Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-04 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNClL WORK SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 1:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 4,2008 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. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update. (10 min.) 2. Kathleen Halloran ITEM/TOPIC: 2007 Year-end Investment Report. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No formal action requested - information only. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Section 2-2-8 of the Town Code requires an annual presentation of the town's investment report, which is also provided as a written, report for each quarter. This agenda item is a presentation of the town's investment report as of December 31, 2007. 3. Stan Zemler ITEMITOPIC: Review of 2008-2009 Strategic Work Plan. (15 min.) 4. Mark Masinter 1TEMITOPIC: Timber Ridge Redevelopment: Staff will provide an Stan Zemler overview of the Housing (H) District. (45 min.) In anticipation of purchasing and redeveloping the Timber Ridge site, Lincoln Property Company Southwest is requesting consideration of the foUowing development alternatives: 1. To construct employee housing units at a floor area rate of 250 square feet per employee, rather than a rate of 350 square feet as required by the Vail Town Code. 2. To allow twenty-five percent (25%) of the total units on the Timber Ridge site to be free-market dwelling units, rather than deed restricted employee housing units. 3. To establish five-year rental leases as an employee housing mitigation, rather than providing the mitigation through the methods required by the Vail Town Code. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide staff and Lincoin Property Company Southwest direction regarding the three proposed redevelopment alternatives. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail acquired Timber Ridge in 2003 and peRnanently deed restricted the property with the requirement to maintain 600 affordable rental beds. It is the intention of the town to enter into an agreement with Lincoln Property Company Southwest to purchase and redevelop the subject property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff and Lincoln Property Company Southwest direction regarding the three proposed development alternatives. 5. ITENI/TOPIC: Information Update. (10 min.) 6. GTEMITOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (15 min.) 7. ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to 1) C.R.S. §24-6- 402(4)(0 - to discuss personnel matters, Review of Town Council direct reports. (60 min.) 8. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (4:20 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUPVCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2008 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. _ PLANNING AND ENVIROiVMENTAL COMMISSIOiV *VA1 February 25, 2008 TOWNTOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Anne Gunion Rollie Kjesbo Michael Kurz Bill Pierce • Scott Proper Susie Tjossem David Viele , 12:00pm - Training: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (lunch provided) 60 minutes Site Visits: 1:00 pm 1. Williams Residence - 2570 Bald Mountain Road . Driver: Warren Please note: Times of items are approximate and subject to change. 15 minutes 1. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an addition within the west side setback, located at 2570 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Village Filing,13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070036) Applicant: Ed Williams, represented by William Hein Associates Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) . MOTION: Proper SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 5-2-0 (Gunion & Kjesbo opposed) CONDITION(S): 1. This approvaV is continent upon the applicant obtaining approval of the associated design review application. Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Bill Hein, William Hein Associates, gave a presentation outlining the revisions that have been made to the proposed plans in response to concerns identified during the previous Commission review. The changes were proposed to reduce the extent of the requested variance by reducing the amount of habitable area extending into the side yard setback. He also highlighted the additional landscape plantings that were being proposed to minimize the impacts of the building encroachments. Commissioner Gunion asked for clarification regarding the Town Code requirements for granting of a variance; specifically asking the applicant to justify why they are not increasing an existing non-conformity. Bill Gibson clarified that the applicant is asking for further deviations to an existing non- conforming structure through this variance request. Page 1 • Commissioner Proper referenced the Town Code sections highlighted in the Staff's memorandum. While he concurred with Commissioner Gunion's line of questioning, he stated that a strict interpretation of the requirements of the Zoning Code is a hardship on the applicant. 45 minutes 2. A request for a final review of a development plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, and Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a redevelopment of Solar Vail into a mixed use development to include Type VI employee housing units, professional offices, subterranean parking, and public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment, located at 501 North Frontage Road West, Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070052) Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Lindall Architects, P.C. Planner: Scot Hunn ACTION: Tabled to March 10, 2008 ' MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Scot Hunn made a presentation per the Staff memorandum and clarified that this item was to be treated as a work session at this hearing. He requested that the Commission focus specifically on the topics of bulk/mass, parking variations, and setback encroachments. Henry Pratt, GPSL Architects, entered a newly drafted traffic study into the public record and described that the report concluded that no improvements to the North Frontage Road are necessary. He then presented a summary of the changes to the project design since the PEC's last review. Johannes Faessler, applicant, was also available for questions. Nancy Ricci, Red Sandstone School, noted the School Administration's. concern about any access between the school and the development. Henry Pratt responded that they intend to remove the existing, unimproved path between the properties. He noted that the applicant is proposing a new walkway, and stairs providing a direct access to the bike path along the Frontage road. He further stated that they are still in negotiations with CDOT conceming a new sidewalk connecting to the North Frontage Road. . Phil Onofrio, Superintendent of the School District, requests that a fence be constructed befinreen the properties with a path along the south edge of the school driveway. Jim Lamont, V'ail Village Homeowners Association, asked the applicant to clarify why the proposed building needed to encroach into the setbacks. He also asked for clarification of the variation being requested for parking. Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, summarized the parking situations at Middle Creek and Timber Ridge. , Jim Lamont suggested there is an opportunity to allow commuter parking at transit oriented projects like this one. He asked if it is possible to construct more parking on the site. Johannes. Faessler, argued that the multi-family parking requirements don't make sense compared to EHU credits given for the unit mix. He also noted the proximity of the development to the Vail Village. Page 2 Commissioner Viele noted that the applicanYs proposed number of spaces is comparable to the requirement for a hotel. Commissioner Tjossem asked the applicant to clarify how the proposed for-sale EHUs relate to the proposed number of parking spaces. Johannes Faessler clarified that no units would be "for-sale", and that deed restrictions could be sold as a mechanism to finance development of the site. He noted his intent to always control ownership of the building and would only sell the deed restriction credits. Nina Timm clarified the EHU deed restrictions, as applied to any employee housing unit within the Town. Jim Lamont suggested evaluating the bus stop locations accessible to this project. He liked the idea of a transfer of development rights for EHU credits, but has concerns when those projects exceed the bulk and mass of the neighborhood. . Commissioner Kjesbo questioned if the conditional use permit for office uses could be revoked if parking became an issue at the site. Scot Hunn confirmed that could be a requirement of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurz asked why the setback encroachments were necessary. Henry noted that the old property survey showed a 15 foot setback, so that is how they designed the building. . Scot Hunn clarified that the setbacks within the Housing District are 20 feet; that the "setback" line shown on the site plan is not accurate. Commissioner Kurz asked the applicant to clarify their occupancy rates. Tom Miller, Vail Resorts, voiced support for the project. Commissioner Viele noted this was an opportunity for the Town to allow the private sector to resolve the Town's housing projects. He also mentioned the fences at Middle Creek and the Children's Garden of Learning. Commissioner Kurz noted the lack of "entrance" by the architecture. Commissioner Gunion noted that the PEC has approved below grade setback encroachments for other projects, she supports working with the school to separate the properties, and she is open to the idea of a reduced parking requirement. She noted that the applicant needed to support their variations at the next meeting. Page 3 ; ~ 45 minutes 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a prescribed regulations amendment to Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, to establish standards and criteria related to mitigating employee housing requirements, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070075) Applicant: Town of Vail Staff/Planner: Nina Timm and Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to March 10, 2008 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson and Nina Timm made a presentation per the Staff memorandum and the recommendations made by-the Vail Local Housing Authority concerning housing mitigation goals ' and policies. They clarified the differences between the recommendations being made by the Housing Authority and those of the Town Staff. Commissioner Viele asked for clarification regarding the role of the Housing Authority and its status as a Town Council appointed board. Commissioner Tjossem expressed support for providing incentives for devetopers to construct employee housing and stated that tfie proposed criteria and standards are not reaching far enough to provide incentives. She suggested site coverage increases, landscaping area decreases, and building height increases would be appropriate. Commissioner Viele asked for clarification on a theoretical situation in which someone provides for 100% employee mitigation outside of the Town boundaries, given a plan for parking and transportation. He asked if this is possible under the Town's current regulation: Staff clarified that out-of-town mitigation is not currently allowed and all employee housing is to be provided within the Town boundaries. Commissioner Gunion asked why the Town Staff and the Housing Authority differed in their recommendations. Nina Timm explained the Staff's position that all required employee housing mitigation should be provided on-site for new development and demo-rebuild projects. Commissioner Proper stated that he believes a massive overhaul to the employee housing mitigation regulations is being proposed, when the Commission only requested clarification to the criteria and standards to be used (by the Commission) to determine which mitigation method to use oi1 a case by case basis. Relative to his reading of the proposed language, he asked why the Town would not prefer to get more off-site units, rather fewer on-site units. He continued that encouraging innovation in design, incentives, and partnerships is preferable to hard-line regulations. Commissioner Viele stated that the premise that the Town government should be responsible to create additional employee housing within the Town, via regulation, is flawed. Commissioner Proper stated he feels that free enterprise (the failure of business if the business doesn't provide for its own housing needs) should dictate provision of housing prior to the Town stepping in. ' Page 4 ' Commissioner Viele stated that he believes the regulations are a"growth controi measure° and that the Solar Vail project is an example of private enterprise meeting the housing demands based on current needs and using an emerging employee housing credit market. Commissioner Gunion stated that she believes the regulations should be written in a way that allows for flexibility, innovation and collaboration to be used to address mitigation. The regulations should anticipate all probabilities within the free market and re-development that will continue to occur. Jim Lamont stated that West Vail, in the future, should be viewed as a"community town center", similar to Lionshead and the Vail Village, and that the West Vail area should be rezoned to accommodate additional employee residential density. Commissioner Kurz urged the Commission to make a motion. He suggested pay-in-lieu as the least desirable mitigation option and the Town's cegulations need to incent on-site mitigation. Commissioner Tjossem requested more language to incent on-site housing in core areas with additional bonuses for developers. Commissioner Proper agreed that fee-in-lieu should be a last option. Chairman Pierce noted that on-site units is the preferred mitigation alternative, and the Town . Code should clearly incentivize on-site. He suggested doubling the fee-in-lieu rates to make on- site a more attractive alternative. He also suggested there is an inherent gap in the value to the Town befinreen providing on-site versus off-site. Commissioner Gunion stated that she does not agree that raising the fee-in-lieu is the correct mechanism; because this will actually disincentivize employee housing. The main focus should be to provide a certain number of units, rather than on a relative dollar value for the properties in question. Chairman Pierce polled the Commission on their preference of on-site mitigation vs. off-site mitigation. Commissioners Kurz, Tjossem and Pierce voiced support for on-site mitigation. He continued by asking if the Commission prefeRed all or half the on-site mitigation be required on- site. All members preferred requiring half given on{y those finro choices. There was no support for requiring all mitigation to be located on-site. He continued by asking the Commission if they preferred providing more flexibility and creativity to developer in proposing an employee housing plan. AI{ members supported aflow developer to propose creative solutions that could be reviewed on a case by case basis. 10 minutes 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12-14-20, Commerciaf Core Construction, Vail Town Code, to allow for the extension of the commercial core temporary construction signage for businesses, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080003) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved ` MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 5 . ~ _ j . . 5 minutes 5. A request for a final review of variance from Section 12-6C-5, Setbacks, and Section 12-6C-11,. Parking, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a front and side setback encroachment and to reduce the required on site parking to facilitate construction of an addition, located at 3035 Booth FaIIs Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080002) Applicant: John and Katherine Adair, represented by Pure Design Studio Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to March 10, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 6. Approval of February 11, 2008 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road: The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 22, 2008, in the Vail Daily. Page 6 DESIGN REVIEW.BOARD AGENDA *VE4 PUBLIC MEETING ~February 20, 2008 Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:00pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Dantas Tom DuBois Pete Dunning - Brian Gillette Libby Plante SITE VISITS 2:00pm 1. Kirschner Residence - 1995A Chamonix Lane 2. Hilb Residence - 2755 Snowberry Drive Driver: Bill PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00pm 1. Marquez Residence DRB070017 / 15 minutes Rachel Final review for new construction (single family residence) 1795 W. Gore Creek Drive/Lot 10, Vail Village West Filing 2 Applicant: Charlene and Joseph Marques, represented by Carl Mueiler for Dantas Builders ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTtON: DuBois SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 40-1 (Dantas recused) CONDITION(S): 1. The applicant shall move all proposed trees that are within the site distance triangle closer to the house and out of the site distance triangle per Town of Vail regulations. 2. The applicant shall utilize a mahogany colored stucco trim for windows on stucco, a stone or wood header and stone sill on windows on stone walls, and mahogany wood trim on windows on wood walls. 3. The applicant shall utilize a continuous header above the three-pack of windows on the east elevation. 2. Kirschner Residence DRB080018 / 15 minutes Nicole Final review for an addition (secondary unit) 1995A Chamonix Lane/Lot 27, Buffehr Creek Subdivision Applicant: John Kirschner, represented by Aker Architects ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Gillette SECOND: DuBois VOTE; 41-0 (Dantas opposed) CONDITlON(S): 1. The only metal roof allowed shall be the gable roof form above the proposed office and dining room. The remaining proposed roof forms shall be tar and gravel to match the existing structure. The applicant shall submit revised elevations illustrating the proposed roof materials, for Staff review and approval, prior to building permit application. Page 1 f 2. The applicant shall submit a sample of the metal roof material, for Staff review and approval, prior to submitting the building permit apptication. 3. Rams-Horn Lodge Condominiums DRB080012 / 15 minutes Scot Final review for a change to approved plans (fagade details) 416 Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Block 3 Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: Rams-Horn Lodge Condominiums Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: Plante SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5-0-0 4. Burney/Reske Residence DRB080021 / 15 minutes Bill Final review for new construction (single family residence) 5194 Main Gore Drive/Lot 16 Vail Meadows Filing 1 Applicant: Brian Reske ACTION: Approved MOTION: Dantas SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5-0-0 5. Hilb Residence DRB080028 / 15 minutes Bill Conceptual review for new construction (primary/secondary residence) 2755 Snowberry Drive/Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Dave Hilb, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, LLC ACTION: Conceptual, no vote Staff Approvals Purchase Residence DRB080015 Rachel Final approval for a change to the approved plans (siding/roofl 4418 Columbine Drive/Lot 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition Applicant: John Purchase, represented by Stephen James Ryden Architects Theirault/Renman Residence DRB070728 Bill Final review for a change to the approved plans (retaining wall/exterior changes) 2585 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 13, Block 1, Vail Village Filing.13 Applicant: Ali Theirault and Kathi Renman, represented.by Studio Spinatto Inc. . Cascade Village Bridges DRB080022 Bill Final review for a change to the approved plans (site wall and structural changes) Unplatted Applicant: Cascade Village Metropolitan District, represented by LONCO, Inc. 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. Page 2 ~ : s New private jet ~ Roof over - , hanger bagga e ~ ~ J Land/Property Scheduled for handling ~ Customs pcuisition not yet scheduled p 4 phased Completion ' Nunn Parcel, 2 ; development ' scheduled for construction Coole Mesa Rd ng . acres ' y begimm in for Dec 2007 000 e eo00 ' 2008 3e < ~008Vo .i r,t: ~ . . ? ~ M~ : ~ , Go°%ey • - - ~ . . ~ Interstate 0 v~ ~ Instrument interchpnge Eagle County Airport , R.O. W Landing System ;>xrt~,; ~ , (ILS) acquisition and p~ design ~ q u ~ - x Radar Runway Runwa Extension y Interstafe Estimated upon L Reconstruction 6 inter~hange/ 2008 completion ' to be completed ~ ~ Construction - , in 2009 HAATS ~ O Expansion t - ~ $13,150,000 Completed $34,500,000 Funded but not built $125,000,000 Funding required .r.~._: , . ~ . MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 4, 2008 SUBJECT: The Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendations for revisions to Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning mitigation requirements This is not a discussion item on the agenda. This information is being provided as a supplement to the regular Planning and Environmental Commission update. • At its December 11, 2007, public hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission requested Staff bring forward recommendations for amendments to Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage, and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, to better define the Commission's role in reviewing Employee Housing P?ans and to clarify the priority of the five approved mitigation methods. • The Vail Local Housing Authority discussed the Commission's request at their December 12, 2007, meeting. The Authority determined that the on-site mitigation method is the highest priority and forwarded a recommendation that half the required employee housing mitigation be required on-site for new construction and demo/rebuild projects. • The Commission discussed this recommendation and numerous other issues related to employee housing at its January 14, 2008, public hearing. • At the Town Council's January 22, 2008, Council Member retreat and again at its subsequent public hearings, the Town Council indicated that providing on-site units is the most desirable employee housing mitigation method and fee-in-lieu is the least desirable method, except when necessary to address partial requirements. • At the February 11, 2008, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing the Commission requested Staff, forward recommendations for amendments to Chapters 12-23, Commercial Linkage and 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning to achieve the following: • Prioritization of the five approved mitigation methods based on value to the community; • Flexibility and/or incentives for better mitigation options rather than a requirement for afl on-site mitigation; and • A predictable review process. 1 . • At the February 14, 2008, special meeting of the Vail Local Housing Authority the Authority again discussed establishing a priority order for the allowed employee housing mitigation methods. At the meeting, the Authority reconfirmed its recommendation: At least half of requisite employee housing mitigation must be provided on-site for all new development and demo-rebuild projects where Commercial Linkage and Irtclusionary Zoning apply. Without this requirement the Authority does not believe that on-site unit mitigation will be pursued by developers. Much of the discussion regarding the available mitigation options has centered on calculation formulas, financial parity, who would manage the development of housing projects, and ~ the like. However, if these arguments.are set aside and the question is asked "what scenario is' in the best interest of the community from a long-term planning standpoint", it becomes clear that on-site employee housing will provide: O The most certain deNvery of employee housing; o The greatest reduction in vehicular traffic (and associated noise and pollution) by employees; v The greatest reduction in public parking needs by employees; o Reduce the loading of employee volume on our public transportation systems; • Best retain employee spending in town of Vail service businesses; and . • Most effectively create the energy of a vibrant, lived-in community in our resort core and commercial areas... Additionally, the Authority recommends: The remaining requisite mitigation be provided via any of the five . allowed empVoyee housing mitigation methods, or a combination thereof, at the developer's, discretion. This recommendation is based on the Authority's belief that today all five mitigation methods provide value to the community. The Housing Authority does support adding three of the staff recommended criteria to allow for relief from the on-site requirement. The Authority does not recommend adopting language tha4 allows a , developer to provide a creative or "superior" employee housing mitigation plan that could no longer require at least half of the 2 ~ requisite employee housing mitigation be provided on-site. • At the February 25, 2008, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing the Commission recommended: All mitigation methods are available at developer's discretion, but the methods of mitigation should be weighted to incent on-site employee housing mitigation. Additional incentives related to height, site coverage, and landscaping should be added to better facilitate on-site mitigation. Inclusionary Zoning Example: Existing Mitigation On-Site Mitigation = 10% of net new square feet of GRFA Off-Site Mitigation = 10% of net new square feet of GRFA Fee-in-Lieu = 10% of net new square feet of GRFA Proposed Weighted Mitigation On-Site Mitigation = 10% of net new square feet of GRFA Off-Site Mitigation = 10% of net new square feet of GRFA + X% additional square feet for off-site mitigation being provided , instead of on-site mitigation Fee-in-Lieu = 10% of net new square feet of GRFA + X% additional square feet + Y% additional square feet for fee-in- lieu of mitigation being paid rather than on-site or off-site mitigation The Commission also recommends: ' Additional flexibility should be provided to a developer when the rnethod of mitigation proposed better achieves the intent and purpose of the Employee, housing Chapter and the Methods of Mitigation Title than the on-site mitigation unit method. Additionally, the Commission requested staff attempt to reconcile their recommendation of requiring all requisite employee housing be provided on-site for new construction and demo-rebuilds, as compared to the Housing Authority's recommendation that at least half of the requisite employee housing be provided on-site for new construction and demo-rebuilds. The Commission took a straw poll and there was unanimous support for the Housing Authority's recommendation as compared to staff's, if those were the only two options. 3 I ?C)tU1VOFYAd'~, HOW DID WE RATE WITH YOU? Please take the time to tell us how we performed during the development review process. We will use this information to recognize our employees who serve you and we will also use it to improve our level of service. Please know we do care and will react to your suggestions. Thank you for your comments. George Ruther Director of Community Development 1. What services did you use at Community Development today? Check all that apply Admin Building Environment Fire Housing Planning P.W. 2. Was your visit today as a: Homeowner Contractor Architect Other 3. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department. Use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means "not at all satisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied" to rate each of the following items. Please use DK (Don't Know/No Opinion) as appropriate. Please circle your response. Not Very Satisfied Satisfied Friendly and Courteous 1 2 3 4 5 DK Knowledgeable 1 2 3 4 5 DK Timely Response/Calls Returned 1 2 3 4 5 DK Overall Experience 1 2 3 4 5 DK 4. Was the review process clearly explained to you? (i.e., how the Design Review Board and/or Planning and Environmental Commission works, when they meet, what you need to have when you apply for the planning and/or the building process, how long review times generally take, housing and/or environmental health policy, etc.) YES NO If NO, what additional information would have been helpful? 5. Did the planning process meet your expectations? YES NO 6. Did the building permit review process meet your expectations? YES NO 7. Did the inspection process meet your expectations? YES NO J 8. Did you feel the process was fair and efficient? YES NO Please explain your response(s). 9. If you were looking for information (i.e., legal address file, plat map, plans, etc.) was the information in a format that was helpful / user friendly? YES NO 10. Are you aware of the Community Development Dept. information available at http://www.vailqov.com? YES NO Thank you for taking the time to complete this evaluation. lf indicated below, we will personally contact you on specific concerns. If it is your desire, you may contact the director by telephoning, 970-479-2145. Please feel free to use the back for additional comments. Name: Company: Address: Telephone: City: State: Zip Code: Date: F:\cdev\FO RMS\S URVEYSIcomdev_su rvey_091907.doc ( TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM . TO: Stan Zemler Council Members FROM: Kathleen Halloran DATE: 4th Qtr 2007 RE: Investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of December 31, 2007. The estimated average yield for the pooled cash fund was 4.85%. As of 12/01/07, the yield curve for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year are 3.07%, 3.34%, and 3.26% respectively. TOV investments performed above all of these yields. Our investment mix follows the policy objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield in that order. 2007 Investment fViix $5.71VI Gov't $5.51VI Securities, Cash, 11 % 11 % $1.8M ^CD's, 3% • $39.2M Colorado Investment Pool, 75% Other than transfer of funds for operating uses, the Town did not change banking institutions or investment products during the 4th quarter of 2007. Please call me if you have any questions. Town of Vail, Colorado lnvestment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments . As of 12/31 /07 2007 Balances Percentage Cash 12/30/07 of Total Commercial Banks $4,760,931 9.11 % Money Market Funds $731,746 1.40% Total Cash $5,492,677 10.51% U.S. Government Securities (see page 5) Government Agency Seurities -Piper Jaffray $3,868,304 7.41 % FNMA'S, GNMA'S, FHLMC'S & SBA'S - Dana $1,890,809 3.62% Totel Government Securities . $5,759,113 11.039!0 Certificates of Deposit $1,786,721 3.4296 Colorado Investment Pools ' $39,195,162 75.0496 Total Portfolio $52,233;673 100.096 Maturing Within 12 Months $48,365,369 92.59% Maturing Within 24 Months . $2,490,637 4.77% Maturing After 24 Months $1,377,668 2.64% ' $52,233,673 100.0% Investments 12312007 2 i Performence Summary as of 12/31 /07 institution Balances Type of Accounts Average 12/31 /07 "CASH"ACCOUNTS Commercial Bank Accounts: First Bank of Vail - Operating Interest 2.420% $4,760;931 Money Market Accounts: Schwab Institutional Money Market Fund - Dana Investments interest and Balance 4.500°k $91,446 Vail Super Now Public Funds Account - Piper Jaffray Interest and Balance 3.890% $640,300 Total Money Market Funds $731,746 Total "Cash" Accounts 85,492,677 GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (see p9 5) Government Agency Seurities -Piper Jaffray 4.34% $ 3,868,304 FNMA'S, GNMA'S, FHLMC'S & SBA'S - Dana 5.61 % $ 1,890,809 $ 5,759,113 Total Government Securities ~ $ 5,759,113 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT U.S. Bank, Vail Colorado Matures May 31, 2008 5.250% 591,164.96 Alpine Bank, Vail Colorado (#19750) Matures Sept 7, 2008 3.639% 564,396.79 Alpine Bank, Vail Colorado (#19751) Matures Sept 7, 2008 5.250% 631,159.09 1,786,720.84 Total Certificates of Deposit $ 1,786,721 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS Colotrust General Fund Interest 5.140% $39,195,162 Total Local Government fnvestment Pools Accounts $39,195,162 Total All Accounts $52,233,673 Investments 12312007 3 Government Securities as of 12l31 /07 Days/Years Int Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Market Agency Broker Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value •Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds""• FHLB 39X-G4-0 Piper Jaffray 3.050% 3.060% 30-May-03 26-Mar-08 4.8 $124,531 FHLB 3X6-GL-4 Piper Jaffray 3.570% 3.58096 2-Sep-04 28-Apr-08 3.7 $94,673 FHLB 39X-LH-5 Piper Jaffray 3.000% 3.020% 30-May-03 18-Jun-08 5.1 $124,141 FHLMC 8X3-WB-5 Piper Jaffray 4.000% 4.000% 2-Sep-04 29-Sep-08 4.1 $199,575 FHLB 3133X8-VX-7 Piper Jaffray 4.020% 4.020% 22-Oct-04 22-Oct-08 4.0 $299,532 FHLB 3133X9-GR-5 Piper Jaffray 4.100% 4.000% 26-Nov-04 26-Nov-08 4.0 $199,688 FHLB 3133X2-W43 Piper Jaffray 4.100% 4.10096 30-Dec-03 30-Dec-08 5.0 $199,876 FHLB 31339Y5-DO Piper Jaffray 3.280% 3.300% 16-Ju1-03 16-Jan-09 5.5 5198,562 FHLB 31339YJ-W3 Piper Jaffray 3.500% 3.510% 28-Ju1-03 28-;1a'n-09 5.5 $199,000 FHLB 3133XA-Z34 Piper Jaffray 4.450°k 4.450% 30-Mar-05 30-Mar-09 4.0 $200,000 FNMA 6F6-CY-3 Piper Jaffray 4.300% 4.290% 2-Sep-04 28-Sep-09 5.1 $100,012 FHLB 3133XH-FA-5 Piper Jaffray 5.000% 4.950% 26-Dec-06 16-06t-09 2.8 $252,114 FHLB 3133X92-H2 Piper Jaffray 4.125% 4.120% 2-Nov-04 2-Nov-09 5.0 $200,000 FNMA 3136F2-UV8 Piper Jaffray 4.000% 4.000% 29-Nov-02 2-Dec-09 7.0 $98,932 FNMA 31359M5-N-9 Piper Jaffray 5.30096 5.280% 11-Oct-07 26-Feb-10 2.4 $115,294 FFCB 31 S-TD-5 Piper Jaffray 4.650% 4.540% 22-Ju1-05 5-Apr-10 4.7 $255,703 FHLB 3133XK-6X-6 Piper Jaffray 5.375% 5.340% 27-Jun-07 18-Jun-10 3.0 $251,485 FHLB 3133XK-Z9-9 Piper Jaffray 5.300% 5.230% 27-Jun-07 15-Dec-10 3.5 $252,890 FNMA 3136F5-QC8 Piper Jaffray 4.730% 4.720% 8-Apr-04 8-Apr-11 7.0 $200,046 FHLB 3133XK-4R-1 Piper Jaffray 5.500% 5.450% 27-Jun-07 20-Jun-11 4.0 $302,250 Average Yield 4.34% $3,868,304 Days/Years Interest Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Market Agency Broker Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value """FNMA'S, ARM'S & SBA'S""r FNMA Dana 5.000% 4.9% 23-Jan-06 23-Jan-09 3.0 121,272 SBA 500463V-Q Pooled - Dana 7.625% 7.6% 1-Aug-88 25-Jan-13 , 24.5 $3,247 SBA 502640V-Q Pooled - Dana 8.225% 8.2% 1-Jun-94 25-Jun-19 25.1 $6,924 SBA 502647V-Q Pooled - Dana 8.475% 8.4% 1-Ju1-94 25-Jun-19 25.0 $10,540 SBA 504417V-0 Pooled - Dana 8.000% 7.7% 1-Feb-99 25-Feb-24 25.1 $12,163 SBA 505536V-M Pooled - Dana 7.875% 7.0% 1-Aug-01 25-Jun-26 24.9 $38,277 GNMA 8417 Pooled - Dana 5.125% . 6.1% 1-Oct-88 20-Oct-18 30.1 $4,654 GNMA 8703 Pooled - Dana 4.750% 5.6% 1-Sep-95 20-Sep-25 30.1 $1,562 GNMA 8720 Pooled - Dana 5.125% 6.1 % 30-Sep-95 20-Oct-25 30.1 $1,412 GNMA 8788 Pooled - Dana 5.375% 6.3% 1-Jan-96 20-Jan-26 30.1 $1,333 GNMA 80426 Pooled - Dana 4.500% 5.6% 21-Ju1-00 20-Ju1-30 30.0 $14,664 GNMA 80593 Pooled - Dana 4.375% 6.3% 1-Apr-02 20-Apr-32 30.1 $9,541 GNMA 80710 Pooled - Dana 4.500% 5.6% 1-Ju1-03 20-Ju1-33 30.1 $15,696 FNMA 555921 Pooled - Dana 5.45696 6.1 % 1-Oct-03 1-Sep-35 31.9 $59,733 FNMA 422251 Pooled - Dana 6.124% 6.896 1-Dec-95 1-Jan-21 25.1 $79,440 FNMA 334439 Pooled - Dana 5.630% 6.7% 1-Dec-95 1-Apr-24 28.4 $6,297 FIVMA 520790 Pooled - Dana 5.805% 6.9% 1•Jun-00 1-Apr-28 27.9 $9,381 FNMA 546468 Pooled - Dana 6.389% 7.1 % 24-May-00 1-Jun-28 28.0 $6,153 FNMA 535326 Pooled - Dana 6.472% 6.8% 26-Jun-00 1-Jun-28 28.0 $8,418 FNMA 323798 Pooled - Dana 6.427% 6.9% 1-Dec-99 1-May-29 29.4 $3,336 FNMA 576517 Pooled - Dana 6.069% 7.096 1-Mar-01 1-Feb-30 28.9 $2,129 FNMA 567875 Pooled - Dana 5.735% 6.8% 1-Dec-00 1-Sep-30 29.8 $8,248 FNMA 593941 Pooled - Dana 5.32896 6.9% 1-Dec-01 1-Dec-30 29.0 $26,883 FNMA 545057 Pooled - Dana 6.394% 7.1 % 1-May-01 1-May-31 30.0 $1,953 FNMA 650970 Pooled - Dana 6.969% 7.1 % 1-Aug-01 1-Ju1-32 30.9 $8,530 FNMA 709092 Pooled - Dana 6.913% 7.0% 1-Jun-03 1-Jun-33 30.0 $13,878 FNMA 723661 Pooled - Dana 5.068% 7.0% 1-Juf-03 1-Ju1-33 30.0 $6,385 FNMA 761737 Pooled - Dana 3.720% 6.5% 16-May-05 1-Dec-33 28.6 $32,117 Investments 12312007 4 Government Securities as of 12/31 /07 Days/Years Int Rate Purchase Maturity , to Maturity Market Agency Broker Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value FNMA 725462 Pooled - Dana 5.217% 6.2% 1-Apr-04 1-Jan=34 29.8 $15,734 FNMA 745160 Pooled - Dana 5.59296 6.5% 1-Dec-05 1-Mar-34 28.3 $59,233 FNMA 791573 Pooled - Dana 4.968%. 7.0% 1-Ju1-04 1-Aug-34 30.1 $12,145 FNMA 888321 Pooled - Dana 6.000% 6.1 % 1-Mar-07 1-Aug-34 27.3 $113,355 FNMA 849207 Pooled - Dana 4.686% 6.496 1-Jan-06 1-Jan-36 30.0 $80,586 FNMA 888710 Pooled - Dana 5.675% 5.6% 1-Sep-07 1-Ju1-36 28.9 $106,185 FNMA 893933 Pooled - Dana 7.370% 7.090 1-Sep-06 1-Oct-36 30.1 $85,687 FNMA 555624 Pooled - Dana 5.465% 6.9% 1-Jun-03 1-Mar-38 34.8 $13,600 FNMA 735967 Pooled - Dana 3.987% 6.4% 1-Sep-05 1-Mar-38 32.5 $33,494 FNMA 888386 Pooled - Dana 5.601% 6.1% 1-Apr-07 1-Mar-38 30.9 $189,570 FNMA 888618 Pooled - Dana 5.861% 6.3% 1-Ju1-07 1-Mar-38 30.7 '$74,465 FNMA 557073 Pooled - Dana 5.543% 6.1 % 1-Sep-00 1-Jun-40 39.8 $10,475 FNMA 110540 Pooled - Dana 5.282°r6 5.796 1-Nov-90 1-May-20 29.5 $10,245 FNMA 327446 Pooled - Dana 6.143% 6.8% 1-Oct-95 1-Au -22 26.9 $5,622 FNMA 868877 Pooled - Dana 7.370% 7.0% 1-Apr-06 1-Apr-36 30.0 $69,618 FNMA 701045 Pooled - Dana 5.292% 6.8% 1-Apr-03 1-Apr-33 30.0 $135,513 FHLMC 775572 Pooled - Dana 4.907% 6.0% 1-Sep-94 1-Jun-24 29.8 $32,790 FHLMC 865469 Pooled - Dana 5.865% 6.3% 1-Dec-95 1-Aug-25 29.7 $2,167 FHLMC 610416 Pooled - Dana 6.615% 7.1 % 1-Mar-96 1-Mar-26 30.0 $455 FHLMC 755344 Pooled - Dana 6.086% 7.1% 1-May-00 1-Mar-28 27.9 $4,934 FHLMC 645235 Pooled - Dana 5.340% 6.2% 1-Jui-00 1-Mar-29 28.7 $2,814 FHLMC 846784 Pooled - Dana 6.187% 7.0% 1-Ju1-00 1-May-29 28.9 $4,442 FHLMC 786867 Pooled - Dana 5.892°16 7.1 % 1-Nov-99 1-Aug-29 29.8 $3,648 FHLMC 846956 Pooled - Dana 6.315°fo 7.0% 1-Nov-01 1-Nov-31 30.0 $3,663 FHLMC 847166 Pooled - Dana 4.137% 6.8% 1-Ju1-03 1-Aug-33 30.1 $13,057 ' FHLMC 847359 Pooled - Dana 5.202% 6.3% 1-Dec-04 1-Dec-34 30.0 $15,469 FHLMC 847629 Pooled - Dana 5.535% 5.7% 1-Oct-06 1-Sep-36 29.9 $57,950 FHLMC 865006 Pooled - Dana 6.935% 6.8% 1-Feb-89 1-Aug-18 29.5 $1,666 FHLMC 865127 Pooled - Dana 6.183% 6.1 % 1-Aug-89 1-Mar-19 29.6 $2,671 FHLMC 865476 Pooled - Dana 5.3539'0 5.3% 1-Apr-96 1-Feb-36 39:9 $1,871 FHLMC 865663 Pooled - Dana 5.540% 5.4% 1-Nov-00 1-Feb-30 29.3 $3,522 FHLMC 765114 Pooled - Dana 6.295% 6.8% 1-Mar-99 1-Jan-18 18.9 $5,056 FHLMC 847427 Pooled - Dana 5.782% 7.1 % 1-Ju1-05 1-Sep-34 29.2 $10,027 FHLMC 1G1840 Pooled - Dana 5.245% 5.29fo 1-Feb-06 1-Nov-35 29.8 $110,282 FHLMC 847058 Pooled - Dana 5.552% 7.196 1-Aug-02 1-Aug-32 30.0 $58,936 FHLMC 611384 Pooled - Dana 5.941 % 6.9% 11-Feb-05 1-Dec-32 27.8 $11,528 Accrued Interest 5.610% $11,983 Income Receivable $2,186 Average Yield 5.61 % 1,890,809 Total $5,759,113 Investments 12312007 5