Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-17 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2006 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 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: Citizen Participation. (10 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) Recognition of Rick Scalpello for his efforts organizing and developing the Vail Farmer's Market. • Construction Update. 3.Pam Brandmeyer ITEM/TOPIC: A request to proceed through the development review process to locate a skate board park on the west end of Donovan Parka (15 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the request to proceed through the development review process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: $400,000 from the Real Estate Transfer Tax fund has been set aside in the '06 budget to provide the town w/a skate board park. At this time, staff from both the Vail Recreation District(VRD) and the Town of Vail(TOV) have been working on some preliminary plans to site the skate board park on the west end of Donovan. In order for this to occur, the Donovan Park Master Plan would have to be modified to allow for this use, requiring a public review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and ultimately by the Town Council. For numerous reasons, e.g., convenience, neighborhood, parking, restrooms, excellent visibility, and so on, staff believes the approximately 7,500 SF will nicely accommodate a skate board park at this site. Should an amendment to the Donovan Park Master Plan be approved by PEC and the council, the next step would be to prepare a Request for Proposals for a "design/build" team. Skate board park "users" would be included in public session(s) to gather ideas for this element and staff would travel to other successful skate board parks around the state. Considerable time was spent two years ago by the former VRD/TOV Capital Committee reviewing potential sites and those outcomes are in your packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town Council grants permission to proceed through the development review process. 4. ITEM/TOPIC: A request to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to install a new manhole, sanitary sewer line and retaining wall on the Town-owned stream tract parcel adjacent to the Vail Mountain View Town home development site, located at 442 South Frontage Road. (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the owners of Vail Mountain View town home development site are in the process of undergoing development review of an application to install a new manhole, sanitary sewer line and retaining wall on Town of Vail property, located upon Tract B, Vail Village 5th Filing. The new manhole, sanitary sewer line and retaining wall are required to facilitate the redevelopment of the old Apollo Park condominiums. Currently, the sanitary sewer line runs through the center portion of the development site. The new retaining wall is needed to ensure adequate soil cover exists overtop of ,the new sewer line to prevent freezing during the winter months. The Town Council, as the property owner of Tract B, must grant the applicant permission to proceed through the development review processes. Should the Town Council grant permission to proceed, the applicant will proceed with the appropriate development review applications for Design Review Board review and consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council grants permission to proceed through the development review process. 5. Greg Hall ITEMROPICA request to proceed through the development review process and modify the approved Meadow Drive Streetscape Plans in the area of the Solaris Development.. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail has DRB approval and improvements under contract to proceed with streetscape work in front of the Solaris project on Meadow Drive. The Solaris developer would like to proceed through the process to modify the plans. The developer is responsible for all the costs of the streetscape in the area of any modifications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Town Council grants permission to proceed through the development review process working with the town staff on design concepts and final approved plans. 6. Todd Oppenheimer ITEM/TOPIC: Seibert Circle Final Design. (30 min) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: 1) Approve the. final design for Seibert Circle. 2) Approve an overall project budget of $675,000 assuming a $325,000 commitment of private sector funding is received by December 5, 2006. 3) Conditionally approve the award of the design, fabrication, and construction contracts based on the private sector funding. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On September 5, 2006, the 5 design concepts for Seibert Circle, prepared by WET Design and Wenk Associates, were displayed and discussed in an open house forum. 20 to 25 people attended the open .house. A written description of each concept, with the estimated cost, was distributed to each person attending. It was explained that the cost of all 5 concepts exceeded the Town's budget allocation. People were asked to indicate. which, if any, of the design concepts they preferred so raising additional funds from sources outside the Town's budgets could be started. Staff received 15 responses. The WET Design Concept 3 with "Leapfrog" water jets and "Water on Fire" nozzles received the most favorable responses. It, of course, also contains the most expensive technology. The estimated cost for this concept is $672,311. The current budget allocation for Seibert Circle is $350,000. Vail Resorts has committed $200,000 out of the Front Door public art allocation if the Council will adopt any one of the 4 WET Design concepts. This contribution leaves the shortfall at $122,311. Local residents Ron Riley and Alan Kosloff .have committed to raising the balance of the required funds if the Council will adopt Concept 3 as the final design. The optimal time for construction of the improvements is spring of 2007. The feature can be complete and fully operational by July 1, 2007. In order to complete the work, WET Design will need to begin final engineering in early December. The conditional approval of the design and construction contracts will allow Mr. Riley and Mr. Kosloff time to raise the additional funds. The deadline for raising the funds will be the December 5, 2006, Town Council session. The conditional approvals will expire after that time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Town Council adopt Concept 3, Leapfrogs and Water on Fire, prepared by WET Design as the preferred design for Seibert Circle. Council will approve an overall project budget of $675,000 assuming $325,000 in private funds, and conditionally approve the award of the design, fabrication, and construction contracts. 7. Matt Mire ITEMROPIC: ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES 2006, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE DECLARING THE TOWN COUNCIL'S INTENT TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING EMPLOYEE HOUSING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT, AND APPLYING SUCH REGULATIONS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. (15 min.) BACKGROUND: In May, 2006 the Town of Vail engaged RRC Associates, Inc. to prepare a Town of Vail Nexus/Proportionality Analysis for Employee Housing Mitigation Programs. The purpose of this was to create a legal basis for assessing an employee housing mitigation requirement on commercial and/or residential development. That study is now complete and its findings have been presented to Town Council. Prior to adopting any regulations regarding employee housing, the Town Council would like to ensure that it has provided adequate opportunity to educate the public about employee housing. The Town Council has further determined that additional time is necessary to study employee housing options before adopting new employee housing regulations. As such, rather than impose a moratorium on development to give the Town adequate time to study employee housing options, the Town would like to allow new development applications to be submitted during the study with the understanding that. those developments will be subject to the pending employee housing regulations when and if those regulations are adopted by the Town Council. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider Ordinance No. 26, Series 2006, for approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No 26, Series 2006. 8. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 13, Series 2006, A Resolution By the Town of Vail Council Urging Vails Voters to Educate Themselves and then Oppose Ballot Issue Number 38 in the November 7, 2006 Election. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider Resolution No. 13, Series 2006, for approval. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Colorado Secretary of State certified Ballot Issue Number 38 on December 6, 2005. This dramatic proposal would substantially change the historical referendum process in Colorado. ,Among other things this amendment would expand the referendum powers towards all local governments including "all enterprise authorities and other governmental entities." These enterprises and other governmental entities would be seriously and detrimentally impacted by such referendum. Proposals similar to Amendment 38 have twice before been rejected by the Colorado voters in both 1994 and 1996 by substantial margins. The proposal is not clearly written and creates with virtually every line of the proposal numerous practical and legal interpretation questions. Strictest compliance is required against hundreds of governmental districts which would create a substantial cost to the State even if only complaint based enforcement occurs. This ballot item would overrule any conflicting State constitution provision, home rule Town charter and all other state and local laws. The procedures set forth present an unfair playing field in that the Plaintiffs can recover their attorney's fees but governmental entities have practically no chance of recovering. taxpayers dollars spent on frivolous compliance actions. Such broad initiative and referendum right would seriously disrupt the operations of government. Council would be forced to delay local laws from going into effect before a 91 day waiting period had passed. .The measure purports to prohibit any future ballot issue rejected by the voters if the future issue is wholly or mostly similar to the rejected ballot item. Amendment 38 mandates taxpayer financed political advertising in the form of up to one thousand word statement, for petition proponents. Opponents have no such right under this. ballot item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consider Resolution No. 13, Series 2006 for approval. 9. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 19, Series 2006, A Resolution in Opposition to the 2006 Ballot Issue Known as "Term Limits for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges," Amendment 40 to the Colorado Constitution, that Would Politicize the Appellate Courts and Adversely Impact the Judicial Process . (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider Resolution No. 19, Series 2006, for approval. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: An initiated constitutional amendment, Amendment 40 to the Colorado Constitution, has been certified for consideration by the voters of the state of Colorado at the regular election to be held on November 7, 2006. Amendment 40 would cause all appellate court judges to be up for reelection at the general election in 2007 but only if those judges have not then served ten years in office. The effect of Amendment 40 would be to remove from office next year five supreme court justices and seven court of appeals judges. The effect of Amendment 40 would be to limit the independence of the judiciary and to politicize their appointment by placing a limit of ten years on the service of any appellate judge, thereby empowering the governor with the appointment of a majority of the appellate judges after each general election. The further effect of Amendment 40 would be to deprive this state of the wisdom and experience of our sitting appellate. judges and substitute on-the- job training after each appointment. The further effect of Amendment 40 would be to discourage the most qualified trial judges and attorneys from applying for appointment to the appellate bench. The further effect of Amendment 40 would be to cause newcomers to the appellate courts to be reviewing the decisions of seasoned trial judges, for whom no term limits are proposed. No other state has placed term limits on the judiciary. The best interests of the Town of Vail and its citizens will not be served by the attack on the independence and competence of the judiciary contained in Amendment 40. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consider Resolution No. 19, Series 2006 for approval. 10. Matt Mire ITEMROPIC: Resolution No. 20, Series 2006, A Resolution in Support of Referendum I: The Colorado Domestic Partnership Act. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider Resolution No. 20, Series 2006, for approval. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Thousand of law-abiding, taxpaying Coloradans are denied basic legal protections and responsibilities merely because they live in committed, same-sex relationships. Committed same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to visit a partner in the hospital, direct his or her care in a nursing home, or to leave their property to whom they wish upon death. Gays and lesbians who die without a will are more likely to have their property left to the government than to their partner. This November, Colorado voters will have the opportunity to approve Domestic Partnerships, a registered civil contract between committed same-sex couples. Domestic Partnerships, while not marriage, will provide many, but not all, of the protections and responsibilities that these couples deserve. The passage of Referendum I will send a strong signal throughout the country of Colorado's committed to fairness and equality for all citizens. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: .Consider Resolution No. 20, Series 2006, for approval. 11. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (8:15 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. f Memorandum To: TOV/VRD Capital Committee From: Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Dennis Stein, Director Vail Recreation District Diane Johnson, VRD Youth Services Manager Todd Oppenheimer, TOV Capital Projects Manager Date: December 22, 2004 RE: Proposed skate park site selection criteria. During the November 18, 2004 meeting of the Capital Committee, a list of eight potential sites for the skate park were discussed. These included the following sites: • Ford Park Soccer Field east (discarded) • Ford Park Tennis Center • Booth Falls Park • Bighorn Park • Donovan Park lower or middle benches • Stephens Park west • Chamonix site • Chalet Road tennis court (discarded) The Soccer Field and Chalet Road sites were discarded because of incompatibility with adjacent properties and will not be included in the following narrative. Two additional sites have been suggested since the November 18 meeting. These sites will be discussed in the narrative and are as follows. • Ford Park Lower Bench • Soccer Field parking lot (above an underground structure) To begin the pro/con analysis of the remaining sites an article written by Jim Barnum .has been included. We are not promoting Jim Barnum or his company however, this short article does a good job of summarizing the important considerations in selecting a site. written and submitted by Jim Barnum of ~ectrum Skatepark Creations Key Consideration Inclusion of your skateboard facility in an existing community park area conveys positive community acceptance. Town policy makers can take this proactive step towards making the youth feel received & approved of. A site of this nature brings different types of people together, making interaction & learning possible. In the case of a skatepark, this type of location provides a rare opportunity to connect with the typically hard to reach, s "non joining" & often misunderstood youth. When given the chance, these kids prove to be friendly & intelligent with plenty to offer the community. Including the skatepark in an existing facility can take care of some of the following criteria: • central location • proximity to public & private transit • proximity to parking • available number of parking stalls • foot & bike access • high pedestrian traffic area (for safety, security, monitoring, & showcasing this dynamic sport to the public through non-threatening viewing areas- -people love to watch. spectator accomodation [two areas: ,one close for the skaters & youth, the other slightly removed for everyone. Also provides safety from flying boards etc. -see above. • shelter • storage area [for brooms, rails, pads, etc., run by a skateboard club or the town) • water fountain • washrooms • lighting (contrary to popular belief this curbs night time problems) • telephone (for safety & emergencies) • trash cans • concessions (possibly run by or employing a skateboard club or youth group) Further, if constructed within an existing park, parents are likely to be comfortable leaving their kids to skate while they enjoy other areas in the park. Location can potentially bring families & the community closer together. This is an essential part of park design & landscape planning. Other Considerations • size (minimum 10, 000 sq. feet/ 930 sq. metres) • expansion potential (many communities surveyed said "should have made it bigger" & "twice the size') • topography, soils, drainage, vegetation & environmental concerns,. underground service conduits • proximity to business & service district [this strategy is to keep your park close to the "skateboarder problem" if there is one, drawing directly from the problem area. It also allows the youth access to concessions & the community in general. • construction & maintenance access • emergency access • visibility (parents, police, emergency services) • neighbourhood & surrounding area impact (visual &sound--these are minor concerns ) r Notes The most popular & successful placement of skateparks has been alongside community parks, recreation centres, & schools. As with all aspects of planning, the skaters should be consulted. If they don't like the site, the facility won't be used. One other idea is to use land which is unsuitable for any other use. These sites at-e usually totally unsuitable, but this thought sometimes produces great results. Community building & humanity are pillars of parks planning. Your skateboard facility, if properly planned, can dramatically affect your youth & their connection to the community & their elders. End of article. As you can see from Jim Barnurn's article, the criteria for selecting a site is not complicated but is probably the most important aspect of a successful project. In general, the location, size of available area, accessibility to parking, public transportation, and pedestrian/bicycle routes are the major site selection criteria. Other aspects referenced in the article can influence these criteria. Through professional experience, VRD staff has identified additional site selection criteria useful in evaluating proposed skate park sites. These are as follows: • Skate parks located adjacent to police and fire stations have proven successful in other communities. • Skate Park use increases with visibility and results in lower vandalism and better overall behavior of users. • Solar exposure is an important consideration in a mountain environment. A sunny exposure extends the useable season by several weeks. • Sites located in neighborhoods will experience higher use and lower parking demand because many users can walk to the park. As an additional note, an idea has been brought forth to extend the use of the skate park and provide a facility for another type of skating. The idea is to refrigerate the skate park surface during the winter months and provide a facility for snow skate users. The town currently owns a refrigeration system from the .Ice Bubble which could be retained when the Bubble is finally sold. It is believed there is considerable overlap between skate boarders, snowboarders, and snow skaters. This could be an opportunity to capture a new market and create a very unique facility. The following outline begins to organize the site selection criteria in a way that can be used to evaluate potential sites. 1) Location a) High pedestrian traffic area b) Visibility c) Adjacent to other recreation opportunities d) Solar exposure e) Proximity to business district f) Proximity to police/fire station g) Neighborhood setting h) Topography, soils, etc. 2} Size of available area a) Required physical space b) Shelter c) Restrooms d) Storage area 3) Accessibility a) Public and Private Transit b} Parking c) Pedestrian and Bicycle Routes d) Construction and Maintenance e) Emergency Many of these same criteria also affect the financial aspects of the project. Sharing parking, restrooms, bike paths, and other facilities already in place (or planned as part of a larger project) will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the cost of constructing the skateboard park itself. Individual Site Analysis: Ford Park Tennis -Courts west of Tennis Center Pros 1) Location a) High traffic area in a highly visible location. b) Adjacent to other recreational activities -softball, Alpine Garden, children's playground. c) Good solar exposure. d) Topography and soils should not be a problem. 2) Size of available area a) Size of area = 16,000 sf to 17,000 sf . b) Seasonal restrooms near-by. c) Storage in Tennis Center possible. 3) Accessibility a) Location on major roadway and bus route. b) Parking is available, but managed at certain times. c) Located on Frontage Road bike path, Vail Valley Drive bike route, and Stream Walk. d) Good maintenance and emergency vehicle access. Cons 1) Location a} Use conflicts with adjacent cultural uses at Alpine Garden and Ford Amphitheater. b) Displaces one set of tennis courts. c) Possible conflict with tennis player age groups. d) No good connection to business district. 2) Size of available area a) None 3) Accessibility a) Construction traffic will impact other developed areas of park. Booth Falls Park Note: The town has funds budgeted in 2006 or 2007 to reconstruct the playground area in Booth Falls Park. The idea is to possibly redesign the entire park site and add the skate park as well as some parking and restrooms which could also serve the Forest Service trailhead located nearby. Park elements could be located where most appropriate to surrounding the neighborhood. Parking, skate park, restroom uses would be closer to the Frontage Road with playground, tennis and picnic uses closer to the residential area. Pros 1) Location a) Location visible from Frontage Road and I-70: b) Can he incorporated into overall park design already scheduled. c) Good solar exposure. d) Topography and soils should not be a problem. 2) Size of available area a) Overall area of park (about 4 acres) is sufficient to accommodate redesigned playground, tennis, skate park and other park amenities. b) Shelter, storage, and restrooms can be designed into and shared with other park activities. 3) Accessibility a) Located on major roadway and bus route. b) Parking can be added with park redesign. c) Construction, maintenance, and emergency access can be accommodated with park redesign. Cons 1) Location a) No proximity to business district. b) Maybe some wetland issues. 2) Size of available area a) None. 3) Accessibility a) None Bighorn Park Pros 1) Location a) Adjacent to other recreation opportunities 2) Size of available area a) Shelter and restrooms already on site. 3) Accessibility a) On bus route. b) On Bike Route. c) Reconstruction of playground scheduled for 2005. Cons 1) Location a) Not highly visible b) No proximity to business district. c) Poor solar exposure. d) Soils may be unsuitable due to groundwater. 2) Size of available area a) Displaces about 40% of open turf/dog park area. 3) Accessibility . a) Limited parking available. b) Construction activity may disrupt other developed areas of park. Donovan Park -Lower Bench (developed park area) Pros 1) Location a) High traffic area in a highly visible location. b} Adjacent to other recreational activities. 2) Size of available area a) Shelter and restrooms already on site. 3) Accessibility a) Located on major roadway and bus route. b) Sufficient parking already on site. c) On bike path. d) Maintenance and emergency access is good. f COIIS 1) Location a) Displaces natural area or area for other recreational activity. b) No proximity to commercial district. c) Activity may conflict with pavilion use. d) Soils will be a problem. 2) Size of available area a) Natural area, 5600 sf, is less than 10,000 sf minimum. b) Would have to displace area used for other recreational activity (neighborhood park and/or soccer field). 3) Accessibility a) Construction access may disrupt developed portions of the park. Donovan Park -Middle Bench Note:. On this site the skate park would be designed and constructed as part of a small neighborhood park facility. A small children's playground, turf grass, and picnic area would be part of the overall design. Pros 1) Location a) Undeveloped site. 2) Size of available area a) Site area of approximately 40,000 sf should accommodate 10,000-15,000 sf skate park plus other amenities. 3) Accessibility a) Construction, maintenance, and construction access is good. Cons 1) Location a) Not in a highly visible. or pedestrian traffic area. b) Not adjacent to other recreation opportunities. c) No proximity to business district. d) Poor solar exposure. 2) Size of available area. a) None 3) Accessibility a) Not on major town street, bus route, or bike path. Stephens Park -West Pros 1 } Lo cation a) Adjacent to other recreational opportunities. 2) Size of available area a) Restrooms and shelter are close by. 3) Ac cessibility a) On major town street and bus route. b) On bike path. c) Construction, maintenance, and emergency access is good. Cons 1) Location a) Not in a highly visible area. b) No proximity to business district. c) Poor solar exposure. d) Soils, wetland, and floodplain may be a problem. 2) Size of available area a) Depending on location (east or west of Kinnickinnick Rd,) area maybe less than 10,000 sf minimum recommended size. (West side is about 9100 sf, East side is about 20,000 sf). 3} Accessibility a) Depending on location, existing parking lot may be too far away. Chamonix Site Pros 1) Lo cation a) Location is visible if on south portion of site. b) Good proximity to business district. c) Adjacent to fire station. d) Good solar exposure. e} Undeveloped site provides opportunities to incorporate with other functions. 2} Size of available area a) Limited with Master Plan Summaries Al, and insufficient with A2. 3) Accessibility a) On major town street and bus route. b) Construction access good with other construction on site. Co ns 1) Location a) Not adjacent to other recreational activities unless incorporated into design. b) Topography of site may be a problem. 2) Size of available area a) Master Plan summaries Al and A2 do not allow the minimum area of 10,000 sf without extensive grading and retaining wails. (Warrants further investigation). 3) Accessibility a) None Ford Park Lower Bench Pros 1) Location a) High pedestrian traffic location b) Adjacent to other recreation opportunities -softball, Alpine Gardens, Tennis, Playground. c) Topography and soils should not be a problem. 2) Size of available area a) Grass area south of access road, between School House and picnic shelter, is approximately 14,200 sf in size. b) Shelter and restrooms are near-by. 3) Accessibility a) Access to the site is from 2 major town streets and on the bus route. b) Vail Valley Drive and Frontage Road bike routes as well as the stream walk access Ford Park. c) Parking exists on site. d) Construction, maintenance and emergency access is good. Cons 1) Location a) Use conflicts with adjacent cultural uses at Alpine Garden and Ford Amphitheater. b) Displaces Art in Public Places summer art exhibit location (area is also being considered for relocation of the Seibert Circle Morales art piece). c) Site is not highly visible. d) Poor solar exposure. e) No good connection to business district. 2) Size of available area a) None. 3) Accessibility a) Use may place additional burden on available parking and further exacerbate the summer managed parking program. b) Construction may impact other developed areas of the park. 1 Soccer Field parking lot Note: Pros 1 } Location a) Area is a high pedestrian traffic area. b) Adjacent to other recreation opportunities -soccer field, sand volleyball, nature center, golf course, Ford Park. 2) Size of available area a) The parking lot area is approximately 24,000 sf. b) Existing restrooms are nearby. 3) Accessibility a) On a major town street and bus route. b) On Vail Valley Drive bike route. c) Parking (via underground structure) would be immediately adjacent. d) Construction and emergency access would not be a problem. Cons 1) Location a) Location not highly visible. b) No proximity to business district. c) Construction on top of underground parking structure requires several hundred thousand dollars of additional expenditure to create the site for the skate park. 2) Size if available area a) .None. 3) Accessibility a) Raised area may create maintenance access problems. Summary: The Town Council has included funding in the RETT Capital Budget for a skate park facility design in 2005 and construction in 2006. This indicates a desire to move forward with the project as quickly as possible. Vail will be without a skate park facility for at least the 2005 season. With a new skate park being planned for Edwards in 2005, there is a possibility of losing this activity to down-valley recreation providers. The following. summary is based on that premise. ' The best opportunities for skate park development are with one of the undeveloped or under-developed sites. These are Chamonix, Booth Falls Park, Donovan Park -Middle Bench, and Soccer Field parking. These offer the most flexibility in design and the least impact to existing recreation facilities. The Soccer Field site requires an expensive parking structure to be built before a site is actually available. If some of Vail Resort's parking funds were to be diverted from Lionshead to the Soccer Field site, the completion date will still be several years in the future. This probably precludes that site from consideration. Of the three remaining sites, Chamonix probably ranks first because of its proximity to the commercial area and the neighborhood. This is also a site being actively programmed for development. Booth Falls Park ranks second because of its proximity to the Vail Mountain School and other recreation activities and its visibility from the Frontage Road. Changing the scope of the Booth Falls Park project from playground reconstruction to full park redevelopment will affect the RETT capital budget by increasing and accelerating the required funding. Donovan Park -Middle Bench is not as desirable because of its limited visibility and lack of adjacent commercial and recreation opportunities. However, this remains an open, undeveloped recreation site. Several members of this neighborhood have discussed the development of a neighborhood park in the past. It is unknown if a skate park would be desirable to the neighborhood. The site selection process should include involvement from the community and the skaters who will use the facility. This process should be started as soon as possible to be ready to construct in 2006. It will take some time to interview and hire a skate park designer. This industry is very active at this time and available time slots will fill up quickly. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Annexation Process Summary L PURPOSE During recent Town Council discussions related to the potential annexation of the Highlands Meadows neighborhood, the Town Council requested that Staff prepare a summary of the annexation process. The following is a brief outline of the steps associated with -the annexation of lands into the Town of Vail. II. ANNEXATION PROCEDURES Neither the Vail Town Charter nor the Vail Town Code establishes specific policies or procedures for the annexation of lands into the Town of Vail. Therefore, the provisions of Article 31-12, Part 1 (a.k.a. "Municipal Annexation Act of 1965") of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) shall apply to any proposed annexation. The following is a brief summary of the procedures applicable to a potential annexation of the Highlands Meadows neighborhood or similar areas: Step 1: Eligibility for Annexation An area is eligible for annexation if: a) Not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the Town of Vail b) A community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the Town of Vail; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the Town of Vail. Step 2: Initiation of the Annexation Process Annexation procedures are generally initiated by one of three methods: a) Initiation by the Annexing Municipality: The Town of Vail may only initiate the annexation of "enclaves" and Town owned lands. Therefore, annexation of the Highlands Meadows neighborhood or similar areas must be initiated by either a petition for annexation or a petition for an annexation election. b) Petition for Annexation: The landowners of more than 50% of the Highland Meadows neighborhood area, excluding public streets, may petition the Town of Vail for annexation. c) Petition for an Annexation Election: At least seventy-five qualified electors, or ten percent of the qualified electors, whichever is less, may petition the Town of Vail to commence proceedings for the holding of an annexation election in the area proposed to be annexed. Step 3: Setting a Hearing Date As a part of a resolution finding substantial compliance of an annexation petition or of a petition for an annexation election with the standards outlined in the CRS, the Town Council shall establish a date; time, and_ place for a hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with the eligibility standards of the CRS. The hearing shall be held not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after the effective date of the resolution setting the hearing. Step 4: Annexation Impact Report The Town of Vail shall prepare an impact report concerning the proposed annexation at least twenty-five days before the date of the hearing and shall file one copy with the Board of County Commissioners within five days thereafter. A report is not required for annexations of ten acres or less in total area or when the Town of Vail and the Board of County Commissioners agree that the report may be waived. An annexation impact report shall include, as a minimum: a) A map of the Town of Vail and the adjacent territory to show the following information: (I) The present and proposed boundaries of the Town of Vail in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; (II) The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls, other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; and (III) The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed; b) A copy of any draft or final pre-annexation agreement; c) A statement establishing plans for extending municipal services into the annexation area. d) A statement establishing the method under which the Town of Vail plans to finance the extension of any municipal services into the annexation area; e) A statement identifying existing districts within the annexation area; and f) A statement on the effect of annexation upon local-public school district systems. Step 5: Hearing and Findings Any person may appear at the hearing and present evidence upon any matter to be determined by the Town Council. Upon the completion of the hearing, the Town Council, by resolution, shall make findings of fact and conclusion on the following: a) Whether or not the area is eligible for annexation, and b) Whether or not an annexation election is required; The Town Council shall also determine whether or not additional terms and conditions are to be imposed as part of the annexation. Step 6(a): Annexation without Election If the adopted resolution of the Town Council determines that the area is eligible for annexation, .that an election is not required, and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed, the Town Council may annex the area proposed to be annexed by ordinance.. The annexation shall become effective upon the effective date of the annexing ordinance. For the purpose of general taxation the annexation shall be effective on and after the following January 1. Step 6(b): Annexation pursuant to Election If the Town Council determines that an annexation election is required or that additional terms and conditions should be imposed upon the area proposed to be annexed, an election shall be called to determine whether a majority of the qualified electors approve the .annexation and any related terms and conditions. Any landowner owning land in the area proposed to be annexed may vote, irrespective of whether he or she is a qualified elector. The Town of Vail shall petition the district court to hold an annexation election. The district court will appoint election commissioners to conduct an election of all the qualified electors and landowners. If a majority of the votes cast are against annexation or the vote is tied, the court shall order that all annexation proceedings to date are void and the Town of Vail shall proceed no further with annexation proceedings. If a majority of the votes cast are for annexation, the court shall order that said area may be annexed into the Town of Vail by ordinance and the Town may impose any terms and conditions approved in the election. All costs and expenses associated with an annexation election shall be paid by the Town of Vail. 111. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL This memorandum was prepared for informational purposes only. No action is being requested of the Council at this time. 4 ,, ,~, _. _, -___- j _ _ . ~..`~_ ~ . _ _ -_ j J~. - _ ,. ,- ~ _ ~ - _ r~ ~ - .~,~ w - `''`~` ., _ ,-~ ti ~ ~ _ r - '~ C f ~ ,` ~ ~ , - ~ k ```,~ ~, ~\ SITE ~I.nN ~ t~~~. ., e. ~ .. r... ,~ ~.- SEIBERT CIRCLE CONCEPT 3 LEAPFROGS AND FIRE ON WATER -- - - -- --- M E .L RESOLUTION NO. 13 Series 2006 A RESOLUTION BY THE TOWN OF VAIL COUNCIL URGING VAILS VOTERS TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES AND THEN OPPOSE BALLOT ISSUE NUMBER 38 IN THE NOVEMBER 7, 2006 ELECTION. WHEREAS, the Colorado Secretary of State certified Ballot Issue Number 38 on December 6, 2005; and WHEREAS, this dramatic proposal would substantially change the historical referendum process in Colorado; and WHEREAS, among other things this amendment would expand the referendum powers towards all local governments including "all enterprise authorities and other governmental entities" and; WHEREAS, these enterprises and other governmental entities would be seriously and detrimentally impacted by such referendum; and WHEREAS, proposals similar to Amendment 38 have twice before been rejected by the Colorado voters in both 1994 and 1996 by substantial margins; and WHEREAS, the proposal is not clearly written and creates with virtually every line of the proposal numerous practical and legal interpretation questions; and WHEREAS, strictest compliance is required against hundreds of governmental districts which would create a substantial cost to the State even if only complaint based enforcement occurs; and WHEREAS, this ballot item would overrule any conflicting State constitution provision, home rule Town charter and all other state and local !aws; and WHEREAS, the procedures set forth present an unfair playing field in that the Plaintiffs can .recover their attorney's fees but governmental entities have practically no chance of recovering taxpayers dollars spent on frivolous compliance actions; and WHEREAS, such broad initiative and referendum right would seriously disruptthe operations of government; and WHEREAS, Council would be forced to delay local laws from going into effect before a 91 day waiting period had passed; and WHEREAS, the measure purports to prohibit any future ballot issue rejected by the voters if the future issue is wholly'or mostly similar to the rejected ballot item; and WHEREAS, Amendment 38 mandates taxpayer financed political advertising in the form of up to one thousand word statement, for petition proponents. Opponents have not such right under this ballot item. WHEREAS, resulting litigation from the numerous legal challenges caused by Ballot Item 38 will create a serious legal burden forthe Colorado Supreme Court, state and local government; and Resolution No. 13, Series 2006 WHEREAS, verification of signature protections would deteriorate by the new procedure proposed by Ballot Item 38; and WHEREAS, this Ballot Item would severely and negatively impact the operations of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF Vail, COLORADO as follows: Section 1. The Town Council hereby urges citizens to educate themselves on Ballot Issue Number 38. Section 2. The Town Council of the Town of Vail further urges citizens to recognize the severe and disabling effects this Amendment will have on both state and local levels of government. Section 3. The Town Council urges Vail voters to vote against Ballot Item 38 in the November 7, 2006 election. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 2006. TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO i3y Rodney E. Slifer Mayor of the Town of Vail, Colorado ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Resolution No. 13, Series 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 19 Series 2006 A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE 2006 BALLOT ISSUE KNOWN AS "TERM LIMITS FOR SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES," AMENDMENT 40 TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION,. THAT WOULD POLITICIZE THE APPELLATE COURTS AND ADVERSELY IMPACT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WHEREAS, an initiated constitutiona{ amendment, Amendment 40 to the Colorado Constitution, has been certified for consideration by the voters of the state of Colorado at the regular election to be held on November 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, Amendment 40 would cause all appellate court judges to be up for reelection at the general election in 2007 but only if those judges have not then served ten years in office; and WHEREAS, the effect of Amendment 40 would be to remove from office next year five supreme court justices and seven court of appeals judges; and WHEREAS, the effect of Amendment 40 would be to limit the independence of the judiciary and to politicize their appointment by placing a limit of ten years on the service of any appellate judge, thereby empowering the governor with the appointment of a majority of the appellate judges after each general election; and WHEREAS, the further effect of Amendment 40 would be to deprive this state of the wisdom and experience of our sitting appellate judges and substitute an-the-job training after each appointment; and WHEREAS, the further effect of Amendment 40 would be to discourage the most qualified trial judges and attorneys from applying for appointment to the appellate bench; and WHEREAS, the further effect of Amendment 40 would be to cause newcomers to the appellate courts to be reviewing the decisions of seasoned trial judges, for whom no term limits are proposed; and WHEREAS, no other state has placed term limits on the judiciary; and WHEREAS, the best interests of the Town of Vail and its citizens will not be served by the attack on the independence and competence of the judiciary contained in Amendment 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO as follows: 1. The Council opposes term limits for appellate judges and Amendment 40 on the ballot for the November 7, 2006, general election. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 2006. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor of the Town of Vail, Colorado ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Resolution No. 19, Series 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 20 Series 2006 A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REFERENDUM I: THE COLORADO DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ACT WHEREAS, thousand of law-abiding; taxpaying Coloradans are denied basic legal protections and responsibilities merely because they live in committed, same-sex relationships; and WHEREAS, committed same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to visit a partner in the hospital, direct his or her care in a nursing home, or to leave their property to whom they wish upon death; and WHEREAS, gays and lesbians who die without a will are more likely to have their property left to the government than to their partner; and WHEREAS, this November, Colorado voters will have the opportunity to approve Domestic Partnerships, a registered civil contract between committed same-sex couples; and WHEREAS, Domestic Partnerships, while not marriage, will provide many, but not all, of the protections and responsibilities that these couples deserve; and WHEREAS, the passage of Referendum I will send a strong signal throughout the country of Colorado's committed to fairness and equality for all citizens. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ~1AIL, COLORADO THAT as follows: Section 1. The Town of Vail Council does hereby declare its full support of, and urge a YES vote on, Referendum I: the Colorado Domestic Partnership Act at the General Election on November 7, 2006. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 2006. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor of the Town of Vail, Colorado Resolution No. 20, Series 2006 t,RDiNAtd~;E NO, 26 SERIES 2~J3~ AN EMERGENCY ORDiNi11~JCE DECLARIi~JG THE TOWN COUNCIL'S INTENT TO ADOPT R.N CRDIr~1~,NCE ESTABLISHING EMPLOYEE HOUSING REGULATIONS :=OR COMMEi~CIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ANA REDEVELOPMERT; AND APPLYING SUCH REGULATIONS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, Vail has experienced a high rate of growth and increase in population during the past ten years; WHEREAS, during that period of tire, housing costs in Vail have increased at a much higher rate than income has increased; WHEREAS, there is a substantial, direct and National connection between the need for employee. housing generated h°r new residentia4 and commercial development and redevelopment and the requirements far the provision of employee housing, as documented in the report entitled Town of Vail I`lexus/Proportionality Analysis for Employee Housing Mitigation Programs, prepared for the Town by RRC associates, Inc., a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk and availabie f`or public inspection; WHEREAS, new residentiali and commercia! development and redevelopment in the Town will result in new tivor~~rs being needed for uses in the new buildings and for the maintenance of the new buildings; WHEREAS, the To~vr- ~~ouncii believes that the provision of a reasonable and appropriate percentage of nelrr ems,#~tiyee hour>ing is the responsibility of new residential and nonresidential developments and r-edeveloprr;ents which have a nexus to new job generation; WHEREAS, prior to adopting any regulations regarding employee housing, the Town Council would like to ensure that it I~~as provided adequate opportunity to educate the public about employee housing opti^~ns and to receive cc~mr~ents on employee housing options; WHEREAS, the Tov~rn Council finds and determines that additional time is necessary to study employee housing c~tion:~ !"efure adoi~~~`in.~ r~~~rf employee housing regulations; WHEREAS, the To~ti~r~ Cou~:cil finds ar~d determines that, rather than impose a moratorium on development o give ti,e Town ;~de~.iate time to study employee housing options, the Town should ailt~xw new cevelopment applications to be submitted during the study with the understanding that those develop~~:~nts will be subject to the pending employee housing regulations when and if those regulations are adopted by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, by pa~sini zi"~iS Or~u?inanre 'o subject new development and redevelopment to the pendi~~g empl<~w~ec har_~sirsg regr=lations, the Town is relying on the so- called "pending ordinance do=~.,tri~;t~," ~ doctri;lti rz.~::~og~~i~ed by current Colorado law. Ordinance No. 26, Series 2006 NOW, THEREFORE, d~E IT f~F~GAINED BY T~{E TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THkT: Section 1. The To~~~~~ =.,o~_~ ~ ~i he :~k~~ decl ~~rGs its intention to adopt an ordinance adding provisions to its code rec~ui:-3~g a!i new d:~,~elc~~~r~~ent and redevelopment in the Town to mitigate the impacts on {~o~.~sing created by uch development through the provision of employee housing ("pending empi~~~~ee housing regulations"}. The pending employee housing regulations will be lJased o~~ the abovG~-re~E~~renced study as well as comments received from the public. Thy; Towns Council's ir~teni~~n is to adopt the pending employee housing regulations on or Before April 15, 2007, p~ vided, however, that nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed .~s rec~iriti 0 tbr~ Town Cofancil to take any legislative action. Section 2. All devt~lop~era applcati-~r~s sUiJ~^riltted to the Town after the effective date of this Ordinance shc~Il be sr l_,,r:ct to t~!e ~~Prr~irr~ employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally ar~o4a~`~~.1; provided, ~ro~w~~«er, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regr.~lakions by i~,p~ ii 15, 20~~~7, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Section 3. Severabi'i~r. If any provision of ':his Ordinance is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to b~e invalid, the remaining previsions of this Ordinance will remain valid, it being the intent of r.he To~~~n that the remaining provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Section 4. Eme_rg~rcu M asure. Bayed upon a!t of the foregoing, the Council finds and declares that tf?ere is rea,or~ahle j~,s~if:cati~~~ ~ gar the adoption of this Ordinance as an emergency measure and ~i'~~_tt ibis C~dinan{~.: is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public ~~~e;fiare, i~.~~cause allowing r~ew development applications to be processed without employee ho~:~ir~~€~ :~r~itigation ~~ftro~lE4 be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Thereforr~, this Ordinanc ~ shall ~~!<e effect immediately upon adoption as provided by Section 4.11 c=~ tl~~e ~~1a'I i iorro4 R~,! ~e Ci~ -rter. INTRODUCED, REACH, t='AS;~i.l~, A;~1C~~"ED =~.5 AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY THE UNANIMOUS VOTE C~= COt.~ivCiL ~f~Eti1B~=RS C-'RESENT OR A VOTE OF FIVE (5) COUNCIL MEMBERS, Wi-llt~H`~`;~~=t~ Ic LF:S ~; ~?°v~:) ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS 17T" DAY OF OCTOBER, 200x. Roc' ;lifer, kVlayor Lorelei Donaldson, Town CIeN Ordinance No. 26, Series ~G06 2 TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABILITY RATIO MATRIX 1011 l/2006 Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario A Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 39% Affordable (1) 209,733 200 270 600 791 70 35% 191 32% $22,000,000 8.01% 61% Market Rate 327,&57 N/A 258 N/A 297 258 N/A 297 N/A 537,590 Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario B Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 40%Affordable(1) 215,110 200 276 600 804 76 38% 204 34% $19,850,000 8.01% 60% Market Rate 322,481 N/A 254 N/A 293 254 N/A 293 N/A 537,591 Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario C Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 50%Affordable (1) 268,796 200 340 600 931 140 70% 331 55% $2,740,000 8.01% 50% Market Rate 268,795 NIA 213 NlA 242 213 N/A 242 N/A 537,591 Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario D Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 55%Affordable(1) 293,391 200 369 600 989 169 85% 389 65% $0 7.27% 45% Market Rate 244,200 N/A 193 N/A 221 193 N/A 221 N/A 537,591 Notes: 1. Includes seasonal rental, traditional rental, and subsidized family condos. 2. Existing Timber Ridge: 200 units, b00 beds. 10-11-06 Comparison 1 of 1 10/12/2006 2:47 PM Drive up Demand for Vail Parking Spaces Percent Estimated Percent Future Future Daily Percent of Current Future Number Current Current Incremental Incremental future Number of Number of pass of pass Peak Day Daily Peak Daily Peak merchant Transit People Number of Holders Holders Pass Usa e Usa a Usa a users Use er Car new Cars Merchant Pass Local Skier 5000 8D00 3000 60% 30 % 900 50 % 2 225 Future Current Percent of Incremental Current Front Percent front Incremental Number of Daily Number Percent of Range Pop and Future Front Current Percent of range Front Range New Skiers of Front future Number of Number of Range Peak Day Peak population population on the Front Range Transit people Number of skiers Po ulaiion Usa a Usa e Skiers Skiers Ran e Skiers Use er car new Cars Colorado Pass Day Front 3.5 million Range 700,000 skiers 4.5 million 300D-5000 .43%-.72% 20% 10-15% 125,OD0 540-900 D% 3 18D-300 Total Number number of Percent of Future Percent of Number of Assumed for Percent Number of People in Skiers on Number of future Number of Units Zoned in the Second occupancy people per Second any given Incremental Transit people Number of Ea le Count Home Market Peak Da s household homes da Skiers Use er car new Cars Part Time Residence 12000 10,000 Homes 30 % 3 9000 11% 990 50 % 3 165 Total Percent of Number number of occupants Future Percent of Number of Assumed for Percent Number of People in shoppingleat Number of future Number of Units Zoned in the Second occupancy people per Second ing on any Incremental Transit people Number of Ea le Count Home Market Peak Da s household homes iven da shop ers Use per car new Cars Part Time Residence 12000 10,000 Homes 30 % 3 9000 10% 900 50 % 3 150 Percent of Percent Incremental Number of new Employees Peak Day Future daily Percent of Number of Number of New employees Housed in Demand Incremental future Number of New Jobs in jobs per Employees Housed in Vail use Based on Number of Transit people Number of Vail Em Io ee Vail Vail Transit Shifts Emplo ees Use r car new Cars LOCaI Employee 3600 Jobs 1.3 2770 30% 100% 50 % 970 50 % 2 243 Total incremental \ Future Demand 3820-4180 48.44% 2.4-2.5 963-1083 Existing Demand Shortfall 351.465 Total Number of Long Term Future Spaces 1314-1548 Vail Parking Current Demand The current demand for Vail parking supply to meet the objective of less than 15 days on the Frontage Road the 90t~' percent design day (VRI uses the tenth highest day standard for on mountain facilities) is determined from the following chart. Frontage Road Car Counts (highest to lowest) 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2001 2002 2003 2004* 2005** 2006 1208 910 1420 829 1207 891 957 800 1073 485 950 596 921 781 893 462 717 590 787 738 871 459 510 581 786 641 768 381 461 580 709 609 681 369 459 493 707 583 661 320 417 462 705 520 565 300 386 447 631 472 564 210 325 418 10~h day 621 424 513 205 323 404 615 421 512 181 315 396 608 406 490 173 287 391 571 390 410 102 264 349 558 385 407 69 240 335- 15th da 541 367 381 214 303 521 364 351 209 299 500 351 330 200 287 480 342 321 195 235 421 308 288 187 235 418 304 287 169 222 387 288 275 168 205 382 280 251 163 184 374 277 235 156 183 349 259 203 115 183 339 249 189 104 164 321 246 184 158 304 229 180 139 287 221 168 95 282 204 138 54 274 174 70 267 165 254 134. 204 114 200 113 188. 98 110 50 95 Total # cars per season 17882 13217 13679 4545 8741 9879 Average # cars/day on the road 483 367 456 325 350 341 # days on road with 400 new sp 20 12 14 10 11 10 * 200 spaces used at the West Day lot * * 100 spaces used at the West day lot TIMBER RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABILITY RATIO MATRIX 10/11/200b Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario A Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 39%Affordable(1) 209,733 200 270 600 791 70 35% 191 32% $22,000,000 8.01% 61%MarketRate 327,857 N/A 258 N/A 297 258 N/A 297 N/A 537,590 Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario B Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 40%Affordable(1) 215,110 200 276 600 804 76 38% 204 34% $19,850,000 8.01% 60% Market Rate 322,481 N/A 254 N/A 293 254 N/A 293 N/A 537,591 Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario C Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 50%Affordable(1) 268,796 200 340 600 931 140 70% 331 55% $2,740,000 8.01% 50% Market Rate 268,795 NIA 213 N/A 242 213 N/A 242 N/A 537,591 Square Current Proposed Current Proposed Increase over Existing (2) Land Scenario D Feet Units Units Beds Beds Units % Beds % Basis Yield 55% Affordable (1) 293,391 200 369 600 989 169 85% 389 65% $0 7.27% 45% Market Rate 244,200 N/A 193 N/A 221 193 N/A 221 N/~1 --~,--- Notes: L Includes seasonal rental, traditional rental, and subsidized family condos. 2. Existing Timber Ridge: 200 units, 600 beds. 10-I1-06 Comparison 1 of 1 10/12/2006 2:47 PM