Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-18 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 1:00 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2008 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council wilt consider an item. 1. Warren Campbell ITEMITOPIC: PEC/DRB Update. (15 min.) 2. Judy Camp ITEMITOPlC: Property tax update. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to background information in preparation for future discussions regarding use of the currently unappropriated property tax collections expected in 2008. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Council has requested information regarding 2008 property tax collections including sources of the anticipated increase; amounts still under protest; and the amount of expected collections not yet appropriated. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON: None - information only. 3. Bill Gibson ITEMITOPIC: A work session to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapters 12-13, Employee Housing, 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. (90 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Based upon the presented background information and recommendations on the proposed text amendments, provide Staff direction concerning any additional information that the Council finds necessary to adequately review the proposed text amendments. The applicant is requesting that the Town Council schedules a public hearing for the first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, for April 1, 2008. . • BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On March 10, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4-3-0 (Gunion, Proper, and Viele opposed) to fonNard a recommendation of approval, with modifications, for text amendments to establish standards and criteria related to mitigating employee housing requirements, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Please refer to Section III of the Community Development memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated March 10, 2008, for additional background information. (Vail Town Council Attachment: D). 4. ITEMITOPIC: Information Update. (15 min.) • Council Agenda Development. • Environmental Coordinator Position Progress. 5. ITEMITOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (15 min.) 6. 1TEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to 1) C.R.S. §24-6- 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, ar sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Re: Timber Ridge Redevelopment and Pending and threatened litigation. (45 min.) 7. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (4:15 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONIVIENTAL COMMISSION March 10, 2008 *Via& 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME ~~75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Anne Gunion None Rollie Kjesbo Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Scott Proper Susie Tjossem David Viele Site Visits: 1. Adair Residence - 3035 Booth Falls Road Driver: Bill Please note: Times of items are approximate and subject to change. . 30 minutes 1. 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 Falls 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: Denied MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-1 (Viele opposed) Bill Gibson made a presentation based on the Staff memo presented and clarified that a request for a parking variance is no longer part of the application to be considered. The applicant's representative, Millie Aldrich, made a presentation and addressed Staff's memo, specifically the criteria for a variance in relation to the request. The applicant expressed her intent, and her client's desire, to minimize the degree of non-conformance and to limit the proposed additions in order to respect the context of the neighborhood, adjacent wetlands and to improve existing non-conformities such as the existing driveway. She stated that the proposal being reviewed by the Commission was a change from their initial proposal. She noted that the initially proposed encroachments were already reduced by approximately 36% in response to Staff's concerns about the project. There was no public comment. Commissioner Viele questioned Staff as to the history of variances granted for this property. He asked Staff to compare previous variances to the current requests relative to the current recommendation for denial. Bill Gibson explained the previously approved variances for the existing house. He established Staff's position that the proposal would increase the encroachments into the setbacks beyond Page 1 the minimum degree of relief necessary for this house to be treated equally to other houses in the zone district. Commissioner Kjesbo expressed concern about a proposed second story addition in the setback and the proposals compliance with the review criteria. Commissioners Proper and Kurz had no comment. Commissioner Gunion noted that there are other expansion areas available that are not within the setbacks. She also expressed concern regarding the premise that wetlands present a constraint, yet the applicant proposes to encroach over the wetlands. Commissioner Tjossem had no comment. Commissioner Pierce asked the applicant to clarify the plans to span the building over the wetlands and ask about the status of obtaining utility company approvals for the proposed encroachments into the utility easements. Millie Aldrich clarified that plans to span across (over) existing wetlands and the status of the utility company review status. 5 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: Table to March 24, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Proper VOTE: 7-0-0 30 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: Approved, with modifications MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 4-3-0 (Gunion, Proper, Viele Opposed) MODIFICATIONS(S): 1. Delete any "weighting" of the five available mitigation methods. 2. Except when on-site units are required, clarify that developers shall have the discretion to select the mitigation method, or methods, that are most advantageous to their circumstances when presenting an Employee Housing Plan to the Town for review. Page 2 . Bill Gibson made an introduction to Staff's memorandum, the proposed recommendations, and the draft ordinance. Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, made a detailed presentation based upon Staff's memorandum. She described the direction given by the Commission to included "weighted" mitigation methods to incent on-site employee housing mitigation. She also described Staff's response to that direction and the recommendation of the Vail Local Housing Authority. Commissioner Gunion asked for clarification whether off-site units must be located within the Town of Vail. Nina Timm responded that all off-site units must be located within the Town of Vail. Commissioner Viele asked for clarification regarding the changes (percentage increase) being proposed for Commercial Linkage mitigation amount. He specifically asked if the change was equal to 2.5 times today's mitigation. He asked for clarification regarding the increases to Inclusionary Zoning mitigation amounts in regards to the proposed "weighted" mitigation methods. Nina Timm and Bill Gibson stated a 15% increase is _proposed, over today's standard. They clarified that this equates to a total increase of 150% for fee-in-lieu under inclusionary zoning regulations. Commissioner Tjossem asked for clariification regarding the Commission's discretion regarding site specific housing mitigation plans, inclusive of off-site vs. on-sight mitigation methods that might be brought forward in the future. Nina Timm clarified the Commission would have the discretion to act on a case by case basis and make recommendations to the Town Council. Dominic Mauriello spoke to the proposed regulations. He expressed concerns that the proposed amendments are a"major re-write" of the legislation adopted in 2007 when the amendments were being presented as "minor revisions". He expressed concern regarding the original nexus study and the premise that mitigation rates proposed in the draft regulations were established on specific generation rates supported by the nexus study. He stated the proposed regulation will disproportionately establish a mitigation rate for Inclusionary zoning twice what was originally established by the nexus study. He urged the Commission to table the application, so the Town Council can not take action on the request. He encouraged additional public outreach, to allow ample time to further study the proposed revisions. He expressed concern that the pay-in-lieu fee increase is actually 250%; not 150% as reported by Staff. He continued by reiterating his concern regarding the magnitude of change to the required mitigation. He stated support for deed restricting off-site units (existing) within the Town, as a cost-effective alternative to regulating the provision of costly on-site mitigation. He stated that the goal should be "heads in beds", not that all mitigation options should be equally painful to developers. He voiced concern that the proposed weighted mitigation methods would by default require 100% on-site housing. He stated that the regulation language will preclude the Commission from using discretion in evaluating a housing plan against the criteria proposed and that the Staff and Commission Page 3 ~ should consider including language that excludes not-for-profit employers from the regulations. He presented the Commission with a letter from the Vail Valley Medical Center. Finally, he stated there are no carrots (incentives) and are only sticks. Commissioner Gunion asked Staff to clarify ".11" as an employee generation rate related to . residential development and Inclusionary Zoning. Nina Timm clarified. Commissioner Pierce noted the Commission did not agree with the Town Council when Inclusionary Zoning was not based upon the same nexus study as Commercial Linkage. Nina Timm noted that the adopted Inclusionary Zoning requirements were based upon the nexus, plus the secondary impacts of residential development. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked for clarification on the proposed regulations, Appendix B. He then asked for clarification regarding provisions to allow for variances to the parking standards as an incentive to facilitate the provision of employee housing on-site. Nina Timm explained Staff did revise the language to allow the Commission the discretion to allow variances to parking standards in order to facilitate on-site mitigation Jim Lamont expressed concern regarding the Town's authority to preclude a developer's ability to provide housing mitigation outside the Town, while the Town has the ability to provide housing for its own employees outside of the Town. The Town will then have the ability to deny private industry to the same benefit that the Town enjoys. He believes this is a restraint of trade issue. Staff clarified payment-in-lieu as a mitigation method allows the Town Council, with recommendation from the Housing Authority, to determine where to spend any fees paid. Commissioner Kjesbo questioned Dominic Mauriello's statements regarding the costs to provide on-site housing. Dominic Mauriello reiterated his concern that the regulations, as proposed, were a"stick", not a "carrot". He continued, stating under the proposed regulation, there will be no cost effective means to deviate from providing housing on-site within a given development site. Commissioner Kjesbo noted that the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommends EHUs be provided on-site. Commissioner Proper stated he believed the Staff did not adhere to the direction given by the Commission to provide a framework for evaluating housing plans according to criteria and instead has fundamentally re-written the existing legislation. Commissioner Tjossem expressed concern the Staff has presented a regulation that will make the process (to evaluate housing mitigation plans) more difficult to administer. She stated that the mitigation methods should be pain-free, not equally painful. Commissioner Proper expressed his concern regarding the effect that the proposed regulation will create. Page 4 f Commissioner Viele stated he believes that the proposed regulation will be challenged in court and that the regulations are fundamentally a growth control mechanisms. He agrees with Mr. Mauriello's statements and suggested that the core issue is growth control via taxation on developers. He stated the issue is not about employee housing, but is rather about a tax deferred subsidy to employees. He continued by stating the more Inclusionary Zoning that is required for a particular development project, the higher the price of free-market housing needed to make up the amount of subsidy provided by the developer. He estimated that the current subsidy (burden) to developers in the Town of Vail is 15% - 20%. He agrees that the proposed regulation is a complete re-write of existing legislation without input form citizens. He expressed his extreme displeasure with the Staff's recommendations. He stated he does not believe Staff has conducted enough due diligence with regard to public outreach, interviewing the development community and analyzing the economic impacts of the proposed regulation. He believes the work presented has been "done in a back room" and that the proposed regulation should be opened up for public review - that the public notice requirements have been inadequate and have failed. Commissioner Tjossem asked if a work session with Town Council will be possible. George Ruther stated a work session is appropriate and that Staff would work to schedule such work session on March 18, 2008. He continued, urging the Commission to take action to forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial of the application to the Vail Town Council. He cited Staff's record of appearing before the Commission numerous times to address the Commission's concerns and requests and to put forth revisions addressing those concerns. Commissioner Kurz stated he believes Staff has presented exactly what the Commission had asked for previously. Additionally, this is a community based recommendation. He urged his fellow Commissioners to act on the application, not to table. Commissioner Proper disagreed with Commissioner Kurc, stating he believes that Town Staff has taken it upon themselves to re-write the regulation. Commissioner Viele agreed. Chairman Pierce did acknowledge the public should be involved in such revisions to a"major piece of legislation", however he also expressed comfort with the Commission's charge to act on such applications given adequate public notice and that the Town Council will ultimately decide on the matter, as a community issue. Commissioner Viele stated he agrees that employee housing is a community issue. Commissioner Gunion stated the Inclusionary Zoning regulation should be tied to the nexus study. She expressed concern regarding the proposed mitigation rates in relation to the original nexus study; that the proposed numbers are disproportionate to the mitigation required of new residential developments to "make up for the sins of our fathers". She clarified the proposed regulation (and numbers/facts provided) will not achieve the original goal by the Commission to clarify the criteria for evaluating housing mitigation plans. She further expressed support for allowing developers to provide housing outside the Town of Vail. The focus of any qualitative changes to the regulation should aim to ensure that housing is provided no matter where or how much it costs. Page 5 ~ Commissioner Kurz expressed concern regarding the convoluted nature of the discussions that have transpired. He reminded the Commission that the developers who have spoken asked for clear expectations and stated "If I know the requirements, I can solve for them." He expressed concern regarding the proposed numbers (mitigation rates) presented, yet reiterated his request for the Chairman to call the vote. Commissioner Kjesbo clarified that the Commission did ask for "the numbers" of how mitigation rates would impact a given development. He expressed concern that unless the regulation is written correctly, no on-site housing (mitigation) will occur in the future and the Town will be left with a further deficit of employee housing within the Town. He expressed support to further incentivize on-site mitigation methods. Commissioner Viele asked Staff for clarification regarding the Housing Authority's recommendations. Nina Timm clarified the recommendations of the Authority. She stated the Authority's recommendations were to keep all methods of mitigation rates the same, but to require at least half of the requisite mitigation on-site. Chairman Pierce clarified the analysis provided to the Commission by Dominic Mauriello, stating that the analysis presented used different factors than are used in the existing Town of Vail nexus study an ordinances; that his analysis was essentially comparing "apples to oranges". . Jim Lamont reiterated his concern regarding the proposed incentives to allow discretion (variances) in the number of parking spaces to be provided in new developments. He also expressed concern and asked for clarification regarding the possible reduction in required (minimum) square footage required per employee (bed) from 250 to 350 square feet as it related to the Timber Ridge redevelopment proposal by Lincoln Property Company. Dominic Mauriello suggested that language within the proposed regulation should be revised to clearly state "50% of required mitigation has to be mitigated on site"; "the remaining 50% is (expressly) at the discretion of the developer to provide - either within or outside the Town". Chairman Pierce reiterated the goals of the regulations have been to ensure and encourage housing the Town's workforce within the Town. - . Nina Timm reminded the Commission that an express goal of the Town is to ensure that 30% of employee housing is provided within the Town of Vail. George Ruther requested the Commission take action to forward a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application to the Vail Town Council. He offered to schedule a work session between the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Council on March 18, 2008. Commissioner Proper stated he feels the existing legislation is relatively untested and that changing the regulations is pre-mature. He feels the proposed 50% requirement for on-site units is unjustified. Commissioner Kurz asked for clarification from Staff regarding establishing a 50% goal or mitigation rate. Page 6 Nina Timm reported that Staff had discussed the proposed figure (50%) and did certain feasibility analyses, applying a 50% mitigation rate to existing projects such as Arrabelle to "test" the figure. She reiterated the Housing Authority had reviewed the proposed regulation and had rendered recommendations. Commissioner Proper questioned Staff further regarding the actual source of Staff's recommended figure of 50%. Dominic Mauriello stated that he did his own investigation, speaking to the same developers, employers and or employees that Staff interviewed. He disagrees with Staff's estimates on the number of employees to be generated by a given employer. He feels that Staff's proposed numbers (employee generation rates) are not accurate. Chairman Pierce called for the Commission to vote on the application as presented. Commissioner Kjesbo made a motion to approve the regulation, with the following changes that at least half the mitigation be met with on-site units with discretion given to developer to use any of the methods for the remainder. Commissioner Kurz seconded the motion and asked for clarification regarding the motion to revise the existing regulation to require 50% of the required mitigation on-site, and to allow 50% of the required mitigation to be provided off-site. Specifically, he asked if Commissioner Kjesbo intended to limit the 50% off-site mitigation to those areas within the Town boundaries. Commissioner Kjesbo affirmed that any off-site mitigation should be provided within the Town's boundaries. George Ruther reviewed the changes proposed by the Commission and clarified, from Staff's perspective that the only proposed amendment to the existing regulations was to further regulate that 50% of any required mitigation be provided on site; that no criteria (as previously asked for by the Commission) are being proposed or acted upon at this time. Commissioner Proper stated that the motion was ridiculous. Commissioner Viele stated that the motion was arbitrary and presupposes the Town's knowledge. The proposal is onerous and unacceptable. Bill Gibson asked the Commission for clarification regarding proposed revisions made: on Page 47, Commercial Linkage - strikeout language regarding the weighted methods of mitigation. The examples will be modified to reflect the proposed changes. He also confirmed that the Commission supported the remaining "clean-up" amendments to the Town Code, Dominic Mauriello suggested changes to square footage requirements for Type III EHUs. Bill Gibson clarified that no changes were necessary for Type III EHUs, since new Type VII EHUs were being created to explicitly address Inclusionary Zoning and Commercial Linkage. Commissioner Viele stated that the record should show that the reason any modification was made was due to the fact that the Commission found the proposal to be unacceptable; amendments to ensure that 50% of mitigation was provided on-site were included in the motion as a compromise to keep the regulation (review) moving forward. Page 7 30 minutes 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12-3, Administration and Enforcement, Vail Town Code, to establish procedures for approving public art in private development, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080004) Applicant: Town of Vail . Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Leslie Fordham was available for questions. Nancy Sweeny asked for clarification of if there is a pay-in-lieu option. Rachel Friede answered that the proposed text amendments only include provisions for development plans that include public art. Special Development Districts can still negotiate to contribute to AIPP, but that is a separate process. Nancy Sweeny noted that this is an important funding opportunity for AIPP projects. Scott Proper questioned how these regulations related to funding or allocation of funds for art. Commissioner Pierce clarified that in an SDD scenario a developer may propose public art to off- set impacts. Commissioner Viele clarified that these regulations only apply if a developer chose to provide art. Nancy Sweeny noted fee-in-lieu should be maintained as an option for developers. Rachel Friede clarified that public art is not a requirement, but a voluntary contribution as part of proposed mitigation of development impacts. 5 minutes 5. A request for final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior . Alterations or Modifications, a request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-713-5, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Above Second Floor, a request for variances from Section 12- 7B-15, Site Coverage, and Section 12-713-16, Landscaping and Site Development, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, and a request for amendments to an adopted view corridor pursuant to Section 12-22-5, Amendments, and Section 12-22-6, Encroachments into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re-development of the Clock Tower Building (Gorsuch Ltd. Building) to include three floors of above grade structure, a new clock tower, and an eating and drinking establishment above the second floor, located at 263 East Gore Creek Drive/Lots D and E, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070025) Applicant: Gorsuch Ltd. and John P. McBride, represented by Resort Design Associates Flanners: Warren Campbell/Scot Hunn ACTION: Table to March 24, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Proper VOTE: 7-0-0 6. Approval of February 25, 2008 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 8 1 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz 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 March 7, 2008, in the Vail Daily. Page 9 1 ~ 1 PLANNIIVG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 10, 2008 , 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME TOO OF VE ~ 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail; Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Anne Gunion None Rollie Kjesbo Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Scott Proper Susie Tjossem David Viele Site Visits: 1. Adair Residence - 3035 Booth Falls Road Driver: Bill Please note: Times of items are approximate and subject to change. 30 minutes 1. 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 Falls 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: Denied MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-1 (Viele opposed) Bill Gibson made a presentation based on the Staff memo presented and clarified that a request for a parking variance is no longer part of the application to be considered. The applicant's representative, Millie Aldrich, made a presentation and addressed Staff's memo, specifically the criteria for a variance in relation to the request. The applicant expressed her intent, and her client's desire, to minimize the degree of non-conformance and to limit the proposed additions in order to respect the context of the neighborhood, adjacent wetlands and to improve existing non-conformities such as the existing driveway. She stated that the proposal being reviewed by the Commission was a change from their initial proposal. She noted that the initially proposed encroachments were already reduced by approximately 36% in response to Staff's concerns about the project. There was no public comment. Commissioner Viele questioned Staff as to the history of variances granted for this property, He asked Staff to compare previous variances to the current requests relative to the current recommendation for denial. Bill Gibson explained the previously approved variances for the existing house. He established Staff's position that the proposal would increase the encroachments into the setbacks beyond Page 1 ~ ' the minimum degree of relief necessary for this house to be treated equally to other houses in the zone district. ' Commissioner Kjesbo expressed concern about a proposed second story addition in the setback and the proposals compliance with the review criteria. Commissioners Proper and Kurz had no comment. Commissioner Gunion noted that there are other expansion areas available that are not within the setbacks. She also expressed concern regarding the premise that wetlands present a constraint, yet the applicant proposes to encroach over the wetlands. Commissioner Tjossem had no comment. Commissioner Pierce asked the applicant to clarify the plans to span the building over the wetlands and ask about the status of obtaining utility company approvals for the proposed encroachments into the utility easements. Millie Aldrich clarified that plans to span across (over) existing wetlands and the status of the utility company review status. 5 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: Table to March 24, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Proper VOTE: 7-0-0 30 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) A.pplicant: Town of Vail Staff/Planner: Nina Timm and Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved, with modifications MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 4-3-0 (Gunion, Proper, Viele Opposed) .MODIFICATIONS(S): 1. Delete any "weighting" of the five available mitigation methods. 2. Except when on-site units are required, clarify that developers shall have the discretion to select the mitigation method, or methods, that are most advantageous to their circumstances when presenting an Employee Housing Plan to the Town for review. Page 2 Bill Gibson made an introduction to Staff's memorandum, the proposed recommendations, and the draft ordinance. Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, made a detailed presentation based upon Staff's memorandum. She described the direction given by the Commission to included "weighted" mitigation methods to incent on-site employee housing mitigation. She also described Staff's response to that direction and the recommendation of the Vail Local Housing Authority. Commissioner Gunion asked for clarification whether off-site units must be located within the Town of Vail. Nina Timm responded that all off-site units must be located within the Town of Vail. Commissioner Viele asked for clarification regarding the changes (percentage increase) being proposed for Commercial Linkage mitigation amount. He specifically asked if the change was equal to 2.5 times today's mitigation. He asked for clarification regarding the increases to Inclusionary Zoning mitigation amounts in regards to the proposed "weighted" mitigation methods. Nina Timm and Bill Gibson stated a 15% increase is proposed, over today's standard. They clarified that this equates to a total increase of 150% for fee-in-lieu under inclusionary zoning regulations. Commissioner Tjossem asked for clarification regarding the Commission's discretion regarding site specific housing mitigation plans, inclusive of off-site vs. on-sight mitigation methods that might be brought forward in the future. Nina Timm clarified the Commission would have the discretion to act on a case by case basis and make recommendations to the Town Council. Dominic Mauriello spoke to the proposed regulations. He expressed concerns that the proposed amendments are a"major re-write" of the legislation adopted in 2007 when the amendments were being presented as "minor revisions". He expressed concern regarding the original nexus study and the premise that mitigation rates proposed in the draft regulations were established on specific generation rates supported by the nexus study. He stated the proposed regulation will disproportionately establish a mitigation rate for Inclusionary zoning twice what was originally established by the nexus study. He urged the Commission to table the application, so the Town Council can not take action on the request. He encouraged additional public outreach, to allow ample time to further study the proposed revisions. He expressed concern that the pay-in-lieu fee increase is actually 250%; not 150% as reported by Staff. He continued by reiterating his concern regarding the magnitude of change to the required mitigation. He stated support for deed restricting off-site units (existing) within the Town, as a cost-effective alternative to regulating the provision of costly on-site mitigation. He stated that the goal should be "heads in beds", not that all mitigation options should be equally painful to developers. He voiced concern that the proposed weighted mitigation methods would by default require 100% on-site housing. He stated that the regulation language will preclude the Commission from using discretion in evaluating a housing plan against the criteria proposed and that the Staff and Commission Page 3 1f should consider including language that excludes not-for-profit employers from the regulations. He presented the Commission with a letter from the Vail Valley Medical Center. Finally, he stated there are no carrots (incentives) and are only sticks. Commissioner Gunion asked Staff to clarify ".11" as an employee generation rate related to residential development and Inclusionary Zoning. Nina Timm clarified. Commissioner Pierce noted the Commission did not agree with the Town Council when Inclusionary Zoning was not based upon the same nexus study as Commercial Linkage. Nina Timm noted that the adopted Inclusionary Zoning requirements were based upon the nexus, plus the secondary impacts of residential development. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked for clarification on the proposed regulations, Appendix B. He then asked for clarification regarding provisions to allow for variances to the parking standards as an incentive to facilitate the provision of employee housing on-site. Nina Timm explained Staff did revise the language to allow the Commission the discretion to allow variances to parking standards in order to facilitate on-site mitigation Jim Lamont expressed concern regarding the Town's authority to preclude a developer's ability to provide housing mitigation outside the Town, while the Town has the ability to provide housing for its own employees outside of the Town. The Town will then have the ability to deny private industry to the same benefit that the Town enjoys. He believes this is a restraint of trade issue. Staff clarified payment-in-lieu as a mitigation method allows the Town Council, with recommendation from the Housing Authority, to determine where to spend any fees paid. Commissioner Kjesbo questioned Dominic Mauriello's statements regarding the costs to provide on-site housing. Dominic Mauriello reiterated his concern that the regulations, as proposed, were a"stick", not a "carroY". He continued, stating under the proposed regulation, there will be no cost effective means to deviate from providing housing on-site within a given development site. Commissioner Kjesbo noted that the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommends EHUs be provided on-site. Commissioner Proper stated he believed the Staff did not adhere to the direction given by the Commission to provide a framework for evaluating housing plans according to criteria and instead has fundamentally re-written the existing legislation. Commissioner Tjossem expressed concern the Staff has presented a regulation that will make the process (to evaluate housing mitigation plans) more difficult to administer. She stated that the mitigation methods should be pain-free, not equally painful. Commissioner Proper expressed his concern regarding the effect that the proposed regulation - will ereate. Page 4 ~ Commissioner Viele stated he believes that the proposed regulation will be challenged in court and that the regulations are fundamentally a growth control mechanisms. He agrees with Mr. Mauriello's statements and suggested that the core issue is growth control via taxation on developers. He stated the issue is not about employee housing, but is rather about a tax deferred subsidy to. employees. He continued by stating the more Inclusionary Zoning that is required for a particular development project, the higher the price of free-market housing needed to make up the amount of subsidy provided by the developer. He estimated that the current subsidy (burden) to developers in the Town of Vail is 15% - 20%. He agrees that the proposed regulation is a complete re-write of existing legislation without input form citizens. He expressed his extreme displeasure with the Staff's recommendations. He stated he does not believe Staff has conducted enough due diligence with regard to public outreach, interviewing the development community and analyzing the economic impacts of the proposed regulation. He believes the work presented has been "done in a back room" and that the proposed regulation should be opened up for public review - that the public notice requirements have been inadequate and have failed. . Commissioner Tjossem asked if a work session with Town Council will be possible. George Ruther stated a work session is appropriate and that Staff would work to schedule such work session on March 18, 2008. He continued, urging the Commission to take action to forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial of the application to the Vail Town Council. He cited Staff's record of appearing before the Commission numerous times to address the Commission's concerns and requests and to put forth revisions addressing those concerns. Commissioner Kurz stated he believes Staff has presented exactly what the Commission had asked for previously. Additionally, this is a community based recommendation. He urged his fellow Commissioners to act on the application, not to table. Commissioner Proper disagreed with Commissioner Kurz, stating he believes that Town Staff has taken it upon themselves to re-write the regulation. Commissioner Viele agreed. . Chairman Pierce did acknowledge the public should be involved in such revisions to a"major piece of legislation", however he also expressed comfort with the Commission's charge to act on such applications given adequate public notice and that the Town Council will ultimately decide on the matter, as a community issue. Commissioner Viele stated he agrees that employee housing is a community issue. Commissioner Gunion stated the Inclusionary Zoning regulation should be tied to the nexus study. She expressed concern regarding the proposed mitigation rates in relation to the original nexus study; that the proposed numbers are disproportionate to the mitigation required of new residential developments to "make up for the sins of our fathers". She clarified the proposed regulation (and numbers/facts provided) will not achieve the original goal by the Commission to clarify the criteria for evaluating housing mitigation plans. She further expressed support for allowing developers to provide housing outside the Town of Vail. The focus of any qualitative changes to the regulation should aim to ensure that housing is provided no matter where or how much it costs. Page. 5 1 Commissioner Kurz expressed concern regarding the convoluted nature of the discussions that have transpired. He reminded the Commission that the developers who have spoken asked for clear expectations and stated "If I know the requirements, I can solve for them." He expressed concern regarding the proposed numbers (mitigation rates) presented, yet reiterated his request for the Chairman to call the vote. Commissioner Kjesbo clarified that the Commission did ask for "the numbers" of how mitigation rates would impact a given development. He expressed concern that unless the regulation is written correctly, no on-site housing (mitigation) will occur in the future and the Town will be left with a further deficit of employee housing within the Town. He expressed support to further incentivize on-site mitigation methods. Commissioner Viele asked Staff for clarification regarding the Housing Authority's recommendations. Nina Timm clarified the recommendations of the Authority. She stated the Authority's recommendations were to keep all methods of mitigation rates the same, but to require at least half of the requisite mitigation on-site. Chairman Pierce clarified the analysis provided to the Commission by Dominic Mauriello, stating that the analysis presented used different factors than are used in the existing Town of Vail nexus study an ordinances; that his analysis was essentially comparing "apples to oranges". Jim Lamont reiterated his concern regarding the proposed incentives to allow discretion (variances) in the number of parking spaces to be provided in new developments. He also expressed concern and asked for clarification regarding the possible reduction in required (minimum) square footage required per employee (bed) from 250 to 350 square feet as it related to the Timber Ridge redevelopment proposal by Lincoln Property Company. Dominic Mauriello suggested that language within the proposed regulation should be revised to clearly state "50% of required mitigation has to be mitigated on site"; "the remaining 50% is (expressly) at the discretion of the developer to provide - either within or outside the Town". Chairman Pierce reiterated the goals of the regulations have been to ensure and encourage housing the Town's workforce within the Town. Nina Timm reminded the Commission that an express goal of the Town is to ensure that 30% of employee housing is provided within the Town of Vail. George Ruther requested the Commission take action to forward a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application to the Vail Town Council. He offered to schedule a work session between the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Council on March 18, 2008. Commissioner Proper stated he feels the existing legislation is relatively untested and that changing the regulations is pre-mature. He feels the proposed 50% requirement for on-site units is unjustified. Commissioner Kurz asked for clarification from Staff regarding establishing a 50% goal or mitigation rate. Page 6 _ J Nina Timm reported that Staff had discussed the proposed figure (50%) and did certain feasibility analyses, applying a 50% mitigation rate to existing projects such as Arrabelle to "tesY" the figure. She reiterated the Housing Authority had reviewed the proposed regulation and had rendered recommendations. Commissioner Proper questioned Staff further regarding the actual source of Staff's recommended figure of 50%. Dominic Mauriello stated that he did his own investigation, speaking to the same developers, employers and or employees that Staff interviewed. He disagrees with Staff's estimates on the number of employees to be generated by a given employer. He feels that Staff's proposed numbers (employee generation rates) are not accurate. Chairman Pierce called for the Commission to vote on the application as presented. Commissioner Kjesbo made a motion to approve the regulation, with the following changes that at least half the mitigation be met with on-site units with discretion given to developer to use any of the methods for the remainder. Commissioner Kurz seconded the motion and asked for clarification regarding the motion to revise the existing regulation to require 50% of the required mitigation on-site, and to allow 50% of the required mitigation to be provided off-site. Specifically, he asked if Commissioner Kjesbo intended to limit the 50% off-site mitigation to those areas within the Town boundaries. Commissioner Kjesbo affirmed that any off-site mitigation should be provided within the Town's boundaries. George Ruther reviewed the changes proposed by the Commission and clarified, from Staff's perspective that the only proposed amendment to the existing regulations was to further regulate that 50% of any required mitigation be provided on site; that no criteria (as previously asked for by the Commission) are being proposed or acted upon at this time. Commissioner Proper stated that the motion was ridiculous. Commissioner Viele stated that the motion was arbitrary and presupposes the Town's knowledge. The proposal is onerous and unacceptable. Bill Gibson asked the Commission for clarification regarding proposed revisions made: on Page 47, Commercial Linkage - strikeout language regarding the weighted methods of mitigation. The examples will be modified to reflect the proposed changes. He also confirmed that the Commission supported the remaining "clean-up" amendments to the Town Code, Dominic Mauriello suggested changes to square footage requirements for Type III EHUs. Bill Gibson clarified that no changes were necessary for Type III EHUs, since new Type VII EHUs were being created to explicitly address Inclusionary Zoning and Commercial Linkage. Commissioner Viele stated that the record should show that the reason any modification was made was due to the fact that the Commission found the proposal to be unacceptable; amendments to ensure that 50% of mitigation was provided on-site were included in the motion as a compromise to keep the regulation (review) moving forward. Page 7 ~ 30 minutes 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12-3, Administration and Enforcement, Vail Town Code, to establish procedures for approving public art in private development, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080004) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Leslie Fordham was available for questions. Nancy Sweeny asked for clarification of if there is a pay-in-lieu option. Rachel Friede answered that the proposed text amendments only include provisions for development plans that include public art. Special Development Districts can still negotiate to contribute to AIPP, but that is a separate process. Nancy Sweeny noted that this is an important funding opportunity for AIPP projects. Scott Proper questioned how these regulations related to funding or allocation of funds for art. Commissioner Pierce clarified that in an SDD scenario a developer may propose public art to off- set impacts. Commissioner Viele clarified that these regulations only apply if a developer chose to provide art. Nancy Sweeny noted fee-in-lieu should be maintained as an option for developers. Rachel Friede clarified that public art is not a requirement, but a voluntary contribution as part of proposed mitigation of development impacts. 5 minutes 5. A request for final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, a request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-76-5, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Above Second Floor, a request for variances from Section 12- 76-15, Site Coverage, and Section 12-7B-16, Landscaping and Site Development, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, and a request for amendments to an adopted view corridor pursuant to Section 12-22-5, Amendments, and Section 12-22-6, Encroachments into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re-development of the Clock Tower Building (Gorsuch Ltd. Building) to include three floors of above grade structure, a new clock tower, and an eating and drinking establishment above tlie second floor, located at 263 East Gore Creek Drive/Lots D and E, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC070025) Applicant: Gorsuch Ltd. and John P. McBride, represented by Resort Design Associates Planners: Warren Campbell/Scot Hunn ACTION: Table to March 24, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Proper VOTE: 7-0-0 6. Approval of February 25, 2008 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 8 _ . 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz 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 March 7, 2008, in the Vail Daily. Page 9 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ~ PUBLIC MEETING 1 March 5, 2008 M~Q~~~ a 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. Marsico Residence - 382 Mill Creek Circle 2. Vail Cascade Resort and Spa - 1300 Westhaven Drive Driver: Bill PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00pm 1. Yarde Residence DR6080036 / 15 minutes Rachel Final review for new construction (single-family) 1895 Meadow Ridge Road/Lot 17, Buffehr Creek Subdivision Applicant: Craig & Hope Yarde, represented by Kyle Webb, K.H. Webb Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 4-0-1 (Gillette recused) 2. Horton Residence DR6080031 / 15 minutes Rachel Final review for new construction (single-family) 4284 Columbine Drive/Lot D, Streamside Duplexes Applicant: Norma & Randall Horton, represented by Kyle Webb, K.H. Webb Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: Dantas SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5-0-0 3. Vail Cascade Resort and Spa DRB080020 / 10 minutes Nicole Final review for a minor alteration (porte cochere) 1300 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village Applicant: Destination Hotels and Resorts, represented by JG Johnson Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: Plante SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 5-0-0 4. Vail Cascade Resort and Spa DRB080019 / 15 minutes . Nicole Final review for a minor alteration (landscape, patio, pool) 1300 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village Applicant: Destination Hotels and Resorts, represented by Design Workshop, Inc. ACTION: Approved MOTION: Plante SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 5-0-0 Page 1 5. Town of Vail DRB080029 / 15 minutes Nicole Final review for new construction (kiosks) Vail Village and Lionshead right-of-way Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer ACTION: Tabled to March 19, 2008 MOTION: Gillette SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5-0-0 6. Town of Vail DRB080030 / 1 minute Nicole Final review for new construction (streetscape from Vail Road to Medical Center) West Meadow Drive right-of-way Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer ACTION: Tabled to March 19, 2008 MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5-0-0 7. Marsico Residence DR6080026 / 5 minutes Bill Final review for a change to the approved plans (driveway) 382 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Thomas & Cydney Marsico, represented by Michael Sanner, Architect ACTION: Approved MOTION: Dantas SECOND: Gillett VOTE: 5-0-0 Staff Approved Lionshead Phase II Condominium Association DRB080027 Bill Final review for a new sign (building identification) 380 E. Lionshead Cr./Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Lionshead Phase II Condominium Association, represented by TAB Associates, Inc. Rucki Residence DRB080035 Scot Final review for an addition (storage room) 3950 Fall Line Dr, #18/Lot 18, Pitkin Creek Townhomes Applicant: Stephen Rucki Quintana Residence DR6080025 Rachel Final review for an addition (bedroom) 1730 Golf Lane, Vail Golf Course Townhomes #76 Applicant: Ana Cecilia Quintana, represented by Jeff Lutz August Residence DRB080039 Bill Changed to approved (exercise room) 2309 Chamonix Lane/Lot 8, Block A, Vail Das Schone Applicant: Brett August, represented by Steve Francis 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 MEMORANDUM To: Town Council From: Judy Camp, Finance Director Date: March 13, 2008 Subject: Increase in Revenue from Property Tax The following information is provided in response to questions raised by Council concerning the increase in assessed valuations in the Town of Vail and the resulting increase in property tax revenue for 2008 compared with 2007. Actual and Assessed Valuations Residential properties make up 90% of the actual (or market) value of taxable properties in the town while commercial properties and vacant land make up 10%. Assessed valuations are 29% of actual value for commercial property and. vacant land and 7.96% of actual value for residential properties. The assessment ratios are statutory and although the commercial ratio is pegged at 29%, the residential can change based on property values throughout Colorado. In 2004, a reduction in the residential ratio from 9.15% to 7.96% resulted in a 7.5% reduction in revenue to the Town of Vail. Currently, commercial properties and vacant land represent 28% of assessed valuations while residential properties represent 72%. Although the county records do not track residency of property owners, it has been estimated that approximately 70% of residential properties in Vail are owned by second homeowners. Increase in Assessed Valuation Total assessed valuations used to compute the town's property tax revenue increased from $607,150,030 in 2006 to $920,012,270 in 2007 - an increase of $312,862,240 or 51.5%. According to the county assessor's records, new construction accounted for $29,526,310 of the increase in assessed values. Excluding new construction, the increase in assessed valuations was 47.9% overall, with residential property increasing 57.7% and commercial/vacant land increasing 34.1 Also, $62,362,676 is under appeal at the state level. Most of the appeals are on commercial property. Calculation of Town of Vail Revenue from Propertv Tax Since a portion of the town's property is included in the LionsHead tax increment financing district (TIF), the town's property tax revenue is based on assessed valuations exclusive of the TIF district. The assessed valuations excluding the TIF increment were $607,150,030 in 2006 and $920,012,270 in 2007. Based upon those assessed valuations, the property tax levies were $2,852,998 in 2006 for collection in 2007 and $4,314,858 in 2007 for collection in 2008, an increase of $1,461,860. However, the appeals mentioned above could result in a reduction of up to $218,671 in revenue. -1- Budqet Impact Property tax makes up about 8% of the town's total revenue - about the same amount as lift tax or parking. All of the property tax collected is directed to the general fund to support municipal services including police, fire, public works, community development, administration, library, contributions, marketing and special events, etc. The town's 2008 budget was developed before the property assessments and the TIF district reduction were determined. Therefore, the revenue included in the 2008 budget and appropriated for municipal services was less than what would be indicated by the assessed valuations discussed above. The amount included in the 2008 budget is $3,660,000. The amount we now expect to realize is between $4,096,187 and $4,314,858 depending upon the results of the pending appeals. The incremental revenue not budgeted is between $436,187 and $654,858, again depending upon the results of the pending appeals. As part of the first budget amendment process, staff plans to return on April 1 with an update on the status of the pending appeals and options for disposition of the funds (including holding in reserve). -2- TOWWAVOrFrVAOffli TO: Stan Zem{er, Town Manager FROM: Corey Swisher SUBJECT: Town Council Agenda Development 1. Recurring items (i.e., DRB/PEC Update, Matters from Mayor & Council). 2. Required items (i.e., Appeals, Council call-ups, previously tabled items). 3. Schedule issues requested per Council direction. 4. Schedule outside entity requests for audience (i.e., VRD, ERWSD, Eagle County). 5. As time permits schedule departmental and other updates. Department Heads meet on Thursdays, 8-10 a.m. to discuss items and issues identified in the previous Council Meeting. Draft agendas are then developed accordingly. Monday aftemoons, 4-5 p.m., Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem review agendas with Town Manager. Finally, the Thursday prior to every Council Meeting, Department Heads review and modify a final agenda document. The agendas are then distributed physically and electronically.