forward, it will have an impact on any election to fund TOV capital projects. We are at this time attempting to understand how each initiative affects the other. Impacts of Gallagher Amendment Because the Gallagher Amendment assesses commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties, the Council expressed concern about the impact on rental rates and the business community. We were asked to explore how to mitigate the impacts of Gallagher on the business community. Specifically, the Gallagher Amendment provides for vacant land, commercial property and state assessed property to be assessed at 29% of actual value and residential property to be assessed at 9.15% of actual value. Therefore a property with the actual value of $1 million would have an assessed value of $290,000 if it were commercial property and $91,500 if it were residential. Approximately $384 million or 68% of the Towns assessed value is derived from residential property and $184 million or 32% is derived from properties assessed at the 29% rate. If the Town wanted to collect another $2.2 million in property tax but wanted to give all the property owners assessed at 29% a 67% rebate on what they paid; an assessment of 5 mills would be needed. In other words, you would need to assess 5 mills instead of 4 mills to collect $2.2 million. The 67% rebate would equalize what commercial and residential property owners would pay in property tax. The principal question we are continuing to research is "does the town have the ability to rebate a portion of the property tax increase to just the commercial property owners, and leave out the vacant land and/or state assessed property owners? State assessed property owners are large utility companies who have property all over the state. I have asked Dee Wisor for an opinion on this issue and hope to have an answer by Tuesday. Comparison of property taxes in selected communities Attached to this memo is a comparison of property tax rates for selected communities in Colorado. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT/SPECIAL' IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The Council also discussed creation of a Business Improvement District (BID). A BID requires a vote within district boundaries and could be used to fund capital projects and/or ongoing maintenance within the district. The Council posed a number of questions about a BID, including: possible approaches, such as mill levy or special assessment, whom would it impact?, how would it work?, what would it cost a typical business?, what is the relationship with the business license fee?, What would revenues be used for? We are attempting to answer the questions we can from a staff level. Some of them are policy questions that must be decided by the elected officials., As discussed at the meeting last Tuesday, we will have the data on costs and implications by August. Perhaps the most pertinent issue with BID (at this time), is that will impact the same constituents as the proposed mill levy increase. That is, any costs associated with a BID, regardless of the use of the funds, would impact the business community and would likely passed on in the form of increased rent. INCREASE DEVELOPMENT FEES Attached to this memo is a document that speaks to the Development Fee issue. This document was prepared by Russ Forest some time back, and have been recently updated. PARTNERSHIP REVENUES We need to establish a firm meeting date with Vail Resorts to discuss this issue. As indicated by the Mayor, we are tentatively looking to schedule this discussion in July. PARKING REVENUES The Council also identified parking as an area were additional revenues can be generated. While this is true, it is important that parking rates and revenues be considered in light of other (and often competing) objectives. The Parking Task Force has been meeting regularly and is scheduled to discuss a range of parking issues with you. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 6. At that time we will discuss parking objectives, policies and revenues. d ~ g ~+ y~ TOWN OF VAIL QUESTIONNAIRE Draft 3- 6/26/02 Field Dates: June 26-27, 29-30, 2002 N: 2001ikely voters in Town of Vail Project #: 02401 Hello, I'm ___ of ___, a research firm. We're talking with people in the town of Vail today about issues of concern to Vail voters, and would like to ask you some questions on a confidential basis. We are interested only in your opinion and will never try to sell you anything during this interview: (DO NOT PAUSE) A. Are you registered to vote at this address? YES (CONTINUE TO QUESTION B) IF NO THEN ASK: May I please speak to someone in your household who is registered to vote at this address? (REPEAT QUESTION A WITH NEW RESPONDENT) B. Are you, or is anyone in your household, employed by a newspaper, television or radio station, or is an elected official? 1 YES (THANK AND TERMINATE) 2 NO (CONTINUE) NOT SURE/REFUSED (DO NOT READ -THANK AND TERMINATE) As you may know, there will be an election in November here in Colorado for Governor and U.S. Senate C. How likely is it that you will vote in the November election, would you say it is... (ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP) VERY LIKELY 2 SOMEWHAT LIKELY 3 NOT VERY LIKELY (THANK AND TERMINATE) 4 NOT AT ALL LIKELY (THANK AND TERMINATE) DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) REFUSED (DO NOT READ) NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: PROMPT ONLY IF NEEDED REGARDING CLIENT OF SURVEY: The Town of Vail government is sponsoring this survey. Results will only be presented in the aggregate and your participation will be kept completely confidential. PAGE 2 1. Would you say that things in the Town of Vail are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? 1 RIGHT DIRECTION 2 WRONG TRACK DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 3 What would you say is the single MOST important problem facing the Town of Vail? (DO NOT READ) POCKETBOOK/ECONOMY SOCIAL Cost of Living .............................. 1 Child/Day Care ............................ 37 Cost of housing/affordable housing ............. 2 Poverty/Hunger/Homeless .................... 38 Revitalization of town ........................ 3 Illegal ]mmigrants ...................:...... 39 Economy/Recession Year-round economy ....................... . Gas prices/Other Inflation .................... . Lack of Tourism ............................ Lack of conference center/meeting space ........ . Jobs/low-payutg ............................ Unemployment ............................ Utility Rates .............................. . Other Pocketbook/Economy ................. . TAXES Local Taxes (General) ...................... . Property Taxes .......................... Sales Taxes ............................. State Income Taxes ....................... . Impact fees on developers ................... . Bus. Tax ................................ Other Taxes .............................. TRAFFIC/OVER-DEVELOPMENT Too much Growth/Crowding/ 4 Decltne to Moral Values ..................... 40 5 Loss of community character/heart ............. 41 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Over Development ................. 20 Area becoming too Commercial ............. .. 21 Preservation of community character ......... .. 22 Locallnfrastructure/drainage ............... .. 23 Roads/condition of ....................... .. 24 Traffic Congestion ....................... .. 25 Masstransit/buses ........................ .. 26 Parking .............................. .. 27 Streetscape/Sidewalks .................... .. 28 HEALTH ISSUES Health Care Costs ............ .............. 29 Caring for Elderly/Social Security .............. 30 Availability of Care ........... .............. 31 Poor Coverage/Benefits ....... .............. 32 Other Health ................ .............. 33 RECREATION SkiResort/Vail ............................ 34 White River Forest Plan ..................... 35 Other recreation ............................ 36 CRIME/SAFETY Crime (General) ............................ 42 Fire Protection ............................. 43 Drugs/Alcohol ............................. 44 Strength of Police Force ...................... 45 Child Abuse Kidnapping ..................... 46 Poor Courts/Judicial System .................. 47 Gtuts/Gun Control ....................... 48 EDUCATION Quality of education ......................... 49 School Financing ........................... 50 Wasteful spending./administration ............. 51 Crowded classrooms schools .................. 52 Condition of school buildings ................. 53 ENVIRONMENT Water/drought ....................... 55 Fire danger ................................ 55 Open space ................................ 56 Recycling/Garbage .......................... 57 Wetlands ................................. 58 Wildlife ................................... 59 Pollution .................................. 60 Other Environment ......................... 61 OTHER Poor planing by town ....................... 62 Govt Corruption/Control ..................... 63 Mayor/I'own Council ....................... 64 Bureaucracy/Leadership ..................... 65 Government spending ....................... 66 Town fmances/budget issue .................. 67 Security /Terrorism ......................... 68 Other (SPECIFY): .........96 No Problems .......................97 Don4 Know (DO NOT READ) ......... 98 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) .......... 99 PAGE 4 Thinking generally about town government, from what you know, please tell me if you agree or disagree that the Town of Vail government ... (RANDOMIZE) IF (AGREE/DISAGREE) THEN ASK: And do you STRONGLY (agree/disagree) or SOMEWHAT (agree/disagree)? (DO NOT READ) STRONG SMWT SMWT STRONG DON'T REF AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Spends taxpayer money wisely 4. Is facing a budget shortfall 5. Has its priorities straight PAGE 5 Now, there may be a number of issues on the ballot this November. I'm going to ask you about two possible initiatives... (ROTATE AS A BLOCK QUESTIONS 6-9 AND 10-14) 6. And, if the election were being held today and the following proposal was on the ballot in the Town of Vail, would you vote YES or NO on.... Increase the lodging tax by "two point two five" percent and increase the sales tax in the town of Vail by one percent, that is one cent on every ten dollars purchased, in order to fund a conference and events center in Lionshead. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'TKNOW/UNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) (IF PUNCH 1-4 ON Q6 ASK:) 7. Please tell me some of the reasons you (would vote yes/would vote no) on this initiative? (PROBE) What other reasons? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSES) 8. On a scale of one to ten, with one meaning NOT AT ALL interested and ten meaning VERY INTERESTED, please tell me how interested you are in this issue? [RECORD RESPONSE. USE 99 FOR DK/REFUSED] 9. Which ONE of the following phrases best describes how you feel about this proposal... (ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP) 1 I like it and would support it. 2 Even though I don't like it all that much I could support it because it could be good for Vail. 3 I don't like it at all and could never support it. 4 DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) 5 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 6 And IF the conference center initiative passes, please tell me whether or not you think each of the following will benefit. (RANDOMIZE) 10. Hotels and lodging 11. Retail shops 12. Restaurants 13. You personally Thinking about another issue...(ROTATE AS A BLOCK QUESTIONS 6-13 AND 14-18) 14. And, if the election were being held today and the following proposal was on'the ballot in the Town of Vail, would you vote YES or NO on.... Increasing the property tax by four mils, or forty dollars per one hundred thousand dollars in home value, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? I DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'T KNOW/LJNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) (IF PUNCH 1-4 ON Q14 ASK:) 15. Please tell me some of the reasons you (would vote yes/would vote no) on this initiative? (PROBE) What other reasons? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSES) PAGE 7 IF PUNCH 3-4 (NO) ON Q14 ONLY) 16. And under a different alternative to the initiative I just read to you, voters would be asked to increasing the property tax by three mils, or approximately 30 dollars per one hundred thousand dollars in home value, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. Would you then vote Yes in favor of the initiative or No against the initiative? (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO DON'T KNOW/[JNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) REFUSED (DO NOT READ) ASK OF ALL: 17. On a scale of one to ten, with one meaning NOT AT ALL interested and ten meaning VERY INTERESTED, please tell me how interested you are in this issue? [RECORD RESPONSE. USE 99 FOR DK/REFUSED] 18. Which ONE of the following phrases best describes how you feel about this proposal... (ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP) 1 I like it and would support it. 2 Even though I don't like it all that much I could support it because it could be good for Vail. 3 I don't like it at all and could never support it. DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 8 DO NOT ROTATE IN SERIES -ALWAYS ASK AFTER SERIES Q6-13 & Q14-18 IS COMPLETE One other alternative to the proposal is also being discussed. If the election were being held today, would you vote Yes or vote No on the following - '/: SAMPLE: VERSION A: 19. Increasing the sales tax in the town of Vail by one percent, that is one cent on every ten dollars purchased, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'T KNOW/UNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) '/ SAMPLE: VERSION. B 20. Increasing the sales tax in the town of Vail by one percent, that is one cent on every ten dollars purchased, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -town operations and -staffing. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'T KNOW/IINDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 9 Now, thinking about just one of these issues for amoment -the proposed property tax or sales tax increase far fire and transportation. Let me read you some specifics aspects of the proposed 'initiative which are being CONSIDERED but have not yet been decided upon. For each aspect of the proposal, please tell me if that would make you more likely or less likely to vote Yes in favor of this proposal - The initiative could....(RANDOMIZE, ASK Q26 LAST) (IF MORE LIKELY, ASK:) And, would that be MUCH more likely ar just SOMEWHAT more likely? MUCH SMWT DON'T REF MORE MORE LESS KNOW 1 2 3 4 5 21. Hire additional fire fighters to increase fire protection 22. Fund construction of a fire station to increase fire protection 23. Fund streetscape and pedestrian improvements in the commercial cores 24. Fund maintenance and improvements to roads and bridges 25. Fund pedestrian and driver safety measures, such as sidewalks, streetlights, and drainage ASK LAST: 26. Fund road, bus and pedestrian improvements necessary to support the revitalization in Vail Village and Lionshead, often called the Vail Renaissance 27. And, of the specific items which could be funded, which I just mentioned, which ones, IF ANY, would you consider to be something that the Town governments WANTS but does NOT need? (RANDOMIZE, RECORD MULTIPLE MENTIONS) 1 Hire firefighters 2 Construct fire stafion 3 Streetscape and pedestrian 4 Maintenance of roads and bridges 5 Sidewalks, street lights, and drainage 6 Road, bus and pedestrian to support Vail Renaissance 7 ALL 8 NONE 9 UNSURE/REFUSED PAGE 10 28. And, how much would you say that you and others in your household would benefit if this initiative passed in November - 1 A LOT 2 SOME 3 A LITTLE 4 NONE 5 DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) Now, due to lower tax revenues and increased demand for services, the town government will face a budget shortfall as soon as next year. I'd like to read you two points of view about this and please tell me which one comes closer to your own. (ROTATE VIEWPOINTS) 29. Some/other people say that The town has already cut all the fat from its budget over the last several years, and therefore additional funding is needed or else town services that affect residents and guests will be negatively affected. Other/some people say that .Town government has plenty of money~to provide essential services already. They could tighten their belt a little more and use our tax money more efficiently, without having to negatively affect services for residents and guests. Which do you agree with more? 1 Will be negatively affected 2 Will NOT be negative affected 3 BOTH EQUALLY 4 UNSURE/REFUSED O PAGE 11 ROTATE AS A BLOCK 30-36 AND 37-43 I am going to list some things that may or MAY NOT happen if this initiative does NOT pass. After each one, please tell me how likely each is to happen if this initiative is NOT passed. If you are not sure, please say so and we will go onto the next one. The (first/next) one is... (RANDOMIZE). Now, if the initiative did NOT pass, is that almost certain to happen, very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely or not at all likely to happen? ALMOST VERY SMWT NOT TOO NOT AT ALL DON'T REF CERTAIN LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY KNOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Response time to calls for police, fire and emergency will increase 31. There will be longer waits for repairing pot holes, street lights and drainage problems 32. Buses will run fewer hours, less frequently, or be discontinued to cerhain areas 33. Increased parking rates or elimination of free parking programs 34. Quality of life for residents will decrease 35. Guests will be less satisfied with their experience and will be less likely to return in the future 36. Private development and revitalization of the town may not take place without public infrastructures. PAGE 12 I am going to list some things that some people say could happen if this initiative does NOT pass. After each one, please tell me how good or bad it would be if that particular thing DID happen. Use a scale of one to ten where one means it is one of the WORST things that could happen and 10 means it is one of the BEST things that could happen. Of course, you can use any number between one and ten. If you are not sure, please say so and we will go on to the next one... The (first/next) one is... (RANDOMIZE). [RECORD NUMBER, 1-10. USE 99 FOR DK/REF.] 37. Response time to calls for police, fire and emergency will increase 38. There will be longer waits for repairing pot holes, street lights and drainage problems 39. Buses will run fewer hours, less frequently, or be discontinued to certain areas 40. Increased parking rates or elimination of free parking programs 41. Quality of life for residents will decrease 42. Guests will be less satisfied with their experience and will be less likely to return in the future 43. Private development and revitalization of the town may not take place without public infrastructures. PAGE 13 44. And having heard a lot more about this issue please tell me again, if the election were being held today and the following proposal was in the ballot in the Town of Vail, would you .vote YES or NO on.... Increasing the property tax by four mils, or forty dollars per one hundred thousand dollars in home value, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO DON'T KNOW/iJNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) REFUSED (DO NOT READ) (IF PUNCH 3-4 IN Q14 AND PUNCH 1-2 OR 5 IN Q44, THEN ASK:) 45. Now before you said (PUNCH FROM Q14) and now you say (PUNCH FROM Q44). Please tell me what have you learned that has changed your opinion of this proposal? (PROBE) What else can you tell me about that? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE) PAGE 14 Now, I have just a few questions for statistical purposes only... 46. In what year were you born? (9999=DK/REFUSED) 47. And are you registered to vote as....(ROTATE) a Republican, a Democrat, or something else? I REPUBLICAN 2 DEMOCRAT 3 SOMETHING ELSE/INDEPENDENT/UNDECLARED 4 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) 48. How long have you lived in the Town of Vail? 1 LESS THAN FIVE YEARS 2 FIVE TO TEN YEARS 3 ELEVEN TO FIFTEEN YEARS 4 MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS 5 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) 49. Do you own or rent your home? 1 Own 2 Rent 3 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 15 50. Sex (BY OBSERVATION) MALE FEMALE REFUSED (DO NOT READ) RECORD PRECINCT Q .r.. tie} ~ O !~ `l.tl ~ld ~. TOWN OF VAIL QUESTIONNAIRE Draft 3- 6/26/02 Field Dates: June 26-27, 29-30, 2002 N: 2001ikely voters in Town of Vail Project #: 02401 Hello, I'm __ of , a research fum. We're talking with people in the town of Vail today about issues of concern to Vail voters, and would like to ask you some questions on a confidential basis. We are interested only in your opinion and will never try to sell you anything during this interview: (DO NOT PAUSE) A. Are you registered to vote at this address? YES (CONTINUE TO QUESTION B) IF NO THIN ASK: May I please speak to someone in your household who is registered to vale at this address? (REPEAT QUESTIONA WITH•NEW RESPONDENT) B. Are you, or is anyone in your household, employed by a newspaper, television or radio station, or is an elected official? 1 YES (THANK AND TERMINATE) 2 NO (CONTINUE) 3 NOT SURE/REFUSED (DO NOT READ -THANK AND TERMINATE) As you may know, there will be an election in November here in Colorado for Governor and U.S. Senate C. How likely is it that you will vote in the November election, would you say it is... (ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP) 1 VERY LIKELY 2 SOMEWHAT LIKELY 3 NOT VERY LIKELY (THANK AND TERMINATE) 4 NOT AT ALL LIKELY (THANK AND TERMINATE) 5 DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: PROMPT ONLY )F NEEDED REGARDING CLIENT OF SURVEY: The Town of Vail government is sponsoring this survey. Results will only be presented in the aggregate and your participation will be kept completely confidential. PAGE 2 Would you say that things in the Town of Vail are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? 1 RIGHT DIRECTION 2 WRONG TRACK 3 DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) 4 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 3 2. What would you say is the single MOST important problem facing the Town of Vail? (DO NOT READ) POCKETBOOK/ECONOMY SOCIAL 37 .............................. Cost of Living 1 Child/Day Care ............................ Cost of housinglaffordable housing ............. 2 Poverty/Hunger/Homeless .................... 38 Revitalization of town ........................ 3 Illegal Immigrants ................ •.......... 39 ......................... Economy/Recession 4 Decline in Moral Values ..................... 40 Year-round economy ........................ 5 Loss of community chazacter/heart ............. 41 Gas prices/Other Inflation ..................... 6 Lack of Tourism ............................ 7 CR1ME/SAFETY Lack of conference center/meeting space ......... 8 Crime (General) ............................ 42 ............................ Jobs/low-pay¢tg 9 Fire Protection ............................. 43 .. .......................... Unemployment 10 Drugs/Alcohol ....... •••••••••••••••••••••• 44 Utility Rates ............................... 11 Strength of Police Force ...................... 45 Other Pocketbook/Economy .................. 12 Child Abuse Kidnapping ..................... 46 Poor Courts/Judicial System .................. 47 GttnslGun Control ....................... 48 TAXES Local Taxes (General) ....................... 13 Property Taxes .......................... 14 Sales Taxes ............................. 15 State Income Taxes ......................... 16 Impact fees on developers .................... 17 Bus. Tax ................................ 18 Other Taxes .............................. 19 TRAFFIC/OVER-DEVELOPMENT Too much Growth/Crowding/ Over Development ................. 20 Area becoming too Commercial ............... 21 Preservation of community character ........... 22 Locallnfrastructure/drainage ................. 23 Roads/condition of ......................... 24 Traffic Congestion ......................... 25 Mass transit/buses .......................... 26 Parking ................................ 27 Streetscape/Sidewalks .. .................... 28 HEALTH 1SSUES Health Care Costs ............. ............. 29 Cazing for Elderly/Social Security . ............. 30 AvailabilRy of Caze ............ ............. 31 Poor Coverage/Benefits ........ ............. 32 Other Heakh ................. ............. 33 EDUCATION QualRy of education ......................... 49 School Financing ........................... 50 Wasteful spending./administration ............. 51 .Crowded classrooms/schools .................. 52 Condition of school buildings ................. 53 ENVIRONMENT Water/drought ....................... 55 Firedanger .................................55 Open space .............. .................. 56 Recycling/Gazbage .......................... 57 Wetlands ................................. 58 Wildlife ................................... 59 Pollution ..................................60 Other Environment ......................... 61 OTHER Poor planing by town ....................... 62 Govt Corruption/Control ..................... 63 Mayor/Town Council ..............:........ 64 Bureaucracy/Leadership .. ................... 65 Government spending ....................... 66 Town fmances/budget issue .................. 67 Security /Terrorism ......................... 68 Other (SPECIFY): RECREATION Ski ResorW ail ............................ 34 White River Forest Plan ..................... 35 Other recreation ............................ 36 .........96 No Problems ....................... 97 DonY Know (DO NOT READ) ......... 98 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) .......... 99 PAGE 4 Thinking generally about town government, .from what you know, please tell me if you agree or disagree that the Town of Vail government ... (RANDOMIZE) IF (AGREE/DISAGREE) THEN ASK: And do you STRONGLY (agree/disagree) or SOMEWHAT (agreeJdisagree)? (DO NOT READ) STRONG SNiWT SMWT STRONG DON'T REF AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Spends taxpayer money wisely 4. Is facing a budget shortfall 5. Has its priorities straight PAGE S Now, there may be a number of issues on the ballot this November. I'm going to ask you about two possible initiatives... (ROTATE AS A BLOCK QUESTIONS 6-9 AND 10-14) 6. .And, if the election were being held today and the following proposal was on the ballot in the Town of Vail, would you vote YES or NO on.... Increase the lodging tax by "two point two five" percent and increase the sales tax in the town of Vail by one percent, that is one cent on every ten dollars purchased, in order to fund a conference and events center in Lionshead. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? DEFINITELY YES PROBABLY YES PROBABLY NO DEFINITELY NO DON'TKNOW/UNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) REFUSED (DO NOT READ) (IF PUNCH 1-4 ON Q6 ASK:) 7. Please tell me some of the reasons you (would vote yes/would vote no) on this initiative? (PROBE) What other reasons? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSES) On a scale of one to ten, with one meaning NOT AT ALL interested and ten meaning VERY INTERESTED, please tell me how interested you are in this issue? [RECORD RESPONSE. USE 99 FOR DK/REFUSED] 9. Which ONE of the following phrases best describes how you feel about this proposal... (ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP) 1 I like it and would support it. 2 Even though I don't like it all that much I could support it because it could be good for Vail. 3 I don't like it at all and could never support it. 4 DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) 5 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 6 And IF the conference center initiative passes, please tell me whether or not you think each of the following . will benefit. (RANDOMIZE) 10. Hotels and lodging 11. Retail shops 12. Restaurants 13. You personally Thinking about another issue...(ROTATE AS A BLOCK QUESTIONS 6-13 AND 14-18) 14. And, if the election were being held today and the following proposal was on the ballot in the Town of Vail, would you vote YES or NO on.... Increasing the property tax by four mils, or forty dollars per one hundred thousand dollars in home value, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'TKNOW/UNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ). (IF PUNCH 1-4 ON Q14 ASK:) 15. Please tell me some of the reasons you (would vote yes/would vote no) on this initiative? (PROBE) What other reasons? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSES) PAGE 7 IF PUNCH 3-4 (NO) ON Q14 ONLY) 16. And under a different alternative to the initiative I just read to you, voters would be asked to increasing the property tax by three mils, or approximately 30 dollars per one hundred thousand dollars in home value, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. Would you then vote Yes in favor of the initiative or No against the initiative? (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'TKNOW/UNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) ASK OF ALL: 17. On a scale of one to ten, with one meaning NOT AT ALL interested and ten meaning VERY INTERESTED, please tell me how interested you are in this issue? [RECORD RESPONSE. USE 99 FOR DK/REFUSED] 18. Which ONE of the following phrases best describes how you feel about this proposal... (ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP) 1 I like it and would support it. 2 Even though I don't like it all that much I could support it because it could be good for Vail. 3 I don't like it at all and could never support it. 4 DON'T KNOW (DO NOT READ) 5 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 8 DO NOT ROTATE IN SERIES -ALWAYS ASK AFTER SERIES Q6-13 & Q14-18 IS COMPLETE One other alternative to the proposal is also being discussed. If the election were being held today, would you vote Yes or vote No on the following - '/: SAMPLE: VERSION A: 19. Increasing the sales tax in the town of Vail by one percent, that is one cent on every ten dollars purchased, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'T KNOW/IJNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) '/: SAMPLE: VERSION B 20. Increasing the sales tax in the town of Vail by one percent, that is one cent on every ten dollars purchased, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -town operations and -staffing. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINTTELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO 5 DON'T KNOW/UNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 9 Now, thinking about just one of these issues for amoment -the proposed property tax or sales tax increase far fire and transportation. Let me read you some specks aspects of the proposed initiative which are being CONSIDERED but have not yet been decided upon. For each aspect of the proposal, please tell me if that would make you more likely or less likely to vote Yes in favor of this proposal - The initiative could....(RANDOMIZE, ASK Q26 LAST) (IF MORE LIKELY, ASK:) And, would that be MUCH more likely or just SOMEWHAT more likely? MUCH SMWT DON'T REF MORE MORE LESS KNOW 1 2 3 4 5 21. Hire additional fire fighters to increase fire protection 22. Fund construction of a fire station to increase fire protection 23. Fund streetscape and pedestrian improvements in the commercial cores 24. Fund maintenance and improvements to roads and bridges 25. Fund pedestrian and driver safety measures, such as sidewalks, streetlights, and drainage ASK LAST: 26. Fund road, bus and pedestrian improvements necessary to support the revitalization in Vail Village and Lionshead, often called the Vail Renaissance 27. And, of the specific items which could be funded, which I just mentioned, which ones, IF ANY, would you consider to be something that the Town governments WANTS but does NOT need? (RANDOMIZE, RECORD MULTIPLE MENTIONS) 1 Hire firefighters 2 Construct fire station 3 Streetscape and pedestrian 4 Maintenance of roads and bridges 5 Sidewalks, street lights, and drainage 6 Road, bus and pedestrian to support Vail Renaissance 7 ALL 8 NONE 9 UNSURE/REFUSED PAGE 10 28. And, how much would you say that you and others in your household would benefit if this initiative passed in November - 1 A LOT 2 SOME 3 A LITTLE 4 NONE 5 DON'T KNOW/NOT SURE (DO NOT READ) 6 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) Now, due to lower tax revenues and increased demand for services, the town government will face a budget shortfall as soon as next year. I'd like to read you two points of view about this and please tell me which one comes closer to your own.. (ROTATE VIEWPOINTS) 29. Some/other people say that The town has already cut all the fat from its budget over the last several years, and therefore additional funding is needed or else town services that affect residents and guests will be negatively affected. Other/some people say that Town government has plenty of money to provide essential services already. They could tighten their belt a little more and use our tax money more efficiently, without having to negatively affect services for residents and guests. Which do you agree with more? 1 Will be negatively affected 2 Will NOT be negative affected 3 BOTH EQUALLY 4 UNSURE/REFUSED PAGE 11 ROTATE AS A BLOCK 30-36 AND 37-43 I am going to list some things that may or MAY NOT happen if this initiative does NOT pass: After each one, please tell me how 117ce1y each is to happen if this initiative is NOT passed. If you are not sure, please say so and we will go on to the next one. The (first/next) one is... (RANDOMIZE). Now, if the initiative did NOT pass, is that almost certain to happen, very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely or not at all likely to happen? ALMOST VERY 5MWT NOT TOO NOT AT ALL DON'T REF CERTAIN LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY KNOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Response time to calls for police, fire and emergency will increase 31. There will be longer waits for repairing pot holes, street lights and drainage problems 32. Buses will run fewer hours, less frequently, or be discontinued to certain areas 33. Increased parking rates or elimination of free parking programs 34. Quality of life for residents will decrease 35. Guests will be less satisfied with their experience and will be less likely to return in the future 36. Private development and revitalization of the town may not take place without public infrastructures. PAGE 12 I am going to list some things that some people say could happen if this initiative does NOT pass. After each one, please tell me how good or bad it would be if that particular thing DID happen. Use a scale of one to ten where one means it is one of the WORST things that could happen and 10 means it is one of the BEST things that could happen. Of course, you can use .any number between one and ten. If you are not sure, please say so and we will go onto the next one... The (first/next) one is... (RANDOMIZE). [RECORD NUMBER, 1-10. USE 99 FOR DKIREF.] 37. Response time to calls for police, fire and emergency will increase 38. There will be longer waits for repairing pot holes, street lights and drainage problems 39. Buses will run fewer hours, less frequently, or be discontinued to certain areas 40. Increased parking rates or elimination of free parking programs 41. Quality of life for residents will decrease 42. Guests will be less satisfied with their experience and will be less likely to return in the future 43. Private development and revitalization of the town may not take place without public infrastructures. PAGE 13 44. And having heard a lot more about this issue please tell me again, if the election were being held today and the following proposal was in the ballot in the Town of Vail, would you vote YES or NO on.... Increasing the property tax by four mils, or forty dollars per one hundred thousand dollars in home value, to provide funds for.. ROTATE -fire services, and -roads and infrastructure. (IF YES/NO, ASK:) And would that be DEFINITELY (yes/no) or just PROBABLY (yes/no)? 1 DEFINITELY YES 2 PROBABLY YES 3 PROBABLY NO 4 DEFINITELY NO DON'T KNOW/UNDECIDED (DO NOT READ) REFUSED (DO NOT READ) (IF PUNCH 3-4 IN Q14 AND PUNCH 1-2 OR 5 IN Q44, THEN ASK:) ' 45. Now before you said (PUNCH FROM Q14) and now you say (PUNCH FROM Q44). Please tell me what have you learned that has changed your opinion of this proposal? (PROBE) What else can you tell me about that? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE) PAGE 14 Now, I have just a few questions for statistical purposes only... 46. ~ In what year were you born? (9999=DK/REFUSED) 47. And are you registered to vote as....(ROTATE) a Republican, a Democrat, or something else? 1 REPUBLICAN 2 DEMOCRAT 3 SOMETHING ELSE/INDEPENDENT/LJNDECLARED 4 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) 48. How long have you lived in the Town of Vail? 1 LESS THAN FIVE YEARS 2 FIVE TO TEN YEARS 3 ELEVEN TO FIFTEEN YEARS 4 MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS 5 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) 49. Do you own or rent your home? 1 Own 2 Rent 3 REFUSED (DO NOT READ) PAGE 15 50. Sex (BY OBSERVATION) MALE FEMALE REFUSED (DO NOT READ) RECORD PRECINCT Comparison of Selected Tax Rates The following chart shows a comparison of total mills assessed for various geographical areas in our county. Within an area, like the Town of Vail or Avon the total mills assessed may be different depending upon what districts fall within your location. Not every property owner who is assessed the Town's mill levy is assessed 43.527 mills, the property owners who are in the cascade Village Metro district are assessed 48.401 mills. I have tried to pick taxing area's in the county that include similar taxing authorities to get good comparison More or Tax Total (Less) ~, Location Area Mill than Town of Levy Vail Town of Vail 103 43.527 BC Metro 43 68.468 24.94 Single Tree 47 62.155 18.63 Gypsum 29 55.203 11.68 Eagle 13 52.678 9.15 Arrowhead 64 65.828 22.30 Edwards 60 41.893 (1.63) Avon Metro 1 59.741 16.21 1~ MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Development Review Fees Development Review Costs and Revenue Attached is the last analysis of development review fees that was completed in the Fall of 2001. The Town of Vail spends approximately $1.38 million to support the development review prc~ce5s.- ~ riai includes inoirez:~ i:csis a'i ~~~+~+,uw ~1 iCdili iy, uuiiuU iy,- vdi iiGic~) allu icrUUl GuSlS " ~-~" __._~..~~. __...___ (Com--Dev; Pb''~t; rir~)..at~$`'r;3~+3;v0u:--IYJCaI"It'VCTI~.JC fl~Vll~ tllC UC~/CIVt.J~IICrIt Ietilew fees are -- _..__._ _.. budgeted at $650,000. Potential Changes to Fees Over the last three years average planning application fees generated approximately $40,000 and Building related fees generated $780,000 for a grand total of $819,000. The major revenue for the development review process comes from building fees. The Town uses the 1991 Uniform Building Code fee schedule. All other jurisdictions in Eagle Count use the 1997 Uniform Building Code fee schedule which is 20% higher than the 1991 (Vail) fee schedule. Staff will be proposing to adopt the 1997 fee structure which should generate an additional $156,000 in an average year. The following is a cost and revenue summary of the development review process and an outline of potential changes with increases in planning fees and a proposed change to the building fee schedule. The final row describes what it would take in terms of a change in fees to have a break even development review process. Year Description Cost Revenue Difference Building and Planning Fees 2001 1991-2001 $1,388,286 $819,563 -$568,723 Planning Fee increase approved Dec 2001/assumes 2002 4% increase due to labor cost $1,352,000 $919,000 -$433,000 1997 UBC Fee Schedule approved/assumes 4% 2003 increase due to labor cost $1,406,080 $1,075,000 -$331,080 Break Even: 37% increase building and planning fees 2004 over 2003 rates $1,462,323 $1,472,750 $10,427 Potential increase in rates from 2001 to 2004 80% It should be noted that the above volume of planning and building permits is anticipated to be significantly above average in the next 2-3 years. This building activity could generate an additional $500,000 in fees over a 3 year time period. Comparison to other Jurisdictions Other jurisdictions charge more for both planning and building fees such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Park City and Eagle County. Further increases in fees could be justified in so far as the fee is commensurate with the cost of providing the service. CostlRevenue Com arison Eagle Jurisdiction Vail As en Breckenrid a Boulder Park Cit Count Po ulation 4,531 5,914 2,408 41,659 _._~.__ . ~...a. _ . Plannin _._....~ ._ ..._, . .._ .... _..... _.... . __ _ ~ __~,. _ ._.. __ _.. ~...._. . _ r . ,_ . _. _.. - --~- - Staff 6 6 6~ 13.75 8 8 Average # Planning A s 421 193 170 400 725 303 Total Planning $ $ $ $ Fees 39,153 380,000 $ 734,086 1,000,000 140,000 $128,200.0 $ $ $ $ Permits/Staff 70 32 $ 28 29 91 $ 38 Average $ $ $ $ os PP ' 4, 2.500 193 $ 423 - -- ~~ ---- - _- ---_ ___ .........__... Building Staff 4.5 7 4 11 10 12 Average # Buildin A s 1367 307 1250 5000 770 2752 Total Building $ $ $ $ Fees 780,410 1,522,343 $ 1,312,657 2,400,000 970,000 $2,535,000 Permits/Staff 304 44 313 455 77 229 Average $ $ $ $ $ Cost/App 570.89 4,958.77 $ 1,050.13 480.00 _ 1,259.74 __ - 921.15 ~ - - _ . _- __~ - ~ T { --- $ $ $ $ Total Fees 819,563 1,902,343 $ 2,046,743 3,400,000 1,110,000 $2,663,200 $ $ $ $ Total Cost 1,388,286 1,500,000 $ 1,250,000 2,000,000 1,762,500 $1,790,000 NET Revenue on Development $ $ $ $ $ Review 568,723 402,343 $ 796,743 1,400,000 652,500 873,200 Rebate for Primary Home Owners Council also asked whether a discount could be given to primary home owners doing work in Vail. This could be done with a rebate where the Town would place a building permit fee in escrow a residential project if the homeowner was a primary owner. The Town could use verification like an EHU to prove that an owner lived in the residence for 5 (??) years and then rebate a percentage of the total fee back to the homeowner. The challenge is that the home owner would still need to front the money for the building permit and this may not be perceived as a significant benefit. MEMORANDU TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Proposed Development Review Fees/Resolution No. 9, Series of 2001 PURPOSE OF MEETING: _. - ,::-_........, . _ __.__.. T; ~c purp tin f }hi hcnr n~, lY tny. Nrvvc~n~,~n r+mcnrlr~rl flcvealn-~mcn4 RD\/IC~l1/-Fcp~ ... - . C.,., G.., ~,., , ~.,...~ .,.. _. ,_..__ti .> _ _ ~. _... .. _ f o f o iic~ni R rrl. n Planni n R Fn tirnnman a r'. c i _._ _.......... -_ ~ c e u e ,or- ..s.gn :..~.~.. ,~ea... a.. ... .~ _ _ ~ _ ...,..t_..I ._emmi_s on applications. To that end, staff has prepared Resolution No. 9, Series of 2001. The resolution outlines the new fee schedule and creates a new incentive to promote "green" building practices. If approved by the Town Council, the new development review fee schedule and incentive program would take effect on January 1, 2002. II. BACKGROUND - On September 18, 2001, staff presented a draft fee schedule proposal to the Town Council. Please refer to the copy of the memorandum to the Vail Town Council dated September 18, 2001. The purpose of that worksession was to get Council's direction on whether development review fees should reflect the cost of providing those services. The outcome of that meeting was direction to prepare a proposed development review fee schedule that more closely reflects the actual labor and overhead cost of providing development review services. On October 16, 2001, staff presented a draft fee schedule proposal to the Town Council. In response to the information provided, Council provided further policy direction. Council direction that staff has received to date includes: 1. Ensure that applications for maintenance/repairs (e.g. window replacement, siding replacement, roof replacement, repaint) have a fee of $20.00 to ensure that required maintenance and repairs to existing structures are not negatively impacted by an increase in review fees. 2. Develop a definition for amaintenance/repair application. This application type would typically be staff reviewed and approved. 3. Create an overall fee structure that more accurately reflects the labor and overhead cost of providing development review service. 4. Create an incentive for "green" building practices by providing a total building permit fee rebate for new construction that receives LEEDs certification and a Final Certificate of Occupancy. 2. DEFINITION OF A MAINTENANCE/REPAIR APPLICATION VERSUS A MINOR ALTERATION The fee for Design Review Board applications for maintenance and repairs to existing structures would remain $20.00. The actual cost for processing one of these applications, including labor and overhead, is $66. Community Development receives approximately 150-200 of these types of applications per year. The majority of these types of applications are reviewed for minimum compliance with our adopted regulations and approved by staff. Staff is proposing to define "maintenance/repair" for the purpose of determining the appropriate application type as, "An application for design review involving the maintenance and repair of an existing structure, utilizing same for same materials, including, but not limited to, door and window'replacement, exterior siding replacement, a repaint, a rerbof, and ari exterior deck, balcony or sidewalk replacement." Staff is proposing to define a "minor alteration" for purposes of determining the appropriate application type as, "An application for design review involving the addition of building mass, site improvements, retaining walls, changes in exterior building materials (i.e., wood siding to stone, asphalt shingles to metal roofing, etc.), deck additions and alterations, fences, etc." The Gateway DRB appeal memo references several sections of the code related to actions that require DRB approval. It may be helpful to reference this memo with regard to what the Town code requires in reference to Design Review Board approval. 3. PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE: Staff has reviewed the fee structure for the Town of Vail's development review process. Upon completion of our review, we have found that approximately 60% of the total cost of development review are paid by application fees while the other 40% is subsidized by the Town and the taxpayer. The following is a summary of the existing fee structure: Approximate Revenue: $ 819,000 ($39K Planning & $780K Building) Development Review Cost: $1,336,000 ($100,000+ reduction in last 3 yrs) Difference: -$ 516,000 (Difference not paid by developers) The proposed fees are in the shaded column and are compared to average actual cost for an application and the current application fee. Changes since the last Council Discussion include: • A maintenance/repair DRB application would remain at $20.00. • A minor alteration•DRB application would be increased to $250.00. • A major SDD amendment that did not require any exterior modification is proposed to be $1200 versus $6000. Staff thought this was a more accurate reflection of the time and cost for this specific type of SDD amendment like we saw with the Gateway Building application. Previously, staff did not list an application fee for a zoning text amendment. This is a current application with a cost of $250. This now is included in the chart below. DRB 8~ PEC Application Fees Actual Difference Average Cost Current (Actual- Fee as approved Total (Labor + Appliation Current in Resolution #9, A plication T pe Hours Overhead Fee Fee Series of 2001 DRB Same for Same materials rPnla~emPnt and ~ Y No Fe?/NO re aints ~ ~ _____ 2 _ $ _ _66 ~_ _ _ __ _ 20 ~ _$ ` 46 _ ~ applicaton Maintenance and _ Repair/Minor Exterior Alterations on Single Family and Duplex Dwellin Units 2 $ 66 20 $ 46 $ 20 Minor Alterations, GRFA additions, exterior material change on Comercial $ and Multi Famil 8 $ 264 $ 20 244 $ 250. New Construction 20 $ 660 $ 200 460 $ 65~ Additions 10 $ 330 $ 200 130 $ 300 Si ns 2.5 $ 83 $ 25 $ 58 $ 50 $ _ $ - $ - PEC $ - Variances 15 $ 495 $ 250 245 $ 500 Conditional Use $ Permits 20 $ 660 $ 200 460 $ 650 Minor Exterior $ Alteration 20 $ 660 $ 200 460 $ 650 - $800 (1st 25 Major Exterior $ hours) and $30 for Alterations 25 $ 825 $ 500 325 eve hour after ,`;$6000 (1st 250 $ hours) & $30 for New SDD 250 $ 8,250 $ 1,500 6,750 eve hour after Major Amendments $1250 (1st 40 SDD with no exterior $ hours) & $30 for modifications 40 $ 1,320 $ 1,000 320 eve hvurafter $6000 (1st 200 Major Amendments $ hours) & $30 for SDD 200 $ 6,600 $ 1,000 5,600 eve houi-after Minor Amendments $ SDD 40 $ 1,320 $ 500 820 $ 1,000 $1500 (1st 50 $ hours) & $30 for Ma~or Subdivisions 50 $ 1,650 $ 1,000 650 .eve hour after-- ' Minor Subdivisions 20 $ 660 $ 250 410 $ 650'` Zoning Code $ Amendment 40 $ 1,320 $ 250 1,070 $-; `1,300 Rezonin s 40 $ 1,320 $ 200 1,120 $ 1,300 The curre~ ~t fce structure for building permits is based :.n the 1991 Unif;,rm °uilding - Code (UBC). The 1991 fee structure is 20% less than the 1997 UBC fee structure. Nearly all the otherjurisdictions in Eagle County have adopted the 1997 UBC fee structure. Environmental Rebate: The Town Council has expressed an interest incentivizing an environmental certification program for construction called Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEEDS). If approved, Resolution 9, would provide the opportunity fora 20% rebate of the total building permit fees for new construction projects that receive LEEDS certification and a Final Certificate of Occupancy. 4. INPUT FROM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY The Community Development Department did a mass mailing (over 1000 pieces) to individuals and companies that have gone through the development review process and registered contractors. This mailing included our service standards and the proposed fee schedule. We also emailed the letter and the proposed fee structure to the Vail Chamber for their review. PEC and DRB have also reviewed the proposed fee structure. We requested that individuals with comments or ideas fax their comments back to the Town of Vail. In addition 3 open houses occurred on the following dates: 12:00-1:00 p.m. on Friday October Stn (lunch included) 4:30-6:00 p.m. on Monday October gtn 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. on Monday October 15tH At these meetings staff solicited input on how we can improve our service to the community and the proposed fee structure. Comments as of October 10tH, 2001 were very limited. Comments received included: • Need to improve enforcement for mechanical equipment. Some owners/contractors are installing with out the necessary screening. • If increased fees will insure faster turn around time and that staffing will not be lost "go ahead and increase them". :r Since October 16th I did receive a phone message from an alarm contractor saying that we should not change our fee structure. Comments from several focus groups the Department conducted in the spring of 2001 included: • "You get a great bang for your buck in Vail" • Service is better than other jurisdictions • TOV should increase fees for planning to correspond to actual cost. That would keep us from wasting time with applications that were not serious. 4. DIRECTION REQUESTED FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL Staff. is requesting direction in the form of a motion regarding the following questions: 1) Does the Town Council want to adopt Resolution No. 9, Series of 2001 and the new fee schedule for planning applications as outlined on page 3? and ._._ 1~ _une~ the town ~:diaricuward o~credie~a'rei~ae=icr LtCUS`ceriiiicaiiu~l, ~ '-'.. ...v_ .. _-_.,.,..._, .,. ,_:. Within the next year staff will be coming to the Council with the new International Building Code which is intended to provide one building code for the entire Country. It is more performance based and allows applicants additional flexibility in achieving performance standards. Staff anticipates this being ready for Council review by the 1St quarter of 2002. When this occurs, staff will also be proposing a modified fee structure for building permits. Attachments • Resolution #9, Series of 2001 • Memo from September 18th, 2001 F:\cdev\COUNCILWIEMOS\01 \DRTFees.110601.doc 5 Attachmen t A: Current Fee Structure Application Type Average Number/year Cost/Application Total Fee DRB Minor Alteration 343 20 $ 6,860 New Construction 15 400 $ 6,000 Additions 14 50 $ 700 Signs 42 25 $ 1,063 Buildin fees based on valuation 372 $ 10,430 TOTAL DRB 414 $ 25,053 PEC $ - Variances 14 250 $ 3,500 Conditional Uses 17 200 $ 3,400 ~CXi2fl6f Hlt2fallOflS ~~~ ~ L Lt7U ~ 4GU _.~__...__.fViaor~i-nendmentsSDu - - ~.. __. ,..1 . ,__._... 1000 $' ~ 1;000- MinorAmendments SDD 3 500 $ 1,500 Ma~or Subdivisions 2 1000 $ 2,000 Minor Subdivisions 6 250 $ 1,500 Rezonings 4 200 $ 800 TOTAL PEC 49 $ 14,100 Total Planning $ 39,153 Building Fees A-Building 145 $ 111,853 A-Commercial 106 $ 104,318 Demolition 37 $ 9,522 A-MF 156 $ 115,525 B-build 32 $ 158,998 B-elec 374 $ 51,142 B-Mec 268 $ 78,380 b-Plumb 216 $ 47,621 Combuild 5 $ 35,756 F-sprin 21 $ 12,441 MF Build 7 $ 54,854 Buildin Total 1367 $ 780,410 GRAND Total $ 1,830 $ 819,563 Comparison of Selected Tax Rates The following chart shows a comparison of total mills assessed for various geographical areas in our county. Within an area, like the Town of Vail or Avon the total mills assessed may be different depending upon what districts fall within your location. Not every property owner who is assessed the Town's mill levy is assessed 43.527 mills, the property owners who are in the cascade Village Metro district are assessed 48.401 mills. I have tried to pick taxing area's in the county that include similar taxing authorities to get good comparison More or Location Tax Area Total Mill Levy (Less) than Town of Vail Town of Vail 103 43.527 BC Metro 43 68.468 24.94 Single Tree 47 62.155 18.63 Gypsum 29 55.203 11.68 Eagle 13 52.678 9.15 Arrowhead 64 65.828 22.30 Edwards 60 41.893 (1.63) Avon Metro 1 59.741 16.21 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Development Review Fees Development Review Costs and Revenue Attached is the last analysis of development review fees that was completed in the Fall of 2001. The Town of Vail spends approximately $1.38 million to support the development review process. That includes indirect casts at $344,000 (heating, building, vehicles) and labor costs ~ - (Com Dev, PW, Fire) at $1,043,000. Total revenue from the development review fees are budgeted at $650,000. Potential Changes to Fees Over the last three years average planning application fees generated approximately $40,000 and Building related fees generated $780,000 for a grand total of $819,000. The major revenue for the development review process comes from building fees. The Town uses the 1991 Uniform Building Code fee schedule. All other jurisdictions in Eagle Count use the 1997 Uniform Building Code fee schedule which is 20% higher than the 1991 (Vail) fee schedule. Staff will be proposing to adopt the 1997 fee structure which should generate an additional $156,000 in an average year. The following is a cost and revenue summary of the development review process and an outline of potential changes with increases in planning fees and a proposed change to the building fee schedule. The final row describes what it would take in terms of a change in fees to have a break even development review process. Year Descri tion Cost Revenue Difference Building and Planning Fees 2001_ 1991-2001 $1,388,286 $819,563 -$568,723 Planning Fee increase approved Dec 2001/assumes 2002 4% increase due to labor cost $1,352,000 $919,000 -$433,000 1997 UBC Fee Schedule approved/assumes'4% 2003 increase due to labor cost $1,406,080 $1,075,000 -$331,080 Break Even: 37% increase building and planning fees 2004 over 2003 rates $1,462,323 $1,472,750 $10,427 Potential increase in rates from 2001 to 2004 80% It should be noted that the above volume of planning and building permits is anticipated to be significantly above average in the next 2-3 years. This building activity could generate an additional $500,000 in fees over a 3 year time. period. Comparison to other Jurisdictions Other jurisdictions charge more for both planning and building fees such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Park City and Eagle County. Further increases in fees could be justified in so far as the fee is commensurate with the cost of providing the service. Cost/Revenue Com arison Eagle Jurisdiction Vail As en Breckenrid a Boulder Park Cit Count Po ulation 4,531 5,914 2,408 41,659. `~~~ Planning Staff 6 6 6 13.75 8 8 Average # Planning A s 421 193 170 400 725 303 Total Planning $ $ $ $ Fees 39,153 380,000 $ 734,086 1,000,000 140,000 $128,200.0- $ $ $ $ Permits/Staff 70 32 $ 28 29 91 $ 38 Average $ $ $ $ Cost/A~ 93 _ __ _ ___ - __1,969____ _ $ 4.318 _ _..2,500_____ 193 - - --- $ 423 -- _ _ -- ~ ~ ~ Building Staff 4.5 7 4 11 10 12 Average # Buildin A s 1367 307 1250 5000 770 2752 Total Building $ $ $ $ Fees 780,410 1,522,343 $ 1,312,657 2,400,000 970,000 $2,535,000 Permits/Staff 304 44 313 455 77 229 Average $ $ $ $ $ Cost/App _ _ 570.89 _4.958_77 _$ .050.13 1 480.00 1,259.74 921.15 __ _ _ _ - -- - - - $ ^_ $_ $ $ Total Fees 819,563 1,902,343 $ 2,046,743 3,400,000 1,110,000 $2,663,200 $ $ $ $ Total Cost 1,388,286 1,500,000 $ 1,250,000 2,000,000 1,762,500 $1,790,000 NET Revenue on Development $ $ $ $ $ Review 568,723 402,343 $ 796,743 1,400,000 652,500 873,200 Rebate for Primary Home Owners Council also asked whether a discount could be given to primary home owners doing work in Vail. This could be done with a rebate where the Town would place a building permit fee in escrow a residential project if the homeowner was a primary owner. The Town could use verification like an EHU to prove that an owner lived in the residence for 5 (??) years and then rebate a percentage of the total fee back to the homeowner. The challenge is that the home owner would still need to front the money for the building permit and this may not be perceived as a significant benefit. MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Proposed Development Review Fees/Resolution No. 9, Series of 2001 I. PURPOSE OF MEETING: - -~ The purpose of-this hearing is-to presen± a^ e^~ende~! Development Review. Fee _ ..,- - Schedule for Design Review-Board. and-Planning & Erniironmenta! Commission applications. To that end, staff has prepared Resolution No. 9, Series of 2001. The resolution outlines the new fee schedule and creates a new incentive to promote "green" building practices. If approved by the Town Council, the new development review fee schedule and incentive program would take effect on January 1, 2002. II. BACKGROUND On September 18, 2001, staff presented a draft fee schedule proposal to the Town Council. Please refer to the copy of the memorandum to the Vail Town Council dated September 18, 2001. The purpose of that worksession was to get Council's direction on whether development review fees should reflect the cost of providing those services. The outcome of that meeting was direction to prepare a proposed development review fee schedule that more closely reflects the actual labor and overhead cost of providing development review services. On October 16, 2001, staff presented a draft fee schedule proposal to the Town Council. In response to the information provided, Council provided further policy direction. Council direction that staff has received to date includes: 1. Ensure that applications for maintenance/repairs (e.g. window replacement, siding replacement, roof replacement, repaint) have a fee of $20.00 to ensure that required maintenance and repairs to existing structures are not negatively impacted by an increase in review fees. 2. Develop a definition for amaintenance/repair application. This application type would typically be staff reviewed and approved. 3. Create an overall fee structure that more accurately reflects the labor and overhead cost of providing development review service. 4. Create an incentive for "green" building practices by providing a total building permit fee rebate for new construction that receives LEEDs certification and a Final Certificate of Occupancy. 2. DEFINITION OF A MAINTENANCE/REPAIR APPLICATION VERSUS A MINOR ALTERATION The fee for Design Review Board applications for maintenance and repairs to existing structures would remain $20.00. The actual cost for processing one of these applications, including labor and overhead, is $66. Community Development receives approximately 150-200 of these types of applications per year. The majority of these types of applications are reviewed for minimum compliance with our adopted regulations and approved by staff. Staff is proposing to define "maintenance/repair" for the purpose of determining the appropriate application type as, "An application for design review involving the maintenance and repair of an existing structure, utilizing same for same materials, including, but not limited to, door and window replacement, exterior siding replacement, a repaint, a reroof, ' and an exterior deck, balcony or sidewalk replacement." Staff is proposing to define a "minor alteration" for purposes of determining the appropriate application type as, "An application for design review involving the addition of building mass, site improvements, retaining walls, changes in exterior building materials (i.e., wood siding to stone, asphalt shingles to metal roofing, etc.), deck additions and alterations, fences, etc." The Gateway DRB appeal memo references several sections of the code related to actions that require DRB approval. It may be helpful to reference this memo with regard to what the Town code requires in reference to Design Review Board approval. 3. PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE: Staff has reviewed the fee structure for the Town of Vail's development review process. Upon completion of our review, we have found that approximately 60% of the total cost of development review are paid by application fees while the other 40% is subsidized by the Town and the taxpayer. The following is a summary of the existing fee structure: Approximate Revenue: $ 819,000 ($39K Planning & $780K Building) Development Review Cost: $1,336.000 ($100,000 + reduction in last 3 yrs) Difference: -$ 516,000 (Difference not paid by developers) The proposed fees are in the shaded column and are compared to average actual cost for an application and the current application fee. Changes since the last Council Discussion include: • A maintenance/repair DRB application would remain at $20.00. • A minor alteration DRB application would be increased to $250.00. • A major SDD amendment that did not require any exterior modification is proposed to be $1200 versus $6000. Staff thought this was a more accurate reflection of the time and cost for this specific type of SDD amendment like we saw with the Gateway Building application. Previously, staff did not list an application fee for a zoning text amendment. This is a current application with a cost of $250. This now is included in the chart below. DRB 8~ PEC Application Fees Actual Difference Average Cost Current (Actual- Fee as approved Total (Labor + Appliation Current in Resolution #9, A lication T e Hours Overhead Fee Fee Series of 2001 DRB Same for Same materials replar_.ement and No Fee/No re aints 2 $ 66 ~____ 20 ~ _$ 46 applicaton Maintenance and - Repair/Minor Exterior Alterations on Single Family and Duplex Dwellin Units 2 $ 66 20 $ 46 $ 20 Minor Alterations, GRFA additions, exterior material change on Comercial $ and Multi Famil 8 $ 264 $ 20 244 $ 250 New Construction 20 $ 660 $ 200 460 $ 650 Additions 10 $ 330 $ 200 130 $ 300 Si ns 2.5 $ 83 $ 25 $ 58 $ 50 $ - $ - $ - PEC $ - Variances 15 $ 495 $ 250 245 $ 500. Conditional Use $ Permits 20 $ 660 $ 200 460 ~ $ 650 Minor Exterior $ Alteration 20 $ 660 $ 200 460 $ 650 $8{~0 (1st 25 Major Exterior $ hours) and $30 for Alterations 25 $ 825 $ 500 325 eve hour after $6000 (1st 250 $ hours)`&" $30 for New SDD 250 $ 8,250 $ 1,500 6,750 eve ' flour after Major Amendments $1250 (1st 40 SDD with no exterior $ hours) & $30 for modifications 40 $ 1,320 $ 1,000 320 eve hour°after $6000 (1st 200 Major Amendments $ 'hours) & $30 for SDD 200 $ 6,600 $ 1,000 5,600 .eve hour after Minor Amendments $ SDD 40 $ 1,320 $ 500 820 $ 1,000 $1500 (1st 50 $ hours) & $30 for Ma~or Subdivisions 50 $ 1,650 $ 1,000 650 eve hour after Minor Subdivisions 20 $ 660 $ 250 410 $ 650 Zoning Code $ Amendment 40 $ 1,320 $ 250 1,070 $ 1,300 Rezonin s 40 $ 1,320 $ 200 1,120 $ 1,3iJa The current fee structure for building permits is based on the 1991 Uniform Buildiny^ Code (UBC). The 1991 fee structure is 20% less than the 1997 UBC fee structure. Nearly all the other jurisdictions in Eagle County have adopted the 1997 UBC fee structure. Environmental Rebate: The Town Council has expressed an interest incentivizing an environmental certification program for construction called Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEEDS). If approved, Resolution 9, would provide the opportunity fora 20% rebate of the total building permit fees for new construction projects that receive LEEDS certification and a Final Certificate of Occupancy. 4. INPUT FROM DESfGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY The Community Development Department did a mass mailing (over 1000 pieces) to individuals and companies that have gone through the development review process and registered contractors. This mailing included our service standards and the proposed fee schedule. We also emailed the letter and the proposed fee structure to the Vail Chamber for their review. PEC and DRB have also reviewed the proposed fee structure. We requested that individuals with comments or ideas fax their comments back to the Town of Vail. In addition 3 open houses occurred on the following dates: 12:00-1:00 p.m. on Friday October Stn (lunch included) 4:30-6:00 p.m. on Monday October Stn 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. on Monday October 15tH At these meetings staff solicited input on how we can improve our service to the community and the proposed fee structure. Comments as of October 10tH, 2001 were very limited. Comments received included: • Need to improve enforcement for mechanical equipment. Some owners/contractors are installing with out the necessary screening. • If increased fees will insure faster turn around time and that staffing will not be lost "go ahead and increase them". 4 Since October 16tt' I did receive a phone message from an alarm contractor saying that we should not change our fee structure. Comments from several .focus groups the Department conducted in the spring of 2001 included: • "You get a great bang for your buck in Vail" • Service is better than other jurisdictions • TOV should increase fees for planning to correspond to actual cost. That would keep us from wasting time with applications that were not serious. 4. DIRECTION REQUESTED FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL Staff. is requesting direction in the form of a motion regarding the following questions: 1) Does the Town Council want to adopt Resolution No. 9, Series of 2001 and the new fee schedule for planning applications as outlined on page 3? and ".-"""T"--'. " . ~ -2)`-uo~s trig"Tow15~Counc'iirvii~nt't~i'creat~°a-ret~ate #or LCCi~S~ceiiiiii.a[iv~rl %~ - - ~ - Within the next year staff will be coming to the Council with the new International Building Code which is intended to provide one building code for the entire Country. It is more performance based and allows applicants additional flexibility in achieving performance. standards. Staff anticipates this being ready for Council review by the 1St quarter of 2002. When this occurs, staff will also be proposing a modified fee structure for building permits. Attachments • Resolution #9, Series of 2001 • Memo from September 18tt', 2001 F:lcdev\COU NCI L\ME MOS\01 \DRTFees.110601.doc 5 Attachmen t A: Current Fee Structure Application Type Average Number/year Cost/Application Total Fee DRB Minor Alteration 343 20 $ 6,860 New Construction 15 400 $ 6,000 Additions 14 50 $ 700 Signs 42 25 $ 1,063 Buildin fees based on valuation 372 $ 10,430 TOTAL DRB 414 $ 25,053 PEC $. - Variances 14 250 $ 3,500 Conditional Uses 17 200 $ 3,400 ~, . ,__ ~.-..~. -_-•-- -~Lxterior~Hiteratons .- __ - z 200 4G0• -- ~~~-- - Nia orAmendmenfs-SDD 1 1000 $ 1,000 MinorAmendments SDD 3 500 $ 1,500 Ma~or Subdivisions 2 1000 $ 2,000 Minor Subdivisions 6 250 $ 1,500 . Rezonin s 4 200 $ 800 TOTAL PEC 49 $ 14,100 Total Planning $ 39,153 Building Fees A-Building 145 $ 111,853 A-Commercial 106 $ 104,318 Demolition 37 $ 9,522 A-MF 156 $ 115,525 B-build 32 ~ $ 158,998 B-elec 374 $ 51,142 B-Mec 268 $ 78,380 b-Plumb 216 $ 47,621 Combuild 5 $ 35,756 F-sprin 21 $ 12,441 MF Build 7 $ 54,854 Building Total 1367 $ 780,410 GRAND Total $ 1,830 $ 819,563 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Ordinance 14: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 to continue to allow the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 sc Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Russell Forrest DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Attached are Ordinance 14, Series of 2002, and a staff memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 10, 2002. If approved, Ordinance 14 would allow the continued use of the Vail Village Inn for Employee Housing (versus accommodation units) until May 2003 at which time the approval for both the EHUs and the most recently approved redevelopment plan (if a building permit is not pursued)for the hotel would expire. Building numbers 4 and 5 have been used over the last year for Type III employee housing units. A total of 56 EHUs have been used on the site in both buildings 4 and 5. The Fire Department has ordered that building 5 (over Craig's market) no longer be used for any type of occupancy due to significant life safety issues. With that order only 26 employee housing units would be available to the owner unless significant repairs are made to building 5. RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC) The PEC unanimously voted to approve a conditional use permit on June 10, 2002 with the following conditions: 1. That the conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units shall expire on May 1, 2003. 2. That the applicant enters into a written agreement with the Town of Vail in a form approved by the Town Attorney stating that these units shall be used for employee housing until such date that the conditional use permit expires. 3. That only EHUs approved by the Vail Fire Department shall be used for occupancy. The PEC unanimously voted to recommend to the Town Council that they approve an amendment to SDD # 6 with the following conditions. 1. That only EHUs approved by the Vail Fire Department shall be used for occupancy. 2. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 shall not supercede any previous approvals for this special development district. Since the PEC hearing on June 6th, Club Chelsea has submitted a building application to move into the bar area of the Vail Village Inn. This is allowed by zoning. However, it does utilize the available parking on the site. With that use staff would recommend that no more than 40 EHUs be converted and that the Vail Fire Department approve of each unit that is available for occupancy to ensure that units can safely be occupied as defined in applicable Fire and Building codes. CRITO=RiA AND FINDINGS FOrt ®ECISIO~i MA441N^v - - - °-- The Town Council will need to reference the criteria stated on page 8 of the PEC memo and the findings on page 7. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 14, Series of 2002 2. Memo to Planning and Environmental Commission F:\cdev\COUNCIL\MEMOS\02\WI type 3 ehus0702.doc ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF 2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE APPROVED USES OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6, VAIL VILLAGE INN, PHASE IV, TO ALLOW FOR THE CONVERSION OF ACCOMMODATION UNITS INTO TYPE III EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, In 1976, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn; and WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations permits major amendments to approved uses of Special Development Districts to eliminate accommodation units and to change uses; and WHEREAS, in 2001, the Town Council approved of Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2001 to allow a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 to convert accommodation units into Type III Employee Housing Units; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to amend the approved uses for Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into Type III Employee Housing Units; and WHEREAS, this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 shall not supersede any previous approvals for Special Development District No. 6; and WHEREAS, the revised major amendment to the Special Development District is in the best interest of the town as it meets the Town's development objectives as identified in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning Regulations, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment application on June 10, 2002; and Revised November 19, 2001 WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed criteria for a major amendment and has submitted its recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, due to extraordinary circumstances, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend the approved uses for Special Development District No. 6, Vail. Village:lnn; and WHEREAS, the approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, and the development standards in regard thereto shall not establish precedence or entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village .Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2002, is to amend the approved uses for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV. The approved development plans and 0.cviwd November 19. 2W I 2 uses for Phases I, II, III, & V remain approved and unchanged for the development of Special Development District No. 6 within the Town of Vail, unless they have otherwise expired. Only the uses for Phase IV are hereby amended and adopted. This ordinance shall not supercede any previous approvals for the redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn and the owner may act on these previous approvals as approved in Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001, at any time, until such approval expires. The purpose of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2002, is to eliminate 74 accommodation units and to add up to 40 Type III Employee Housing Units until May 1, 2003. Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report The approval procedures described in Section 12-9A of the Vail. Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of the Planning ~ Environmental Commission of approval for a major amendment to the approved uses for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. Requests for amendments to Special Development District No. 6 shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 12-9A of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 3. Special Development District No. 6 The Special Development District and the Major Amendment to the approved uses are established to assure comprehensive development and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 6 is regarded as being complementary to the Town of Vail by the Vail Town Council and the Planning & Environmental Commission, and has been established since there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that cannot be Rcriscd November I Y. 2f1U I 3 satisfied through the imposition.of the standard Public Accommodation zone district requirements. Section 4. Change in Use -Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV The seventy-four (74) accommodation units located in the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, shall be eliminated. No more than forty (40) Type 111 employee Housing Units shall be allowed. The Type III Employee Housing Units shall be allowed through a conditional use permit which shall expire on May 1, 2003, and after such date the use shall revert to the approved uses of Special Development District No. 6. The Vail Fire Department must determine that individual employee , ~ housing units in Special Development District No. 6 comply with applicable adopted Fire and Building Codes before occupation of an employee housing unit is granted. Section 5. Date of Expiration The conditional use permit and this major amendment shall expire on May 1, 2003, and the approved uses shall revert to those approved in Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV. Section 6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid Rwised November 19, 2001 4 Section 7. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 8. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day of July, 2002, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 6th day of August, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Reriscd Nmsmbcr 19, 2001 5 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 6th day of August, 2002. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk F:\cdev\ORD\02\Ordinance 14 - WI type III EHU's.doc Rcriscd Novembcr 19, 2W I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and. Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 to continue to allow the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units to be located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation ~ ~` ~ `~ " ~~ Planner: Russell Forrest I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Daymer Corporation, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units, and a conditional use permit to allow Type III employee housing units at the Vail Village Inn. This is a temporary request to allow the applicant to utilize the property for employee housing until construction can begin on the redevelopment of the property which was approved in 2000. The approval for development plans approved in 2000 becomes null and void on May 1, 2003. The property is zoned Special Development District No. 6, with an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. According to Chapter 12-9A, a major amendment to a special development district is r defined as: MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND/OR COUNCIL REVIEVI~: Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12-15-4, "Interior Conversions'; or 12-15-5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)" of this Title. The elimination of accommodation units is considered a major amendment by this definition. In addition, Type III employee housing units are a conditional use in the Public Accommodation zone district. The applicant has requested a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 and a conditional use permit for Type III employee housing units. The applicant is proposing no exterior modifications. Project History The following is a summary of the existing phases and development with the Vail Village Inn Special Development District: 1 Phase I -This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the District. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in size and nine commercial/retail spaces. Phase II -This phase consists of three residential dwelling units totaling approximately 3,492 square feet in size and three commercial/retail spaces. Phase II is generally located in the center of the District. Phase III -This Phase consists of twenty-nine residential dwelling units totaling approximately 44,830 square feet in size and six commercial/retail spaces. Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the District. Phase IV -This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of one residential dwelling unit .approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy-two accommodation units comprising approximately 16,585 square "feet` o~t r'oor area. r/nase -iv is generally located iri t'r~e northwest corner ofi ii~ie Gistrict. Phase V -This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet of floor area and four commercial/retail spaces. Phase V is located in the southwest corner of the District at the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. When originally considering deviations from the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council found that such deviations were acceptable, as the community was to realize a substantial increase in the hotel bed base. An increase in short-term accommodations has been along-standing objective of our resort community. In 2000, a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 was approved to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn. The executive summary of this approval is attached for reference. On September 4th, 2001 a revised development plan was approved for SDD No. 6 (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001) which clearly stated that the approval for that development plan becomes null and void on May 1, 2003 if construction does not commence before that date. On December 4th, 2001 an amendment to SDD No. 6 was approved that allowed for the conversion of 56 accomadation units into Type III Employee Housing Units. In addition, a conditional use permit was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the Type III Employee Housing units on November 12, 2001. That conditional use permit to allow for the 56 EHUs and the amendment to SDD 6, i.e Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2001, expired on June 1, 2002. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. Major Amendment to a Special Development District Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of use/development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. 2 Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the following: • Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Recommendation on development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, id?ntity; rh?ractPr, vs_ui31 iri't.Pgrity and orientati~ri. ~ ~~ B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A .circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. 3 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. Staff 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: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of an SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: • .rermitted~'a~ccessory, and conditional uses ...° ~ ~ - . -_.- ~- °'-. • Approval of development standards including, lot area, site diniensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 4 I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. . B. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect 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 reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect 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 surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district • Lot area • Setbacks • Building Height • Density • GRFA • Site coverage • Landscape area • Parking and loading • Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 5 • Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings • Fitting buildings into landscape • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography • Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision for snow storage on-site • 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 structures • Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances .. - _ . _ _ . .. I~nr2tion.and..~iesign of satPlLitP_a'flsheS.-.:...._.: -, .: ~• Provision of outdoor lighting • 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. Staff 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. Since no interior or exterior physical changes are proposed as the result of this application, specific development plans, traffic analysis, and an EIR were not required by the Administrator. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A site visit was conducted on the property on May 8th, 2002 with the property manager, Community Development, and the Fire Department. At that time significant life safety issues were found with building # 5 which can not be corrected without significant reconstruction of the building. Specifically, a large cavity in between the units in the building that has numerous fire wall penetrations into units was found. As the result of that site visit, the Fire Department is ordering that this building # 5 be vacated (See attachment B). However, building # 4 was found to only have minor maintenance issues which could easily be remedied to continue to allow occupancy. The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval of the applicant's request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding a major amendment to Special Development District #6, to allow for the elimination of accommodation units and the addition of Type III employee housing units, subject to the following finding: 6 That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village lnn, complies -with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That only building # 4 (26 units) be used for conversion to .: ;._, .... _.. _ .._. employee housing units. ~ ' ' 2. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 shall not supercede any previous approvals for this special development district. 3. That the Fire Marshal completes an inspection of building 4 prior. to second reading of an ordinance amending SDD # 6 to ensure compliance with all applicable fire codes and safety provisions. Specifically annual maintenance is required with the fire suppression and alarm system. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 E. Meadow Dr. /Lots M, N, and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing, based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with 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 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval: 7 1. That the conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units shall expire on May 1, 2003. 2. That the applicant enters into a written agreement with the Town of Vail in a form approved by the Town Attorney stating that these units shall be used for employee housing until such date that the conditional use permit expires. 3. That only the 26 units in building # 4 be used for employee housing. IV. ZONING /DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot size - .. - ~ Deveiopr~~e~t ' Standard Lot Area: GRFA: Dwelling units per acre: Employee Units Site coverage: Setbacks: front: sides: rear: Parking: 3.45 acres or 150,282 sq. ft. (All Phases) i~'ii)iii; ~'iii:ViilliiYlivllillilill"' _ ---200a ~GD iridj~r-~ . :. ~ .- ' - 2G0 i .'~~i~C iriajG~-, _._.,.. ~ ,, Zoning - Amendment Approval Maior Fmerid. 10,000 sq.ft min. 150,282 sq. ft. no change no change 12.75 du/acre 56/26 are habitable no change no change no change no change no change up to 150% or 225,423 sq. ft. 121 % or 181,719 sq. ft. 25 du/acre (AU/FFU/EHU unlimited) 13.0 du/acre unlimited 65% or 97,683 sq. ft. 20' 20' 20' per T.O.V. Code Section 2 61 % or 92,036 sq. ft. 16' 5', 2', & 0' 5' 291 parking spaces Commercial sq. footage: 10% of allowable GRFA 25% of GRFA or 45,228 sq. ft. no change or 22,542 sq. ft. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO SDD NO. 6 Title12, Chapter 9 of the Town Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in .the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, 8 shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The elimination of the existing accommodation units at the Vail Village Inn is considered a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6. As such, it is subject to the following review criteria: , A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, ~ ~_ scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity,. character, visual integrity and orieritation. There are no exterior changes proposed with this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed use is to convert existing substandard accommodation units into Type III employee housing units. The underlying zoning of the property is Public Accommodation. Type III employee housing units are a conditional use in this zone district. The applicant is proposing to eliminate 76 accommodation units. 54 of these units will be converted to Type III employee housing units.. However, The use has been discussed in Section VI of this memorandum. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. Based on a site analysis, there are currently 82 parking spaces for this phase of the building. Chapter 12-10 of the Town Code requires 75.6 parking spaces for the employee housing units. In addition, Craig's Market requires 3.7 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required is 80 spaces.. As proposed, the project meets the parking requirement. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Conformance with the Vail Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan has been discussed in Section VI of this memorandum. Because there are no exterior modifications proposed with this application, the Urban Design Plan is not applicable. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 9 According to the Town of Vail's Official Hazard Maps, there are no natural or geologic hazards present on the subject property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The existing approved site plan for the special development district would not be altered with this request. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. There is no change proposed to the existing approved circulation system for Special Development District No. 6. - -H. - FuncYionai and aesthetic IaiyJscaping and open space in order to optimize ~ ~~- -- - and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There is no change proposed to the existing landscape/open space plan for Special Development District No. 6. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the ~ development of the special development district. This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. VI. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property as part of the Vail Village Master Plan. However, the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and objectives which staff believes to be applicable to this proposal. Staff believes this proposal would impact the following goals and policies identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the .visitor and the permanent resident. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Staff Response Staff believes the proposed amendment would facilitate the location of employee housing units within the Town of Vail (a high Council priority) at an existing infill 10 location. Staff believes affordable employee housing is essential for the provision of services that both residents and visitors expect. However, staff does not believe that this is an acceptable long-term use for this property. Staff believes that until the following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan outweigh the goals for the provision of employee housing at this location: 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. ' 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. _ ,__ 3 4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial. . areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. Staff Response Although the conversion of any accommodation unit within Vail's core areas should be highly discouraged, staff believes the subject property may be an appropriate location for employee housing for a temporary and defined time period. The applicant has an approval in place to redevelop the property. However, construction has been temporarily postponed due to a lawsuit which has. subsequently been resolved allowing the developer to move forward with the approved plans. The conversion of these accommodation units to Type III employee housing units will allow the property owner to use the property, to the benefit of the owner and the Town, until construction can commence. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in .new areas where high hazards do not exist. 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 market place 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 Response Staff believes this proposal furthers the above-listed goals by providing additional opportunities for locals/employee housing within the town limits at an existing infill location. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 11 Staff Response Staff believes the provision of employee housing is vital if Vail is to provide services consistent with the demand created by residents and visitors. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan designates this property as "Medium/High Density Residential" and Mixed Use." According to the Vail Village Master Plan: Medium/High Density Residential: The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category.. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small _..., artiouriis ui dccess~ry rCia~~ . :- - _ .-. :_ -- Mixed Use: This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail, and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270, 000 sq. ft. of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of These areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the following goals and objectives which staff believes are applicable to this proposal: Goal: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities as part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. Staff Response Because this request is temporary in nature, staff believes that this proposal is not contrary to the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. These accommodation units are currently substandard units and the staff believes that the use of these as employee housing is acceptable. The approved redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn is consistent with the above goals and objectives. Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 12 Policy: Employee housing units maybe required as part of any new of redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. Staff Response Staff believes that the utilization of the existing accommodation units as Type III employee housing units, even as a temporary use, will further the above-listed ob ective to,encoura a the.develo ment of affordable housin units. _ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~~" . _ .. __. .p :: _: - - -9:. .. .. 2. 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. As this request is temporary in nature, staff does not believe that there will be a permanent effect on the above-listed items. However, the change in use from accommodation units to employee housing units will significantly change the character of the property. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Traffic Flow -According to ITE calculations, we should anticipate a 388% decrease in traffic generation based on the proposed uses based on the 2001 approval for employee housing units. With only 26 employee housing units instead of 56 units this impact will be even less. Additionally, staff anticipates a high percentage of pedestrian trips as opposed to vehicular trips. Staff believes this proposal would have a positive impact on traffic flow in the area. Parking -Based on a site analysis, there are currently 82 parking spaces for this phase of the building. Chapter 12-10 of the Town Code requires 75.6 parking spaces for the employee housing units. In addition, Craig's Market requires 3.7 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required is 80 spaces. As proposed, the project meets the parking requirement. 4. Effect 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 surrounding uses. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the bulk, mass or location of the existing building. The adjacent uses include the existing Vail Village Inn Plaza, including commercial, lodging, and residential uses; 9 Vail Road, multiple-family residential dwellings; and the Vail Gateway, commercial and residential uses. Staff believes that given the mixed-use and residential character of the neighborhood, the proposed use of employee housing is acceptable. However, staff believes that this use should be limited to one year. 13 B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with 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 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ... ,,.. _ ~. i i'ia- tf-e 'propos~u usz~. 1iJuu~u°-l;o~il~:J~y Jvli ~ Zd~~l of t'iC apNilcauie .. - - -~ - - -provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. - 14 Attachment 1 Map of Buildings x,;-- Sy ' ~'~ ~~ ~~ z ~: .~` ~ v.1;', ~ 7 ~,~ ,. ~ __ ,, .( ~4< <~1.~ 4~ I ! -..~. _ bra ~y~ H i ~ ~' ~ f ~ `'r ~ 4 .: f. ~ ,[ ~ _ Building -s ~~ ,- ~ ~ r;f ~ ~-~ r, . , ~, ,; _.. ~ ~e~ I _ 6UIIi11fl~~,~ fv~~ ~ ~ ~~, r ~ ,` ,.~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ k~ ~~ l~ t~ ~~ ~,~ ~- ' ~ ~ .-, ~. P ~ p 0.03 0 0.03 0.06 Miles `a N W E S 15 Vail Village Inn MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT: A request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead including Tracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 15' Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1) and a request to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 15t Filing and 360 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 (LMU-1 ). Applicant: -Lodge at Lionshead represented by Jeff Bailey Planner: Russell Forrest DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Attached is Ordinance 15, Series of 2002 and a staff memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 10, 2002. If approved, Ordinance 15 would rezone the Lodge at Lionshead to Lionshead Mixed Use 1. This area is in the Lionshead Mater Plan area. Based on a request from the property owners both the Lodge at Lionshead and Vail International were excluded from a multiple property rezoning that occurred in 1999. All other private properties in the Plan area were rezoned to LMU 1 or LMU 2. This was the first step in implementing the Lionshead Master Plan. The property owners of the Lodge at Lionshead are now requesting to be rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 Zoning. The applicant is not proposing any physical changes at this time. RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC) On June 10, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously recommended to the Town Council that they approve of this rezoning request. They further recommended that Lionshead View ' Corridor numher 3 be.further..developed to provide guidance.to. any redevelopment of the Lodge at .. _ Lionshead., It_.should.be.noted that. the.Lionshead,Master Plan specifically states_,that this view corridor be a "critical design parameters", but not be a benchmarked and surveyed corridor. Staff is recommending approval of this application and believes that since this is not a surveyed view corridor that it would be a consideration in any future redevelopment of the project. Therefore, it may not be appropriate given the language in the Lionshead Master Plan and that there are no defined plans for the Charter Bus lot to define this view corridor at this time. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR DECISION MAKING Staff would like to remind the Town Council that new criteria and findings were approved in 2002 for rezonings and text amendments. These criteria and findings should be referenced as outlined on page 6 of the PEC memo in any motion on this proposed ordinance. Attachments: 1. Language on View Corridor number three. 2. Ordinance 15, Series of 2002 3. Memo to Planning and Environmental Commission CHAPTER 4 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS -OVERALL STUDY AREA The mountain view from this point is currently very broad. crossing much of the Vail Associates core site. As part of the redevelopment of the Vail Associates core site this view corridor should become narrower and more focused on the new gondola terminal. Given the current lack of a defining architectural edge, the dimensions of this corridor should roughly correspond to the suggested view boundaries outlined in figure 4-2. 4.4.2 Public View Corridors Where Redevelopment of the Viewpoint or the Foreground is Likely It is proposed that the following three .views be established as critical design parameters, but not as benchmarked and surveyed corridors. The extent to which an applicant for redevelopment creates or maintains these views will be a consideration for approval or disapproval by the reviewing board. Prior to approval of a redevelopment application by the Town Council the new view corridor should be surveyed and formally adopted in accordance with existing Town code. 4.4.2.1 View Corridor Three This view is from the east end of the Lionshead parking structure looking south across the Lodge at Lionshead buildings toward the ski mountain (see figure 4-3). This site has been identified for future development as a civic facility; when that happens. this view may become. more important. 4.4.2.2 View Corridor Four This view, seen from the southeast corner of the north day lot, looks south over the Vail Associates core site toward the ski slopes (see figure 4--1). In designating this view, the intent is to ensure that future ~PyPlc,nmPnt ~n the Vail Associates core site retains an upper-level, _ .1__,...._ visual connection to the mountain and the gondola lift line. Protection . of this view corridor ensures that visitors will be able to see the Gore Creek corridor and the mountain when they arrive at the new transit center, much as one sees Pepi's Face from the bottom of Bridge Street. 4.4.2.3 View Corridor Five The intent of this view (see figure 4-5) is to provide both a visual and physical pedestrian connection through the Vail Associates core site to the ski yard. As seen from the main Lionshead plaza, this view will be framed by the architecture of the retail environment, not a panorama of the ski mountain. LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN PAGE 4-7 ORDINANCE NO 15. Series of 2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 5, ZONING MAP; REZONING TRACTS 18~ J, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIONSHEAD 1ST FILING FROM AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE (AOS) TO LIONSHEAD MIXED USE -1 (LMU-1) AND REZONING LOT 7, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIONSHEAD 1ST FILING AND LOT 6, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIONSHEAD 2ND FILING FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY (HDMF) AND MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY (MDMF) TO LIONSHEAD MIXED USE -1 (LMU-1 ). WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to implement the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, adopted by the Town on December 15, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these zone designations are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, are consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and are appropriate for the area; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of these zoning map amendments in accordance with the approved criteria for a rezoning as per Ordinance # 4, Series of 2002 at its June 10, 2002 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that this amendment is in accordance with the approved criteria for a rezoning as per Ordinance # 4, Series of 2002. _._,. ._ :- WH~.REAS;~the Town Council considers it in the mteresf ofthe~public`riealth;'safefy;~~nd welfare to amend the official Town of Vail Zoning Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: That Tracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing be rezoned from Agriculture Open. Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1)-and that Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing and Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing from High Density Ordinance No. 11 ,Series of 1998 Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1) in accordance with the attached map Exhibit A.. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or _ _ _ _ _ . ~pi•~cee~ding as commenced under or by virtue of the..provision amended.,, The. amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. Ordinance No. 11 ,Series of 1998 2 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day of July, 2002 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 6~h Day of August, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 6th day of August, 2002. Attest: . LUl„1VYIlJ. ~1\611 L,IYIGIr ICI - ..,. •'-. -:. ..-.'.~_....:-,: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk F:\cdev\ORD\02\Ord 15,2002Lodgeatlionsheadrezone.doc Ordinance No. 11 ,Series of 1998 3 Attachment A _._. __ Lodge at Lionshead ss - _ `N l ~~ r t ~ se r •~ f ~,, } ~ ff.1r~ T '~" t .. 4 ~~g.~ i I ~ ~ -adare es~te.t. BI ks '~taxt Sl is - teM ~ `.~ t . . ~ ~ ~. .. 'i `~~" ~ l~ ti ~6 ~T Boundmy S hd vifl onr ti ~ ' j .~ #. . _ ~<F~S~ r Y 'j •~~fl( !kt i 1 ~ ~ J~~~~B Id gs r . -. , - ~ ? 'i }f r )•~- .~ ~ t' ~ >>` ~~ ~~ 33 ~~ Gore Lreek ~ Par cel r~S 4 I. ti_ FAST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE "' t ~ , ° "° d R° d "` ~ G S gl Fam ly R dent al r ~ . ~ . ! ~- T Famlly R Id ntial ' ' Pri mazy Secondary Rea dmtlal N ~ ~ •~ ~ Resdential Clusl er 450 ~ RGf Lo D nslty M It ple Famlly ' Medl mg Ity Multiple Famlly: .. ~ ~ ~,s ` ~ ~ HghO ns tyM It pie Fam ly , - ~~ V .~ , -,~ ~ P bl Acc odaLon EETOPS ~" ~ R~S~~~ ;~ ~• ® ~ ~~~ roz U 3E~(1 ` ~ ~ ~~B re3 L h d 5 d U t ~ Ff k7'"l~ 11~. lJ l 7y ~ ~ ~t~~ r . ~ L ~ ~~ ` ` ~ ~ s e a h i e se L Head Iw d Use 2 " ^n ~ ~, 'k. ~ ( ~ r„~r ..>,: > ~ ~~' iiq~r ~,I'• ~_ ~ ~ t i ~ , C erclal S ce.Center . ~ ~ ~ I ~, ,~ y~~ ~ ~, 452 r ~ t6r1 l Bu . . C ' [... c n' 'T'' v~W 4. ~ ~ H vy. 5er _. w ~~, 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 n Outd r R at t ~~~3 ~ 4Y' 4~ . _"~.'~~ +~ - 'Yc' ,`~ ~ .'f' ~` {vs .yr~~.q ~ e . T~r~L-j ~ ! k ' ~ ® P9 icu ltur~l 8 Op n SPxa Natural Ar P eservat on 3 r ? ~ t s 1# u•+~ ~9 ~ J . _.• k-~• r ice- -.. I. ', y ~z ',: ~ Sk Bas°Reor cation.. / 3 Park ng * 3y , ,i _ `` UPJPL;ATTED ~: ~_ . W E Ordinance No. 11 ,Series of 1998 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 10, 2002 SUBJECT: A request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead includingTracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1) and a request to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing and 360 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1). Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead represented by Jeff Bailey Planner: Russell Forrest DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This is a request to rezone the Lodge at Lionshead including Tracts I & J, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing from Agriculture Open Space (AOS) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU- 1)and arequest to rezone 380 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing and 360 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1) (See attachment A). The Lodge at Lionshead is iri tfie Lionshead '` _ rtedeveiopment iviaster Tian stuay "area: i-oweve~, bases `on°a~'equesi; Trom 'the property owners both the Lodge at Lionshead and Vail International were excluded from a multiple property rezoning that occurred in 1999 to begin the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan implementation. The property owners of the Lodge at Lionshead are now requesting to be rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use-1 Zoning. The applicant is not proposing any physical changes at this time. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES The Lodge at Lionshead has three phases (I, II, & III). Phases I and II are zoned High Density Multi Family. Phase I II consists of two zone district with 29 % of the property zoned High Density Multi-Family and the other 71 % zoned Medium Density Multi Family. The existing Phase III structure is predominantly in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District which is the north side of the Phase III site. 1 The Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan was adopted in December of 1998. The study area included the land between Middle Creek and Red Sandstone Creek south of I-70 (see exhibit below). In 1999, the Town initiated a rezoning proposal for the study area to Lionshead Mixed Use I and II. Two properties were eliminated from this rezoning at the owner's request. Those properties included the Lodge at Lionshead and Vail International. All other properties were rezoned to LMU -1 or LMU - 2 in the Lionshead Master Plan study area in 1999. The Land Use Plan designation for this area is Tourist Commercial. Lionshead Master Plan Study Area ..,- ~~ fi"t .-mrf#S i " "~ {~ - .r i ~. ~ ly a. Y. ~E Y1 / ti J+iL~ _L ~ 4.. ~j,~4~+ ~~~~ I ~~1 „~ ~1, t Mow, ~ t,~/'~3 ,~ ,, ~~ ~.-. :q„ ,~pd~ M' E ~ i ~?~.. +~~ ,2N` ~,~I~'~~ T '9.~ ~(iaw.t '~~'sa~~~~"~~Ll~y ~~ :.-:J r %f ,~ ~~ t ~ . -`~ - ~' , o) , , --r.. ,~. III. j I i~-FF Fftl.ll~Yll~fiEiVt)H I IUIV REZONING L(ONSE3EA~ ~i FiIFV hL[1P NkV C ~^ _ __ The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning to the Vail Town Council, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan, and compatible with the Town of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed rezoning is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 2 3. That the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS ZONING/REZONING Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff 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 Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. V. ~ ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The following tables summarize the development statistics for Phases I through III and Tracts I and J. Again, it should be noted that Phase III has both High Density Multi-Family (HDMF) and Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF) Zoning on the property. Tracts I & J are both zoned Agriculture Open Space (AOS). 3 Zoning Analysis for Phases I-III Descri tion Current Zonin Lionshead Mixed U se 1 Zonin Phase 1811 Phase III Phase 18111 Phase III Zoning HDMF HDMF (29%) LMU1 (proposed) LMU 1' MDMF 71 % ro osed Lot Area 59,629 (1.3 12,399 (HDMF) 59,629 42,785 acres) 30,377 MDMF 42,785 Total GRFAAIIowed 35,777 18,077+ 1,917 134,165 106,962 (250 credit on MDMF) Total = - 19,990 GRFA Existin 57,841 20,043 57,841 20,043 Site Coverage 32,796 20,109 41,740 29,949 Allowed Site Coverage 16,796 11,626 16,796 11,626 Existin Height Allowed 48' sloping 38' sloping roof 71 (ave)/82.5' 71 (ave)/82.5' roof max max Hei ht Existin 51' 40' 51' 40' Setback 20' Front, 20' Front, Back 10' Front, Back & 10' Front, Back Allowed Back & Side & Side Side & Side Setbacks Front: 30' Front:51.2' Front: 30' Front:51.2' Existing Rear: 35' Rear:32.1' Rear: 35' Rear:32.1' Side 1: 6.3' Side 1:23.6' Side 1: 6.3' Side 1:23.6' Side 2: 3.5' Side 2: 6.3' Side 2: 3.5' Side 2: 6.3' Allowed Density 25/acre 25/acre (HDMF) 35/acre or 33% 35/acre or 33% 18/acre increase increase (MDMF) whichever is whichever is rester rester. Exisii-i Doi isi 3 i .5/acre 12.54/aci e 31.E/acre-- 12.54/acr~ - -- -- LJV1/Cilll I` Ui ills '+ 1 IG .r i '~- _-., .--, _, T2` _ Required ~ 82 24 82 24 Parking (2 per du assuming D.U. range from 500-2000 s . ft. Existin Parkin 45 18 45 18 Zoning Analysis for Tracts I and J Descri tion Current Zonin Lionshead Mixed U se 1 Zonin Tract I Tract J Tract I Tract J Zoning Agricultural Open Agricultural Open LMU-1 (proposed) LMU-1 S ace AOS S ace AOS ro osed Lot Area 5,326 sq. ft 5,158 sq. ft. 5,326 sq ft 5,158 sq. ft. GRFA One dwelling One dwelling 13,315 12,895 Allowed shall be allowed shall be allowed on a lot or parcel on a lot or parcel of less than 35 of less than 35 acres which acres which contains 1 acre of contains 1 acre of buildable area. buildable area. Such dwelling Such dwelling shall not exceed shall not exceed 2000 square feet 2000 square feet of GRFA of GRFA GRFA 0 0 0 0 Existin Site 266 257 3,728 3,610 Coverage Allowed Site 0 0 Coverage Existin Height 33' sloping roof 33' sloping roof 71 (ave)/82.5 71 (ave)/82.5 Allowed max max Height 0 0 0 0 Existin Setback 20' ~rcnt, -15' 20' Frcnt, - 10' Front, Back & 10' Front, Back- nlln ,.I .I 'uiw~rv L'u ~ Qa..I o '1.C~ c; irl., . uawvn 'v~ i v vi~.e CV 1 G~ Ranl. _ v ~.uv~. - Ci';ly _ _ _ _.._.- Q- v~L:~ - 15' Side - ... .. Setbacks N/A N/A Existin Allowed 1/35 acres or 1/35 acres or 35/acre or 33% 35/acre or 33% Density 1/acre of 1/acre of increase increase buildable area buildable area whichever is whichever is rester rester Existing 0 0 31.5/acre 12.54/acre Densit Dwelling 0 0 41 12 Units 5 Summary of Potential Floor Area Change Total existing GRFA today: 77,884 sq. ft. Total GRFA with LMU Zoning: 267,340 sq. ft Difference: 189,456 sq. ft. (over existing) VI. REZONING REQUEST; CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations are intended to: "Promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality." In contrast to the master plans, which serves as a guide in land use decision making, the zoning and subdivision regulations are regulatory tools used to control development for the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare. The zoning regulations are specific with regards to development on property, including density, setbacks, height, etc. Where conflicts exist between the Land Use Plan-and the zoning for a site, existing zoning controls development. However, in cases where a change in zoning is considered for a site, the land use designation and land use objectives as identified in the Land Use Plan are important considerations in the decision making process. REZONING CRITERIA Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning & _ Environmental Commission, and Town Council_ shall consider the following factors with _ _ :. 'respect to the requested zone district~boundary amendment: 1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town This property is located in the Lionshead Master Plan study area. Based on the purpose statement of the Lionshead Master Plan and the objectives of the Lionshead Master Plan this rezoning would achieve the municipal objectives. Specifically the objectives of the Lionshead Master Plan include: Policy Objective 2.3.1: "Lionshead can and should be renewed to become warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs and appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, personality, 6 a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character." Taking advantage of the development rights proved by LMU will require the owners to also implement the design guidelines in the Lionshead Master Plan. Policy Objectives 2.3.3 "In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improve occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base through new lodging products." Rezoning to LMU-1 will provide strong incentives for creating warm beds in that accommodation units, fractional fee units, and employee housing units do not count towards density. Policy Objective 2.3.6: "Financially creative fiscally y realistic strategies must be identified so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements." This rezoning will provide revenue opportunities to enhance the overall character of the property consistent with the deign guidelines of the Master Plan. 2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents Staff believes that the existing zoning designations is generally suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent uses. However, the rezoning requests will allow for redevelopment which is more suitable to the Town's objectives. In addition, zoning in the Town of Vail is parcel based. Phase III has two zone districts on one parcel. This proposal would create one zone district for the entire property. In addition, the property currently exceeds height, GRFA, setbacks, and density standards given the existing zoning. The proposed rezoning to LMU- 1 would reduce or eliminate the (legal) non-conformity on the property with the exception of parking and side setbacks. -The rezoning is consistent with-the` ~~~ -~ uoii5neda iviasfer riai~~ aiSG u~~"'~"uuo~rst'~,6i'iii~~ci~c;~a~ u~~iyiiauvi~ fii il-5e LafiG i:3~e,'. -"`._ Plan. The adjacent uses include Town of Vail lands such as the Library, Parking Structure, and Stream Tract. The only private adjacent use is Tree Tops Condominiums which is zoned Lionshead Mixed Use 1. Any future redevelopment would .need to continue .to promote and enhance the existing stream walk. The Plan would require step back from the streamwalk to help ensure a comfortable pedestrian experience. The Lionshead Master Plan also identifies a view corridor over Phase III of the Lodge at Lionshead that could impact height and limit the height of any future redevelopment on the east side of the building. 7 3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives This area is in the Lionshead Master Plan area and the Plan recommends that this area be rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District. The plan contemplates how Gore Creek separates the multi-family and guest accommodation from the low density residential area on the south side of Gore Creek. The Library buffers this site from the Low Density Residential area to the east. 4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and In accordance with .the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and the Lionshead Master Plan, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. The proposed amendment would place the Lodge at Lionshead in one zone district versus three, which would simplify planning for potential future redevelopment. The density provided with the Lionshead Mixed Use - 1 zoning would help facilitate redevelopment consistent with the design guidelines of the Master Plan and incentives the creation of accommodation units, lodge units, and/or fractional fee units. 5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features The riparian area along Gore Creek is on Town Land. This rezoning should have no significant impact on the natural environment. . .. . ,, _. __ L;1 'Thn ~ +n n+ 4n ~~i{+inh 4hn ~i+nn rJc}rin4 mAnr~ nn Ic ~+_nrxG' +P-~t ~~II ~ ±F~Q . purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The use of the site is consistent with the purpose statement of the Lionshead Mixed Use Zone District . This purpose statement is: "intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan." 7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. Since the property was placed in its current zoning, the property was incorporated into the Lionshead Mater Plan study area in 1998. The current zoning is not inappropriate for the existing use. However, LMU 1 zoning would decrease several of the non conforming development parameters on the site. 8) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and' policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; .and 2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the. coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 9 Attachment A Proximity Map ~ Current Zoning Lodge at Lionshead Addresses ~ text Blocks • Gxt Streets • taM -,r ..~. -..... .. ., . - ...^-...~.. - A 1TOwn Boundary T -.. - ._--. ____-..--- - - ~- ~: s~ed~~a~on, Build ings Gore Creek Parcel rte' ~ --_.. ___.-.-__.._ _ ®SODs - -_- ions Dist Acts l.-' ~~i L l'~. ~ . Hlllsltlv Resldar%lal ,~~~ __._, . _ - --' Single Family Reritlentfal ~ Two~Family Resltlerrtlal Primary Soo ondary Resldentlal R dd tl l ~l ~ 45 RC I • .> .n . ~ r Low Densit Multi l• Famil - .. ~ . _ \ p p y Medium Density Multiple Family , ~ High Density MuHrple Family -- ~;- ' , Public 0.ccom modatian EETOPS ! ~ LODGE AT 6 ~ ~ ~ tr ~omme«ia~ Core, Commerolal Core2 6 r LiOPJSHEAD ! :'~ 360 LIBRARY ~omm~~ial~are3 Llmsne atl Mixed Dse t i. , ~ Llonsnl ad Mixed us. 2 L 4rJ2 ~' G Commarc lal Bervloa Center ;~._ J artanal Businasc ~ _J., ~.:: .~ ~ d~~,a,~i ' ' ~ , ('~ Heavy Servioe c ~ ~Y~ ~ "H^'"7 L~ X• ~ TRACT J ~ - 2.7~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aun urei open spno. Nat~ral Ar.a Pr.,.r,,,tion J,~__._ __-.~~. ~ ' I~ ~ Slu Base Recr eatran _'.^' .' / J Parkin ,/ I' f ~~ / ~ J pe neral Use ,~ r+- ~Z'~.n.+... 1L._ ~..._ r ~ Not Orsignalyd U N PLATTED N W E s 11 _ ~.,~ ._ , TOIM1'NOF VA1L Memorandum Department of Police To: Town Council From: ~Swight Henninger, Chief of Police Matt Lindvall, Police Officer Steve Calamaris, Environmental Health Officer Date: June 25, 2002 Subject: Bear and Garbage Issues 1. Purpose/Problem: The Town of Vail is located in prime habitat for black bears and other species of wildlife. The town and our community have always taken pride in protecting our environment and our citizens. Over the past few years, the incidents of black bear and human conflicts have grown substantially. Between mid April and the first week of June 2001, the Vail Police Department responded to 47 calls for service due to bear-human conflicts. For the same period in 2002, we responded to 134 calls for the same service, a 285% increase. The areas for bear calls for service in the past years have been primarily the Intermountain area and south of Vail Village from the Forest Road neighborhood to the Sunburst Drive area. This year, we have been called to all areas in Vail on both sides of Interstate 70. The lone exception is Spraddle Creek. They have an excellent wildlife mitigation regulation within their private homeowners rules and regulations and may be used as a model for future successes. The increase in bear calls may be the result of many factors. One determining factor is the drought conditions in Colorado for the past five years. This has caused the bears and other wildlife to search for alternatives to natural food sources. Bears have found food in our community in the forms of trash, bird feeders, pet food, and in some cases domestic plants. Bears are omnivorous creatures and will eat almost anything. Bears are very intelligent and will return regularly to locations where they have found food sources in the past. The many bears in our area have learned from birth that humans provide a great source for food. Presently bears are going from home to home searching for food that humans have provided either unintentionally or intentionally. Our current bear population has become very accustomed to humans, which many experts believe increases the risk of more serious conflicts. In the same manner, our citizens have also become more accustomed to the bears and because of familiarity have done things they would never imagine of doing with "wild bears." The Town Police, Environmental Health and Public Works departments have gone to great lengths to educate our citizens on their role in reducing the risk of conflicts with bears. We have also purchased a pepper ball launcher that shoots a paint ball-type round which delivers a kinetic impact, and then O.C. spray. This negative reinforcement is effective, but will not greatly reduce the problem in the long term. Relocation of bears is not a viable option. Division of Wildlife records show that at least 80 percent of relocated bears are killed due to their two-strikes policy. Division of Wildlife's strict two-strike policy states that if a bear is relocated and is once again problematic, it is killed. 2. Background: In 1994, when the council looked at this issue, there were four options that were discussed to minimize bear/human conflicts to include; an incentive program, bear proof container ordinance, education and neighborhood garbage containers. The incentive program focused on purchasing bear proof containers, at the cost to the homeowners, which has decreased substantially since 1994. The ordinance concerns revolved around the cost issues to the Town of Vail, residents and businesses. The Town reviewed the Snowmass Village ordinance, where they spent $50,000 to purchase bear proof garbage can lids for town residents. Significant efforts have been taken in the Town of Vail at education alone, which have not been fully successful, because a majority of the community must participate to see a significant change in bear behavior. Neighborhood containers were considered, but it was determined the containers would be difficult to locate in the Town of Vail neighborhoods. Another concern brought forth was how to prevent non-paying customers from using these containers. Aspen has taken apro-active approach to eliminate bear/human encounters, which has been recognized as an outstanding program by the Colorado Wildlife Commission and the Division of Wildlife. Aspen requires all garbage cans/dumpster containers to be wildlife proof. The biggest concern in adopting this ordinance was the cost to the homeowner. Aspen worked with waste management companies to retrofit existing garbage cans/dumpsters with wildlife proof containers. The cost of the retrofits ranged from $7-12 dollars/month. The wildlife proof containers, in conjunction with education and issuing citations for violators, reduced the number of calls to the Colorado Department of Wildlife by approximately 50 percent. Local trash haulers (BFI and Vail Honeywagon) are concerned about the wildlife problem in Vail. Currently, BFI provides customers with wildlife resistant containers at no additional charge and wildlife proof containers at $10 extra a month. If a town-wide ordinance was mandated, the homeowners cost may decrease, due to the quantity of containers. Both haulers expressed interest in having input on a local ordinance that may affect them. During the next four months the number of bear/human conflicts will increase as bears look for easy sources of food, such as garbage, in preparation for hibernation, posing another potential problem that goes beyond bears and garbage. Once an animal is not afraid of people, it can pose a serious threat to the safety of citizens and visitors. The town staff has reviewed the steps and successes of other communities in dealing with the situation. We believe in order to protect the wildlife and our citizens, we need to consider more proactive steps. Some citizens have taken active steps to resolve interaction problems, but unfortunately others have not, which causes problems for the whole community. 3. Alternatives: Staff recommends that the Town of Vail enact new ordinances to reduce the amount of conflicts with bears and other wildlife. Today staff is requesting directives from council in drafting ordinances to address these problems. The first alternative is to develop a strong set of laws, that requires all residences and businesses to have wildlife proof containers and enclosures similar to those enacted in Aspen and Pitken County. The negative of this route is the costs associated with the enclosures for everyone. A more reactive phased alternative would be to require that residents utilizing curbside service for trash pick-up, put the trash out only on the day of pickup and bring in on the same day of service. This would referred to as a dawn-to-dusk ordinance. Staff is additionally recommending an ordinance addressing locations that have a demonstrated problem, such as a bear visit. This ordinance would require that if a person, residence or business provides a food source unintentionally or intentionally that attracts wildlife, it would be deemed a nuisance and would be removed upon order from the Town of Vail, within thirty days, if unintentional. The responding personnel would leave a warning notice with information on how to remove the nuisance. If the incident was deliberate, the source would have to be removed immediately. If there is a second call due to a wildlife visit, the offender could be summons for a violation of town code. This ordinance would require the violator to obtain a wildlife proof container, an enclosure for the trash, or the removal of the nuisance. The last phase of this option is to have all trash service providers supply their customers wildlife- proof containers within two years of enactment of these ordinances. All citizens would be required to have wildlife-proof trash containers. This would include either privately purchased trash containers or containers provided by trash haulers. This would apply to both curbside service and all dumpster service. Recently, Cordillera enacted a community wide ordinance of this type for residences. Staff feels these options will greatly reduce these problems and protect the environment and our community. Staff believes that many of these suggestions have a secondary benefit. Some of these ordinances would reduce the time trash sits on our public streets, which causes litter and is aesthetically unappealing. The appearance of buildings as it relates to trash storage near and inside commercial and multi-unit residential buildings would improve. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, June 24, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Site Visits 1. Weiaj residence 5175 Black Gore Drive 2. Reimers residence - 3275 Katsos Ranch Road 3. Fahey residence - 225 Wall Street 4. Baggage Cheque -141 E. Meadow Drive 5. Lionshead View Corridors 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Driver: George ~o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow for the construction of a new driveway that exceeds the minimum entry angle deflection, located at 3275 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 11; Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: John & Gina Reimer, represented by John Perkins Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entr~r feature at Riva Ridge North, located at 33 Willow Place/Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1 S Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Assoc., represented by Peel/Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1 MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman iy TOYYN OF PAIL ~ 1. That the applicant executes an encroachment agreement, or similar agreement, as deemed appropriate by Town Staff prior to the application for building permits. 3. A request for a major exterior alteration in accordance with Section 12-7B-7 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Town Code, and a variance from Section 12-7B-12 (Height), Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey, represented by Mark O'Bryan, Architect Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED -VARIANCE south bedroom dormer MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED -MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION south bedroom dormer MOTION: Chas Bernhardt ,SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-2 (Cahill & Shirley ..._ ujJ~iUS~uj APPROVED -VARIANCE north living room dormer WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant shall submit plans for review by the DRB for the July 3, 2002 meeting, with specific regards to the proposed roof material of the dormers. MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 5-1 (Shirley opposed) APPROVED -MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION north living room dormer 4. A request for a variance from Sections 12-14-7 (Setback from Watercourse) and 12-15-5C5 (Guideline Compliance), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback and to allow for the continuance of anon-conforming driveway, located at 5175 Black Gore Drive, Unit B-1/Cedar Point Townhomes Filing 2. Applicant: John Welaj, represented by Mike Suman Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 8, 2002 MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0 DENIED -SETBACK VARIANCE 5. A request for a variance from Section 11-4B-126 (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a banner, located at 141 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: The Baggage Cheque Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 DENIED 2 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, of a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2-2, to amend the definition of "Fraction 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 Levine Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill .VOTE: 5-0 (Chas Bernhardt not present) UPHOLD the staff interpretation per the staff memorandum 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead and to amend Section 12-22-4 (Adoption of View Corridors), Vail Town Code to include View Corridors 1 and 2 in Title 12, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located annrcximataly from the nPdestfan glaza at the east end of the L_ift.house Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. Amore specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0 (Chas Bernhardt not present) TABLED UNTIL JULY 8, 2002 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, June 24, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits 1. Welaj residence 5175 Black Gore Drive 2. Reimers residence - 3275 Katsos Ranch Road 3. Fahey residence - 225 Wall Street 4. Baggage Cheque - 141 E. Meadow Drive 5. Lionshead View Corridors 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Driver: George ~o - NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow for the construction of a new driveway that exceeds the minimum entry angle deflection, located at 3275 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: John & Gina Reimer, represented by John Perkins Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for - - -the-construction of a new front entr~r feature at Riva Ridge North, located at 33 Willow - -------------------- - --.-. Place/Lot 5, Block 6,-Vail Village 1S Filing.: ._ ._ -__:.~ ..- __:...:.... _: Applicant: Riva Ridge North Chalets Condo Assoc., represented by Peel/Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. ' Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a major exterior alteration in accordance with Section 12-7B-7 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Town Code, and a variance from Section 12-7B-12 (Height), Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey, represented by Mark O'Bryan, Architect Planner: Allison Ochs 1 MEMBERS ABSENT TOWN 0~ YAIL ~} 4. A request for a variance from Sections 12-14-7 (Setback from Watercourse) and 12-15-5C5 (Guideline Compliance), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback and to allow for the continuance of anon-conforming driveway, located at 5175 Black Gore Drive, Unit B-1/Cedar Point Townhomes. Filing 2. Applicant: John Welaj, represented by Mike Suman Planner: Allison Ochs 5. A request for a variance from Section 11-46-12B (4) Vail Town Code, to allow for a banner, located at 141 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: The Baggage Cheque Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, of a text amendment to Title 12, Section 2-2, to amend the definition of "Fraction 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 Levine Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead and to amend Section 12-22-4 (Adoption of View Corridors), Vail Town Code to include View Corridors 1 and 2 in Title 12, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. Amore specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest 8. Approval of June 10, 2002 minutes 9. Information Update ~ -- - ... _.. _. 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. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 21, 2002 in the Vail Daily. 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS PUBLIC WELCOME PROJECT ORIENTATION /LUNCH -Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Clark Brittain Bill Pierce Hans Woldrich Charlie Acevedo Margaret Rogers MEMBERS ABSENT sl°~ ~ vlslTS _ ..: . ; 1.-~ Z;Tark-residence - 4ti8`7 uuriiper Lane 2. Weiss residence - 3838 Bridge Road 3. Robason residence - 1139 Sandstone Drive 4. 770 Potato Patch - 770 Potato Patch Drive 5. Phillips 66 - 2293 N. Frontage Rd. West 6. Alphorn Condos - 121 West Meadow Drive 7. Villa Cortina - 22 West Meadow Drive 8. Daymer Corporation - 123 S. Frontage Rd. East 9. Vail Mountain Lodge - 352 E. Meadow Drive 10. Vail Resorts - 600 Lionshead Mall 12:00 pm ~i :OU pm Driver: Bill . PUBLIC HEARING -TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Villa Cortina DRB02-0172. Bill Final review of change to approved plans. 22 West Meadow Drive/Lot A, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Applicant: Nedbo Construction MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Charlie Acevedo VOTE: 5-0 CONSENT APPROVED 2. 770 Potato Patch DR602-0182. Allison Final review of proposed addition of stone. 770 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 6, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: 770 Potato Patch Drive Condo Assoc., Inc., represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects. MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Charlie Acevedo VOTE: 4-0-1 (Pierce opposed). CONSENT APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant submit a drawing of the west elevation of the upper building for review by staff prior to the issuance of the building permit. 1 3:00 pm ~~ Town of varL ''~ 3. Fleischer residence DRB02-0108. Bill Final review of two new single-family residences. 4315 Bighorn Rd./Lot 6, Block 3, Bighorn 3~d Addition. Applicant: Chad Fleischer, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, AIA MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Charlie Acevedo VOTE: 5-0 CONSENT APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. That in lieu of the proposed 6 blue spruce trees, 10 blue spruce trees 8 to 10 feet in height and 10 blue spruce trees 12 to 14 feet in height be planted. 2. That an arborist report be submitted to verify the survivability of the proposed landscape plan and to establish a tree preservation plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. That staff review and approve the final landscape placements prior to installation. 4. Clark residence DRB02- 0188 - Allison Final review of proposed entry addition 4887 Juniper Lane/Lot 76, Block 4, Bighorn 5th Addition. . Applicant: Stephen & Jackie Clark MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Charlie Acevedo VOTE: 5-0 CONSENT APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That this is the one-time exemption to the requirement that the entire structure must be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines. Specifically, any future addition of GRFA to this structure will require the removal of the T-111 siding. 5. Vail Resorts DRB02-0143. George Final review of proposed outdoor trampoline. 600 Lionshead Mall/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Charlie Acevedo VOTE: 5-0 CONSENT APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant submits revised plans to the Community Development Department indicating the location of a split-rail fence and a minimum of six landscaped planters. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 6. Weiss residence DRB02-0160 Allison Final review for changes to approved plans 3838 Bridge Road/Lot 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2"d Addition. Applicant: VAg Inc. MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 4 CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall file the final plat for the resubdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn 2"dAddition. 2. That prior to the submittal of a Building Permit application, the applicant shall meet all the concerns of staff addressed in the letter dated June 13, 2002. 2 3. That the approval for this application will void the approval of the Weiss Residence on June 20, 2001. 4. That the applicant submit revised drawings of the tower element and a new roof material for review and approval by staff. 7. Daymer Corporation DRB02-0192. Allison Final review of proposed wood decking. 123 S. Frontage Rd. East/Lots M,N &O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1ST Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by John Perkins, AIA. MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 (Acevedo recused) APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That the applicant shall be required to make the following improvements to Phase IV, Vail Village Inn, prior to the issuance of a TCO for Club Chelsea: • All restaurant signs referring to the Village Restaurant be removed. • The dumpster area be cleaned up. • The fence around the pool be painted and repaired as necessary. . . • `fne°sriutters and tiovver boxes on at the enirance be repainted. , -~ That`the existing Vllage~~Kestaurarif awning be removed and any necessary. repair and repainting as a result of the removal be done. • The two walls at the existing Villager Restaurant entry be repainted to match existing. • Power wash the stucco and repaint if necessary. • Dumpster enclosure to be reviewed by the DRB. • A landscape plan must be submitted for review by staff. • A revised color scheme must be submitted for review by staff. • Remove the fence at the pool and walkway. • All necessary repairs to the north side must be completed. 2. That the applicant submit either a letter from the condominium association from the entire Vail Village Inn, stating that they approve of the proposed deck covering; or, the applicant shall provide evidence that the entire Vail Village Inn site does not have the right to use-the existing recreational facilities of phase IV, Vail Village Inn, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed decking. 8. Robason residence DRB02-0163. George Conceptual review of new single family residence. 1139 Sandstone Drive, Indian Creek Townhomes/Lot A1, Block A, Lions Ridge Filing 1. Applicant: Randy D. & Donna Robason, represented by Steven James Riden CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 9. Alphorn Condominiums DRB02-0164. Allison Conceptual review of facade remodel. 121 West Meadow Drive/Lot D2, Vail Village 2~d Filing. Applicant: Alphorn Condo Assoc., represented.by Ray Story CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 10. Phillips 66 DRB02-0184. Allison Final review of proposed retaining wall 2293 N. Frontage Road West/Tract A, Vail das Schone Filing 1. Applicant: Feather Petroleum Co., represented by Stephen Richards. MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Charlie Acevedo VOTE: 5-0 CONSENT APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the issuance of a CO, the applicant provide a newspaper box enclosure, similar in design to the newspaper box enclosure located at the First Bank Building. 2. That the retaining wall not be painted. 11. Vail Mountain Lodge DRB02-0185. George Final review of amendment to approved plans revising the dormers on the east side of the building. 352 E. Meadow Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 1 Sc Filing. Applicant: VML, LLC MOTION: Charlie Acevedo SECOND: Bill Pierce VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 3, 2002• 12. Middle Creek DRB02-0060 Allison Conceptual review of proposed employee housing development & private educational Institution. 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE Staff Approvals Vail International DRB02-0112. Allison Lobby/office addition. 300 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. Applicant: Vail International Condo Association Zachariah residence DRB02-0140. Entry replace bricks with flagstone. 4074 Bighorn Road/Lot 3, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Bobby & Liby Zachariah George Klinga residence DRB02-0168. George New split rail fence with mesh. 1773 Shasta Place/Lot 13, Vail Village West 2"d Filing. Applicant: Elizabeth A. Klinga Olson residence DR602-0169. Driveway change from asphalt to heated concrete. 1785 Sunburst Drive/Vail Golfcourse Townhomes. Applicant: Curtis & Kristin Olson George Wood/Pringle residence DRB02-0167. Bill Revised landscape plan. 1146 Sandstone Drive/Lot A-7, Block 13, Casolar Vail. Applicant: Thomas Pringle 4 Fresco Holding Co, Inc. DRB02-0179. Allison Skylight addition. 103 Willow Place, Edelweiss Condos/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Nedbo Construction Seigal residence DRB02-0150. Bill Change to approved plan. 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Christiania. Applicant: Gail Siegal Simpson residence DR602-0156. Allison Enclose lower portion of deck with lattice. 1813 Shasta Place/Lot 17, Vail Village West Filing 2. Applicant: Judith A. Simpson 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. Please call 479-2138 for information. - _ Sign language i^terpretGtion vci!a"u!e :..Non re;~~es+. ~~/ith 24 h^ur notification. Please call 479- .~. 2356,Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 5