Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-02 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA +` TM W Via' VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 12:30 P.M., MARCH 2, 2010 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. Public comments on work session item may be solicited by the Town Council. 1. ITEM /TOPIC: Joint Meeting with BOCC: a. Eagle Vail Master Plan. b. West Vail Fire Station (Emergency Response) Funding. c. Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO) Update. d. Eagle County Airport Interchange. e. Air Service Expansion. f. County Services Provided to the Town. g. Strategic Plan. h. Vail Housing Regulations. i. Sales Tax Update. (90 min.) PRESENTER(S): Vail Town Council & Eagle County Board of County Commissioners 2. ITEM /TOPIC: Matters From Mayor & Council. (20 min.) PRESENTER(S): Town Council 3. ITEM /TOPIC: PEC /DRB Update. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell 4. ITEM /TOPIC: Channel 5 Update. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): X Perry 5. ITEM /TOPIC: Chamonix Employee Housing Project (15 minutes) PRESENTER(S): George Ruther and Nina Timm ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide Staff with direction and allocate funds to move forward with soils investigation on the Chamonix Property. Provide Staff with direction on how Town Council would like to proceed with engaging a civil engineer and an architect. BACKGROUND: In December, 2009, the Town of Vail engaged Alpine \n 3/2/2010 \n Engineering, Inc. to develop phasing options for the Chamonix Property. In the previous Town Council Packet, Staff provided the preliminary phasing plans for the construction of 56 employee housing dwelling sites. The next step in the planning process is to engage a geotechnical engineer to conduct soils testing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Town of Vail engage a geotechnical firm to perform a soils investigation as soon as is practical. Additionally, Staff recommends Town Council instruct Staff to prepare a Request For Bids for a civil engineering firm to fully develop construction drawings for site utilities and infrastructure for all three phases of the employee housing development. 6. ITEM /TOPIC: Discuss adjustment to late ski season bus service from April 5 to April 18. (10 min) PRESENTER(S): Mike Rose ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide staff direction on bus service adjustment for the end of ski season April 5 to April 18. BACKGROUND: In past years, 2003 -2007, the town adjusted the late ski season bus service from the full winter schedule (326 hours of service a day) to a supplemented summer service (143 hours per day) plus additional peak service to more align with ridership- demand. We would propose to adjust service starting Monday, April 5 to summer with 40 -100 hours of additional service per day this year based on special events and weekends. This reduction of service would save the Town $30,000. The frequency of service would be reduced, however, the of system would be able to keep up with the demand. The posted service would be the early winter ski season schedule. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff direction on the reduced bus service proposal. 7. ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update. Attachments: a. EHU Enforcement. b. Energy Efficiency Rebate Program (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer 8. ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(a)(b) (e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or 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. (20 min.) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire 9. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment. (3:50 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: \n 3/2/2010 \n (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT OT CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, MARCH 16, IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Joint TOV & VRD Work Session Chamonix Redevelopmnet Dobson Roof Follow Up (Spring 2010) Town Owned Housing Update Lighting Master Plan Timber Ridge Transit Stop / Rock Fall Mitigation / South Frontage Road Improvements Conference Center Funds 2010 Census Update Metro District Information Presentation State of the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) ANTICIPATED 03.16.10 AGENDA ITEMS West Vail Fire Station Census Proclamation Capital Improvements Plan Review & Planning 2009 Year End Investment Report PEC, DRB & AIPP Appointments \n 3/2/2010 \n 'OWN OF VAM . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Joint Meeting with BOCC: a. Eagle Vail Master Plan. b. West Vail Fire Station (Emergency Response) Funding. c. Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO) Update. d. Eagle County Airport Interchange. e. Air Service Expansion. f. County Services Provided to the Town. g. Strategic Plan. h. Vail Housing Regulations. i. Sales Tax Update. PRESENTER(S): Vail Town Council & Eagle County Board of County Commissioners ATTACHMENTS: BOCC MEMORANDUM \n 3/2/2010 \n VAIL FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Memo To: Eagle County Board of County Commissioners From: Mark A. Miller, Fire Chief CC: Town of Vail Town Council; Stan Zemler, TM; Judy Camp, Finance Director Date: February 25, 2010 Re: Emergency response funding in unincorporated TOV/Vail Pass It is my understanding that over the course of the last two decades, there have been many on -going discussions between the BOCC and the TOV in regards to emergency incidents that Vail Fire and Emergency Services (VFES) responds to in unincorporated TOV, including Vail Pass. For over 30 years, VFES has responded to areas in Eagle County, without any type of reimbursement agreement of formal IGA for services. Historically, approximately 15% - 18% of total VFES incidents are in unincorporated TOV, the majority of which are on Vail Pass. Over the last five years, the BOCC and TOV have entertained discussions regarding the future construction of the West Vail Fire Station and the possibility of the BOCC providing a portion of the funding ($500,000), for the construction of the station in an effort to recognize the long standing emergency response commitment of VFES and TOV. Funding for the West Vail Fire Station aside, it seems prudent to develop an IGA for emergency response in unincorporated areas of Vail, including Vail Pass. It is fully understood that budgets are strained and we are all doing our best to ensure expenditures are in line with revenue. However, the reality is that response up and down Vail pass is extraordinarily taxing on our resources, equipment, preventative maintenance and ability to provide services to our TOV constituents. We are fully committed to continue our response as dispatched, and unquestionably, we have made a significant difference in our response to Vail Pass as well as all other areas outside TOV limits. Literally hundreds of patients have been extricated from damaged automobiles, as well as extinguishing dozens of truck/car fires, mitigating haz -mat spills, etc. Colorado State Patrol and Eagle County Ambulance have come to rely on us to provide traffic mitigation in an effort to keep them safe, including the establishment of Incident Command and the I -70 Incident Management Plan. We look forward to meeting in the near future to establish a formal IGA, standing firm in our commitment to provide outstanding emergency response in the County. Attachments for reference: Letter dated October 26, 2009 to Keith Montag, and formal CIP request form to the BOCC from TOV (for the 2010 budget process). 1 \n 3/2/2010 \n 1 -1 -1 \n U ftAL *I (C) Economic Council of Eagle Count JOINT MEETING: Mayors and Managers Transit Action Group Thursday, February 4, 2010 8:30 - 10:30 am Eagle County Building 1IMNIIIIIIIIII Introduction, Purpose of Meeting Interactive Polling and Discussion Review Scope of Work Define Next Steps PARTICIPA Ron Wolfe Jim White Larry Brooks Ruth Borne Jenny Strehler Matt Sugar I Harry Taylor Ken Marchetti Kelly Collier Sandra Smyser Sara Fisher Connie Kincade Strahan Jon Stavney Jeff Shroll Peter Runyon Willy Powell Stan Zemler Keith Montag Dick Cleveland Richard Carroll Mike Rose Greg Hall Bill Simmons Tom Hyatt Economic Council of Eagle County I Christina Hooper Eva Wilson Bob Naracci Amy Phillips Rick McCutcheon Nissa Erickson Keith Montag welcomed participants and invited an open dialog about the challenges facing public transit in Eagle County, Don Cohen, Executive Director of the Economic Council of Eagle County, facilitated the discussion. ELECT PO LLING Participants used OptionFlnder technology to answer a set of 12 questions, below: Q I : In the last year have you personally used mass transit in Eagle County? LL N A� Q2: If you used mass transit, which system have you ridden (check all that apply)? Vail Avon ECO Private N/A Economic Council of Eagle County 2 Q3: Mass transit in Eagle County is subsidized by County taxpayers and non - users. Is this an equitable system? F No • Yes Q4: What percentage of the total cost of mass transit should riders have to pay? 0% to 75,% WWI Q5: If taxpayer support is required to underwrite public transportation, rank your preference for funding sources: Highest Ranked Source: Sales Tax Second: User fee (e.g., car registration, business license) Third: Property Tax Lowest Ranked Source: Payroll Tax Q& Currently, fare revenue accounts for about 1/4 of the cost per rider. Is this: Too little About right Too much Economic Council of Eagle County 3 QT What is the best measure of performance (select one)? Cost per rider Cost per mile Number of riders Miles driven Other Q8: Currently Avon,Vail and Vail Resorts operate their own bus systems separate from Eco Transit. Is this dispersed transportation model appropriate? (or should it be managed by a single provider) • L Yes -�A Q9: Should employers help pay for the cost of transit? Yes, direct payments Yes, fare cards Yes, other No Economic Council of Eagle County 4 Q 10: What percentage of an employee's monthly ridership cost should their employer pay? Range: 0% to 99% Mean: 49.24 Q 11: What happens if EcoTransit fails? Major disruption Many affected A few affected Minor impact Q 12: If a consensus funding solution were presented to voters in November 2010, do you think it would pass? No /' Ye s 1 ' Economic Council of Eagle County 5 GENE RAL DISCUSSIO The ballot issue in 1995 likely passed due to the addition of trails. It also gained momentum from the parking crunch in Vail. The new EcoTransit system linked communities and transported workers in to the County. ECO in its present format is not a sustainable system. ECO's business model is broken. Is there a "value- added" piece that could be added to a new ballot issue (for example, park and ride, expanded service, van pooling, arterial routes)? 2010 would be a difficult year to pass a ballot issue. We live in a County with world class resorts. To be "world class" countywide, do we need free transit service? We need to treat guests and workers as world class. Summit County transit (Summit Stage) is free, and has worked to remove barriers between towns. (Summit County passed a sales tax increase for transit in 2007). Is there a difference between "community transit" and "worker transit "? If transit is free for riders, who pays? There's a need for accurate and fair product pricing. How do we predict future demand? Increasing the number of riders under the current system makes the deficit worse. Do we know what impact the recent reductions in ECO service had? ECO Transit should have an opportunity to provide input on new planning files. Communication between ECO Transit and the Towns should be strengthened. Currently, ECO transports mainly workers (as opposed to resorts guests and other visitors). Avon is about 80% workers, and Vail has a 50/50 split. The majority of Beaver Creek transit riders are guests. Van pools are operated by some valley employers. Potential sources of revenue for transit include: • Property Tax (stable, predictable) • Sales Tax (elastic, unpredictable) • Development (impact fees, special districts) The percentages of sales taxes and property taxes paid by locals, second homeowners, and visitors would be valuable information. TASKS for TAG Potential tasks for the Transit Action Group include: 1. Develop a clear understanding of our current systems, including ECO, municipal, and private. Facilitate better communication among all transit providers. 2. Map potential park and ride lots Economic Council of Eagle County 6 3. Map potential circulator routes 4. Identify the desired transit experience in 2030: is the 2030 ECO vision where we're headed, or do we need to take a fresh look at what makes a top -notch system? 5. Identify costs for different Levels of Service 6. Evaluate costs and services valleywide 7. Evaluate current organizational structures 8. Bring in a transit expert; consider a 1/2 to one day summit with transit experts 9. Evaluate build -out analyses, demographics, business outlooks, economic projections, road impacts, and land use plans Members added to TAG: Bob Narracci,Tom Edwards, Jim White. The group agreed to hold another 3 -4 meetings in the next 90 days. The Economic Council of Eagle County will facilitate the process, and will collect information in the next 30 days. Next steps include: A. Distribute the ECO 2030 Plan (this is available on the County website an on CD) B. Develop an understanding of the current status; define the problem. Include all systems (public and private). C. Present information developed in "B" to each Town. D. Review the Vision; compare costs and feasibility. E. Talk to the experts (perhaps in a County -wide Summit). F. Quantify needs, determine the best transit structure. Economic Council of Eagle County 7 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT Il/�/ 3J• �D -- ( / GENERAL FUND AND CIP SALES TAX 2010 SALES TAX FORECAST 2010 Actual % Change % Change Budget % Change Actual B (W) B (W) YTD B (W) YTD B (W) 2007 2008 from 2007 2009 from 2008 2010 from 2009 2010 Budget % Budget Budget January $x20,631 $726,373 17% $669,800 -7.79% $544,780 - 18.70% $ 541,931 $ (2,849) -1% $ (2,849) -1% February 1.735,686 1,654,882 -5% 1,489,407 - 10.00% 1,290,808 - 13.30% $ 1,219,636 $ (71,172) -6% $ (74,021) -4% March 1.399,661 1,543,597 10% 1,174,522 - 23.91% 1,157,698 -1.40% April L438,216 1,555,599 8% 1,268,575 - 18.45% 1,166,699 -8.00% May 1389,268 1,787,716 12% 1,425,845 - 20.24% 1,340,787 -6.00% June 870,322 786,132 -10% 715,864 -8.94% 550,293 - 23.10% July 870,322 683,651 -21% 516,699 - 24.42% 512,738 -0.80% August 311,512 912,974 0% 671,204 - 26.48% 684,731 2.00% September L056,271 1,092,840 3% 791,568 - 27.57% 819,630 3.50% October 978,405 1,032,962 6% 757,649 - 26.65% 754,062 -0.50% November 832,230 855,767 3% 615,591 - 28.07% 624,710 1.50% December 750,946 687,928 -8% 523,260 - 23.94% 502,187 1.40% Total $13,753,470 $13,320,421 2% $10,619,984 - 20.27% $9,949,123 -6.10% Cash Basis -based or the month received (Jan receipt of November taxes Total above $9,949,123 shown as Jan) Before town 15% $11,704,850 Payments to towns $1,755,727 Capital Improve. $4,096,698 General Fund $5,852,425 'OWN OF VAM . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Matters From Mayor & Council. PRESENTER(S): Town Council \n 3/2/2010 \n 'OWN OF VAM . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: PEC /DRB Update. PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell ATTACHMENTS: February 17, 2010 DRB Meeting Results February 22, 2010 PEC Meeting Results \n 3/2/2010 \n DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING February 17, 2010 MWN OF VAR Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:45pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Dantas Tom DuBois Pete Dunning Brian Gillette Libby Plante SITE VISITS 2:00pm 1. Red Sandstone Elementary School Playground — 551 North Frontage Road 2. Vail Point — 1881 Lions Ridge Loop 3. Vail Racquet Club — 4690 Vail Racquet Club Drive 4. Vickers Residence — 375 Forest Road PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00pm 1. Vail Racquet Club DRB100027 / 15 minutes Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (decks) 4690 Vail Racquet Club Drive, Building 15 /Unplatted Applicant: Vail Racquet Club, represented by Steve Loftus ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1) The applicant shall replace all removed deck guardrails with wood rails to match the existing conditions. 2. Red Sandstone Elementary DRB100021 / 5 minutes Rachel Conceptual review of a minor exterior alteration (playground, landscaping) 551 North Frontage Road West/Lot 8A, Vail Potato Patch Applicant: Eagle County School District ACTION: Conceptual, no vote 3. Vickers Residence DRB100020 and DRB100030 / 30 minutes Bill Final review of new construction (two - family dwelling) and a separation request 375 Forest Road /Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 3 Applicant: Gregory Vickers, represented by KH Webb Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: Gillette SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 4 -1 -0 (Dunning opposed) \n Page 1 3/2/2010 \n 3 -1 -1 \n 4. Vail Point DRB090016 / 30 minutes Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (exterior materials) 1881 Lionsridge Loop /Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing 3 Applicant: Vail Point Condominiums, represented by David Irwin ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Plante SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 4 -1 -0 (Gillette opposed) CONDITION(S): 1) The applicant shall replace all existing damaged exterior light fixtures (same- for - same), and the applicant shall install Town Code compliant light bulbs in all exterior light fixtures prior to final inspection. 2) The applicant shall revise the architectural plans to return the stone walls to grade on the east and west sides the buildings prior to application for a building permit. STAFF APPROVALS Mueller Residence DRB090596 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (stairs) 1550 Matterhorn Circle /Matterhorn Village Applicant: Wolfgang Mueller Yarde Residence DRB090630 Rachel Final review of changes to approved plans (retaining wall, driveway, elevations) 1895 Meadow Ridge Road /Lot 17, Buffehr Creek Subdivision Applicant: Craig Yarde, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Fleischer Sports DRB100022 Warren Final review of a sign application (two projecting signs) 227 Wall Street/Lots D, E, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Chad Fleischer McDermid Residence DRB100019 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows, doors) 950 Red Sandstone Road, Unit 17 /1-ot 17, Vail Potato Patch Applicant: Decker Construction Skarajunsky Residence DRB100024 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (windows) 3996 Lupine Drive /Lot 1, Block 2, Bighorn Sub 1st Applicant: TrD Architects 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. \n Page 2 3/2/2010 \n 3 - 1 - 2 \n PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 22, 2010 1:OOpm '�(1WN OOFiff� TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Rollie Kjesbo Micheal Kurz Sarah Paladino Bill Pierce Tyler Schneidman David Viele TOWN COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Dick Cleveland Andy Daley Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley Margaret Rogers Susie Tjossem 1. A joint work session with the Vail Town Council to discuss environmental stewardship and sustainability policies and employee housing goals and strategies. 60 minutes Commissioner Pierce, the Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission called the meeting to order and thanked the Town Council for coming to the hearing. George Ruther thanked the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council for coming together to discuss Housing and Environmental goals and strategies. He then asked if some time could be taken to revisit the process that is currently being followed for the review of the Ever Vail development. He went through a flow chart depicting all the applications that have been submitted with regard to Ever Vail and where they fell in the order of review. Councilwoman Rogers asked if any member of the public could appeal the results of the Ever Vail process. George Ruther expressed that the Town Code identifies that an "aggrieved party" is able to file an appeal. The definition of an aggrieved party is broadly defined. Councilman Foley stated that the Council is currently reviewing the Town's parking requirements and if any changes were made to assess new lifts a parking requirement could that requirement be applied to Ever Vail. George Ruther stated that as the lift was a conditional use he believed that a parking assessment could be applied to the application. He then asked the Mayor to begin the discussion on the Environmental discussion they have recently had in the Visioning process as there were no further question regarding Ever Vail. Mayor Dick Cleveland asked the member of the Commission and Council to speak more about their concerns with regard to Ever Vail. \n Page 1 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -1 \n Commissioner Kjesbo raised his concerns that Vail Resorts is five years into the process and spending significant money and he consistently is hearing that the Council questions the need for a new portal. Commissioner Kurz stated his concerns about the questions being asked after the inclusion of the new portal into the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He felt it was disingenuous. Councilman Foley expressed the concerns he is hearing from the business community with a new portal and the closer proximity of parking making the portal more desirable. Councilwoman Newbury expressed her support for breaking the process into steps similar to the Front Door (Mountain Plaza) project. The process as it is set up help the reviewing authorities learn more about the project so the correct questions being asked and answered. Councilwoman Rogers suggested that no one has nor should they be telling the applicant that their application will be approved. All applications need to go through the process regardless of their inclusion within a master plan. Commissioner Kjesbo clarified that he was not stating that anyone has told the applicant that their project was approved, but there is a foundation for the request as it is anticipated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Councilman Cleveland stated several questions he will be asking and would like the Commission to consider are the phasing of the project and how to ensure delivery of promised improvements. How much parking within the development is truly available public parking? He was also interested in receiving a report helping to ensure the community can absorb the commercial being proposed, including the need for significant office space. Councilwoman Rogers added an additional question with regard to the fiscal impacts to the Town with regard to services. The costs need to be weighed against the benefits. Commissioner Pierce highlighted that the Town has contracted with a group to review the documents being provided. George Ruther identified that Environmental and Planning Services (EPS) out of Denver had been selected to produce the requested document. Councilman Cleveland added that he wanted a third party to review the parking and traffic reports as that is a concern for him as well. Councilman Foley asked what the time frame for review would be moving forward. George Ruther suggested that the pace of the review of the project was largely dependant on the Commission and Council. Councilwoman Donovan stated that the flow chart helped her to understand the process and where the project was in the process. She stated that Staff has an exhaustive listed of topics, concerns, and questions, and that Staff should be afforded the opportunity to present their knowledge and understanding regarding the topics at the public hearings. Councilwoman Tjossem stated that the process in Vail has been time tested and she stated that the process is not intended to result in decision prior to review. She asked that the time be given to the process to allow it to work and reach a determination. \n Page 2 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -2 \n Councilwoman Newbury wanted to remind the public that regardless of the Ever Vail project the properties have development potential and change /growth will occur. Councilman Cleveland asked the Commission if there was anything the Council could do to help make the Commission comfortable with the process. Commissioners Kurz identified the value of having constant contact and feedback from the Council throughout the process. Commissioner Pierce was concerned about going through the process and not discovering a fatal flaw until the conclusion. For example the applicant not being able to guarantee phasing. George Ruther highlighted the success of the Front Door (Mountain Plaza) process as being the avoidance of continuing forward in the discussion until a level of consensus is reached around the conversation /topic at hand. Councilman Cleveland stated that it was incumbent upon each member of the Council to clearly identify when they see an issue that concerns them, but is not being addressed verse holding that information for a later time. Kaye Ferry, resident, stated that she was a republican and would never suggest allowing government interference with private property rights. She continued by suggesting that the application before the community was different in that an applicant has purchased multiple properties with the intent of requesting inclusion in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, variances, re- zonings, etc. She has been attending all meetings stating that it feels like the cart is being put before the horse with regard the development of a new portal. She stated that in the past 1.6 million skiers has always been the magic number for the viability of the community within a single season. Things have changed and now 1.6 million skiers is not the magic number as the average skier is different. George Ruther and Commissioner Pierce stated that the goal of the day was to discuss process not specifics of the Ever vail project. Kaye Ferry concluded that she felt that the community has not had a chance to weigh in on the changes in policies and direction. Commissioner Kurz asked the Town Attorney, Matt Mire, if it was required that the opinion of the general public be positive prior to a property owner submitting an application. Matt Mire described several legal points with regard to the application and the opportunities for public participation. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, stated that he was not convinced that the process was well defined with regard to reviewing a project comprehensively to understand how a project will relate to the economic and sociological aspects of the community. He felt the macroeconomic issues needed to be addressed prior to moving any project forward so the "new normal' can be understood. He believes that the incremental process of review in the past has not resulted in an outcome which is favorable. More attention needs to be given to understanding macroeconomic strategy for the community into the future when Ever Vail is constructed. Tom Steinberger, resident, inquired as to whom was paying for the additional consultants for the studies for Ever Vail. \n Page 3 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -3 \n George Ruther clarified that all consultants are paid for by Vail Resorts and that the consultants are selected by the Town and answer to the Town. Kaye Ferry reiterated that projects like Ever Vail seem to take on a life of their own. Kristen Williams, representing Vail Resorts, stated that their application has been using the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as a guide for their proposed development. Commissioner Paladino expressed that in order to understand the bigger picture it is necessary to allow the applicant to help create a portion of the picture that may be Ever Vail. George Ruther put on the record that the process is being followed, all meetings are public hearings, and that information regarding any project can be acquired from the Community Development Department. Environmental Stewardship Mayor Dick Cleveland gave a brief overview of the Visioning that has been occurring with the Town Council. Kristen Bertuglia gave a power point presentation outlining the goals of the Environmental Strategic Plan. The presentation covered the goals of the Environmental Strategic Plan and the ongoing efforts of the Staff to address the goals. Commissioner Kurz stated that what outstanding environmental stewardship means may be getting back what may have been lost. There are cinders in the Gore Creek. Our guests and visitors only comprehend the environmental efforts we are making if they can see it, hear it, and touch it. We need to be much more open about and tout what we are doing. He added that we should be focusing on large commercial projects in the cores with regard to recycling due to the great impact verse the individual home or smaller development such as the one he lives in. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the waste per capita generation shown in the report and why it was so high. Kristen Bertuglia explained how the math was done and because we have a small permanent population and a large influx of visitors the math was skewed. Commissioner Cartin explained how the guest tends to produce greater trash amounts than someone when they are home as they are utilizing smaller sized products verse bulk and the mentality is different when on vacation. Commissioner Pierce asked if that behavior could be changed. Commissioner Cartin and Kristen Bertuglia stated that it was possible. Councilwoman Donovan asked that the Council look for real world solutions and applications in the community. Commissioner Kjesbo raised concerns with a proposal to restrict development within 10 feet of designated wetlands. With regard to construction waste, having multiple dumpsters on site to put the various wastes from a construction site in is not feasible. He further asked that we remember the customer who buys the product in Vail and requiring things like native grass landscaping may \n Page 4 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -4 \n not be appropriate. For example when a property is adjacent the golf course requiring native grasses on half the lot may not be appropriate. Councilwoman Rogers stated that consensus will be hard to obtain as there are full -time residents, part -time residents, and visitors. She suggested that there be incentives verse regulations requiring. The Code should be reviewed to make sure there are no impediments to allowing people to be as green as they want to be. Commissioner Viele stated that a carrot will work better than a stick to gain greater acceptance and implementation of sustainable practices. He cautioned against the unintended consequences of creating additional regulations. Commissioner Cartin stated that he desired that regulations be prepared ahead of time to allow people who want to be able to install solar panels on their homes. He highlighted the need to focus on electric energy conversation as Holy Cross has some mandates on increasing their renewable power mandate. Councilman Foley stated that the business community is looking for a little assistance to recycle cardboard and glass. The business community is ready to embrace recycling of these materials. Commissioner Paladino directed the Town to look at the parking structures and Dobson Arena as a good place to start as they are users of large amounts of energy. Councilwoman Tjossem stated that the economic climate needs to be heeded when thinking about sustainable efforts. She mentioned a single power switch within a hotel room shutting off all power to the room. Employee Housing Strategic Plan Councilman Foley had to depart but stated that he would like to see a phasing plan for the Chamonix Site. Councilwoman Newbury stated that she had to depart in ten minutes, but that she was on the housing authority and was supportive of the Strategic Master Plan goals. Nina Timm gave a power point presentation highlighting the goals contained within the Plan. Commissioner Kurz stated a concern with keeping families here and kids in schools. The housing types should be designed to house smaller families. How do we communicate the housing opportunities that are available to them. Councilwoman Tjossem asked how we went from having 30% of employees living in deed restricted housing units and free market to a goal of 30% of employees within town housed in employee housing units. George Ruther explained how the goal was arrived at with regard to the numbers of employees and the assumption that over time the free market rentals would slowly be absorbed by new owners and not likely available for rent to employees. . Commissioner Viele stated that he wanted to discuss the Timber Ridge project. He stated a concern with the proposal with regard to the density being requested. His concern was derived from the Housing District process of allowing the Commission to determine many of the zoning parameters. \n Page 5 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -5 \n Mayor Dick Cleveland stated that the Housing District was created to allow the Commission to have flexibility and the Commission should vote based on the criteria not based upon the perceived direction of the Council. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, reminded the group that the criteria are the basis for making a decision. The property is currently zoned Housing District and those criteria need to be used in reviewing the proposed project. Individuals on the same board may have differing opinions of any proposed project based upon the criteria. Commissioner Pierce stated that he did not feel that the burden of providing employee housing should not fall upon the development community. He believes there should be a publicly mandated funding source to provide for deed restricted housing. Furthermore, he felt any new housing unit should be required to include an employee housing unit. Commissioner Cartin inquired as to what factors were taking into account in the data used to reach the 30% number. Commissioner Kjesbo expressed his support for the 30% goal and the need to reach for that goal. He believed that we should be looking at the needs three to five years from today. Commissioner Viele departed after the Commission /Council joint work session, prior to the start of the Commission hearing at 3:35 pm. Site Visits: There were no site visits. 15 minutes 1. A request for final review of variance from Section 12 -61-1-6, Setbacks, and Section 12- 14 -17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side, rear, and stream setbacks, located at 433 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 16B (Vail Trails East) /Lot 15, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100002) Applicant: Bruecker Wood Real Estate Trust, represented by Steven James Riden Architect Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paldino VOTE: 6 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. This approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The applicant shall provide an employee housing mitigation fee -in -lieu payment to the Town of Vail at the time of building permit issuance to mitigate 1.8 sq. ft. in accordance with provisions of Chapter 12 -24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commission Kurz stated a concern with the requirement of mitigating the 1.8 square feet for employee housing. Steven Riden, applicant's architect, stated that he had nothing further to add, but was available to take questions. Commissioner Kjesbo stated that the requirement for mitigating the 1.8 square feet was required by Code and could not be waived. \n Page 6 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -6 \n There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their support for the application. 60 minutes 2. An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Administrator's determination that Section 14- 5 -2 -K, Valet Parking, Vail Town Code, does not require that at least 50% of the required parking spaces provided on site must operate as self - parking, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Donald Zelkind Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Uphold Administrator's determination MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Carlin recused) Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Cartin recused himself due to a conflict of interest as Vail Resorts was the owner /operator of the Arrabelle project and left the hearing. Donald Zelkind, gave a power point presentation discussing how the parking has been allocated and is being marketed at the Arrabelle. Dominic Mauriello, speaking as a local planner /member of the public, stated that he was not representing any client, but was involved with the creation of the language which was adopted with regard to valet parking design and obligation. He highlighted several projects which would be impacted if the interpretation made by staff was overturned. He suggested that if a different interpretation was desired by the Commission he asked that an application be filed to amend the Code and proper notification be given to affected properties. Caroline White, land use counsel for Vail Resorts, stated that the company agreed with the interpretation made by staff and encouraged the Commission to uphold the Staff's interpretation. Donald Zelkind, stated that he felt the statute was quite clear and should be interpreted as he is suggesting. 60 minutes 3. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/U nplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Carlin recused) Warren Campbell introduced the Town's consultants and clarified the revisions to the report provided to the Commissioners. Dominic Mauriello, of the Mauriello Planning Group LLC, applicant's representative, summarized what issues were to be addressed at this work session. He clarified that the applicant considers \n Page 7 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -7 \n Ever Vail a new access point to the mountain instead of a new "portal ". He stated that Ever Vail is much smaller in scale than Lionshead and Vail Village and is not intended to compete with those commercial areas. Steve Thompson, Thompson and Trautz, LLC, representing the applicant, presented an economic analysis of the proposed Ever Vail project. This presentation included a summary of the on -going and one -time revenues projected from the project. Commissioner Kurz expressed that the hotel occupancy numbers could be too high, but the spending per visitor number appeared too low based upon more recent data that he was aware of verse that data which was used in the study. Commissioner Paladino asked how the employee housing factored into the calculations. Warren Campbell asked Mr. Thompson to clarify if the former gas station business was factored into the calculations. Mr. Thompson stated that the old gas station numbers were not included. They just received the day of the hearing the most recent data for the existing businesses. Warren Campbell asked if any construction phasing was built into the study. Mr. Thompson acknowledged that phasing was not included in the study. He speculated that the conclusions of the report will not be substantially different based upon construction phasing. Commissioner Paladino recommended the applicant address construction phasing in its economic analysis. Dominic Mauriello noted that many of the improvements associated with the Ever Vail project including parking, landscaping, etc. will be privately maintained, and those on -going maintenance and management costs will not be incurred by the Town. He provided a summary of the Town's recent tax revenue trends and how they related to recent construction activities. He summarized the anticipated review schedule for the Ever Vail project, and clarified that the schedule will adjusted as need to ensure the Commissioners receive all the information they need to evaluate the applications. Commissioner Kurz recommended examining direct costs to the Town that can't be offset by the development plan, such as police and fire services. Dominic noted that many of the direct costs to the Town must be evaluated by the Town's consultants. He noted that the lift tax is intended to help off set transit costs to the community. Jeff Winston, Winston and Associates, representing the Town, asked how the TIFF funds would be used. Dominic stated that the TIFF funds are not being request to fund the Ever Vail project. He mentioned that if directed by the Town that the TIFF funds could be put towards elements within Ever Vail. Commissioner Pierce asked Staff if studies about phasing, traffic, economics, etc. are on -going or to be started in the future. \n Page 8 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -8 \n Warren Campbell described the status of the already started traffic studies, retail studies, transit studies, etc. 5 minutes 4. A request for a work session on a proposed Development Plan, pursuant to section 12- 61 -11, Development Plan Required, Housing Zone District, to allow for the redevelopment of a five (5) acre portion of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments, with up to 352 new deed - restricted employee housing units, located at 1280 North Frontage Road/ Lots C1 -05, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090038) Applicant: Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Committee Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 5. A request for final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for a re- subdivision of the Timber Ridge site, located 1280 North Frontage Road /Lots C1 -05, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100005) Applicant: Vail Timber Ridge, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 6. A request for a final recommendation for the adoption of the Frontage Road Lighting Master Plan, an element of the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090014) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 7. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 8. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail' (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/U nplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 \n Page 9 3/2/2010 \n 3 -2 -9 \n 5 minutes 9. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of properties from Arterial Business District and un -zoned South Frontage Road West right -of -way which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use -2, properties known as "Ever Vail' (West Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road West right -of -way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 10. A request for a final review of a variance from 12- 71 -14, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for additional site coverage below grade, within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 934 (BP Site), 953 (Vail Professional Building), 1031 (Cascade Crossing) S. Frontage Road / Unplatted; 862 (VR Maintenance Shop) and 923 (Holy Cross Lot) S. Frontage Road / Tracts A and B, S. Frontage Road Subdivision; 1000 (Glen Lyon Office Building) S. Frontage Road / Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090035) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 11. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of the Glen Lyon Commercial Site, Development Area D, (Glen Lyon Office Building) from the District for incorporation into the properties known as "Ever Vail' (West Lionshead), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54 Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090036) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 12. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to March 8, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 13. A request for a work session to discuss a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of public buildings and grounds (West Vail fire station), located at 2399 North Frontage Road /Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090019) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson \n Page 10 3/2/2010 \n 3- 2 -10 \n ACTION: Table to March 22, 2010 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5 minutes 14. A request for final review of a variance from Section 12 -6G -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the side and rear setbacks, located at 1817 Meadow Ridge Road, Unit 6 /1-ot 21, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100003) Applicant: Robert Boymer Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Withdrawn 15. Approval of February 8, 2010 minutes MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5 -0 -0 16. Information Update Warren Campbell directed the Commission's attention to the staff approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the playground at the Red Sandstone Elementary School. Commissioner Kjesbo inquired as to any concerns raised by Mr. Faessler, the neighboring property owner. Warren Campbell stated that no concerns were expressed. George Ruther informed the Commission that Resolution No. 6, Series of 2010, which extend the entitlement approvals for four projects for a period of 18 months was passed by the Town Council. 17. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5 -0 -0 STAFF APPROVALS: A conditional use permit, pursuant to 12- 16 -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to a conditional use permit for a public school and active outdoor recreation facilities, located at 551 N Frontage Rd W/ Part of Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100004) Applicant: Eagle County School District, represented by Ray Scott Planner: Rachel Friede 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 19, 2010, in the Vail Daily. \n Page 11 3/2/2010 \n 3- 2 -11 \n 'OWN OF VAM . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Channel 5 Update. PRESENTER(S): JK Perry \n 3/2/2010 \n 'OWN OF VAM . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Chamonix Employee Housing Project PRESENTER(S): George Ruther and Nina Timm ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide Staff with direction and allocate funds to move forward with soils investigation on the Chamonix Property. Provide Staff with direction on how Town Council would like to proceed with engaging a civil engineer and an architect. BACKGROUND: In December, 2009, the Town of Vail engaged Alpine Engineering, Inc. to develop phasing options for the Chamonix Property. In the previous Town Council Packet, Staff provided the preliminary phasing plans for the construction of 56 employee housing dwelling sites. The next step in the planning process is to engage a geotechnical engineer to conduct soils testing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Town of Vail engage a geotechnical firm to perform a soils investigation as soon as is practical. Additionally, Staff recommends Town Council instruct Staff to prepare a Request For Bids for a civil engineering firm to fully develop construction drawings for site utilities and infrastructure for all three phases of the employee housing development. ATTACHMENTS: Chamonix Memo 0302 Chamonix Attachment A Chamonix Attachment B \n 3/2/2010 \n MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 2, 2010 SUBJECT: Employee Housing Development at the Chamonix Property I. INTRODUCTION On January 6, 2009, the Town of Vail adopted the amended Chamonix Master Plan. The plan calls for the construction of the new West Vail Fire Station on the old Wendy's site and the construction of 58 new for -sale employee housing units on the 3.6 -acre "Chamonix Parcel." In December, 2009, the Town of Vail Community Development Department engaged Alpine Engineering, Inc. of Edwards, CO to evaluate utility planning and phasing options for the development of EHUs on the Chamonix property. A copy of four potential phasing options and a brief narrative were provided to Town Council in the last packet. Since then, Staff has received a detailed cost estimate to understand the total utility infrastructure costs and understand any savings or additional costs that may be incurred in phasing the construction of the utility infrastructure. II. PRELIMINARY UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES The estimated per unit cost for utility infrastructure in phase 1 is $36,000 per unit. This is based upon a total estimate of $935,000 for 26 units. Phase I consists of 26 dwelling unit sites. The assumptions and a copy of this estimate are Attachment A to this Memorandum. This cost per unit is important when considering the conclusion of the Econonomic and Planning Systems study presented in February, 2009, that "the most important factor for households in selecting their current place of residence was cost, followed by proximity to skiing /outdoor recreation and type of residence." The Town of Vail was able to develop and sell the Arosa Drive Duplex for $250 per square foot, which included approximately $36,000 per unit in site work. Based on the costs at Arosa Drive a 1,200 square foot unit at Chamonix would cost $300,000, if the Town of Vail provides the land to the employee housing units at no cost. At Chamonix, a significant portion of the costs are the earthwork and shoring. It is a steep site, and starting from the Fire Station, most of the site is in a cut condition, which has to be hauled off. Excavation, hauling and shoring costs are estimated to be $361,000 or $14,000 /unit. This is 39% of the total infrastructure costs. Most remaining units or future phases will have similar earthwork conditions. The site plan for this estimate is Attachment B to this Memorandum. \n 3/2/2010 \n 5 -1 -1 \n III. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS 1. Engage a geotechnical engineering firm to conduct a soils investigation. Estimated to be less than $7,500 for 8 to 10 borings with a track rig. 2. While the soils investigation is being completed Staff would prepare a Request for Bids from a civil engineering firm to fully develop construction drawings for the site utilities and infrastructure for all three phases. 3. Issue a Request for Proposals to select a design -build team to design and construct the employee housing units in Phase I. IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF TOWN COUNCIL Staff requests that Town Council appropriates a maximum $7,500 and instructs Staff to engage a geotechnical firm to conduct soils testing as soon as is practical. Based upon Town Council direction to conduct the soils investigation, Staff will prepare a Request for Bids to solicit bids from a civil engineering firm to fully develop construction drawings for the site utilities and infrastructure for all three phases of the employee housing development. V. ATTACHMENTS A. Preliminary utility infrastructure cost estimates B. Chamonix Preliminary Site Layout \n 3/2/2010 \n 5 -1 -2 \n ATTACHMENT A The assumptions used for this estimate are as follows: 1. A soils report has not yet been completed, which could affect costs. (topsoil depth, pavement design, bedrock, boulders, other). 2. Assumed 4.5" asphalt over 6" ABC for pavement section (did not include a pavement study: need soils report). 3. Utility costs start at the north property line of the fire station. (Some utilities need to be extended up thru the fire station to serve the housing, which are assumed to be Part of the fire station work.) 4. This is a ballpark estimate for earthwork, it could vary a bit. 5. Does not include comments from SGM on the water line yet; requirements and costs could vary. 6. Does not include any contingency in the opinion of cost yet (usually estimated to be 15% at a preliminary stage). 7. Although some utilities need to be extended further for Phase I, it may be prudent to do more work during Phase I and reduce the costs for Phase II and III. It is anticipated that "per unit infrastructure costs" would be similar for all three phases. 8. Assumed shoring wall construction cost of used $39 per square foot, based on recent experience. 9. Assumed material hauling costs to be $12 per cubic yard. \n 3/2/2010 \n 5 -2 -1 \n �1J BID FORM A Chamonix Preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs _ _ -- Phase 1: 6.5 4piexes (25 units) ENGINEERING INC 10- Feb -10 Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cast Total Cast I Mobilization (5 °' +} LS l $ 40,000.00 $40,000.00 2 Traffic Conlrol — -- I'S 1 $10,000.00 510,000:00 3 0hgruchon Removal LS I 52,00000 S2,000.00 4 4 11 u f ('onst Admin. Const Review) LS 1 534;000.00 $34,000.{}0 50.00 (, En g Design Fees (4 Es 1 $34, {}0(}.00 534,000:011 7 Survey I.S 1 '620,000.00 520,0(10.00 I Subtotal 5140,000.017 2 Road and Sitework 3 Site Clearing I'S I 5_ 0oot1,0U 52,000.0 4 12" Topsoil Remove and Replace (N 1600 N2-% S4,000.00 5 Excavation CY 13,000 54.00 552,000.00 6 Enzbanknzont C "Y 1000 54.50 S4.500,00 7 Lxpon CY 9,500 512.00 $$114,000.00 8 Reveg etation Acre: 1.40 $2,000.00 52,800.00 9 Guardrail (M- 601 -I) LI: 180 $35.00 56,300.410 10 Guardrail end anchorages FA 2 $2,000.00 54,000.00 1 I Class 6 Road Base (6 " d"T, } Tan 1 760 $27.0(1 32(1,520.)0 12 Shorine Sr 54700 $39.(10 $195,000.00 1 $0:00 14 $0.00 15 Subgradc preparalion. SY 1354 $0 .65 58841.10 16 4.5" Asphalt pavcment Foil 495 510100 $50,9854 }0 17 Y and 6' Asphalt sidewalks Ton 5110.041 $0.00 IS 6 " CDO T Cla ss P rein rorced pavement SY $108.00 $0.00 19 6' Concrete sidewalk LF 560.00 sU.00 H:\ GLENN \ChamonixPhaseEstimateFeb20lO \n 3/2/2010 \n 5 -2 -2 \n } co a a as x� CO O _ + o N r +� W LO �s q,� r ti - � s T VAIL VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Discuss adjustment to late ski season bus service from April 5 to April 18. PRESENTER(S): Mike Rose ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide staff direction on bus service adjustment for the end of ski season April 5 to April 18. BACKGROUND: In past years, 2003 -2007, the town adjusted the late ski season bus service from the full winter schedule (326 hours of service a day) to a supplemented summer service (143 hours per day) plus additional peak service to more align with ridership- demand. We would propose to adjust service starting Monday, April 5 to summer with 40 -100 hours of additional service per day this year based on special events and weekends. This reduction of service would save the Town $30,000. The frequency of service would be reduced, however, the of system would be able to keep up with the demand. The posted service would be the early winter ski season schedule. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff direction on the reduced bus service proposal. \n 3/2/2010 \n 'OWN OF VAM . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update. Attachments: a. EHU Enforcement. b. Energy Efficiency Rebate Program PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer ATTACHMENTS: EHU Enforcement Energy Efficiency Rebate Program \n 3/2/2010 \n MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 2, 2010 SUBJECT: Employee Housing Unit 2009 Annual Enforcement I. INTRODUCTION In January, 2010, the Town of Vail Community Development Department sent out three hundred and twenty -three (323) affidavits to deed restricted employee housing unit (EHU) owners in the Town of Vail. There are six hundred and sixty - three (663) deed restricted EHUs in Vail, but annual affidavits are not sent to Timber Ridge Village Apartments or Middle Creek Village Apartments. Since the affidavits have been mailed, the Community Development Department has received back two hundred and forty -four (244) completed affidavits, a seventy - six percent (76 %) response rate, to date. Compliance with the terms of each unit owner's deed restriction is the goal of the Community Development Department. As such, a follow -up courtesy reminder has been sent to each unit owner that has not yet submitted the annual affidavit. II. EHUS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO 1992 There are thirty -five (35) EHUs in this category. The deed restrictions recorded prior to 1994 do not require owners to rent their EHU or provide the Town any information regarding the use of the EHU. Annually the Town still requests information from these owners. To date, the Town has received affidavits back from twelve (12) of the owners. Based upon the information received, ten (10) of the EHUs were occupied by a total of twelve (12) employees. As these owners are not required to rent their EHU or provide the Town any information regarding the use of the EHU no further requests for information will be sent to these owners until next January. III. EHUS ESTABLISHED FROM 1992 TO ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 1994 There are twenty -two (22) EHUs in this category. The deed restrictions recorded during this time period do not require owners to rent their EHU, but the deed restrictions do require an annual form be submitted to the Town verifying if and how the EHU was occupied in the previous year. To date, the Town has received affidavits back from thirteen (13) of the owners. Based upon the information received, ten (10) of the EHUs were occupied by a total of twelve (12) employees. The nine (9) owners who have not yet responded will receive reminder notices to return their annual affidavits. \n 3/2/2010 \n 7 -1 -1 \n IV. EHUS ESTABLISHED FROM 1994 TO ORDINANCE NO. 5, SERIES OF 2002 There are one hundred and seventy -seven (177) EHUs in this category. The deed restrictions recorded during this time period require owners to have the EHU occupied by a full -time, year -round employee of an Eagle County business. Additionally, the deed restriction requires the owner to submit an annual affidavit to the Town verifying how the EHU was occupied in the previous year. To date, the Town has received affidavits back from one hundred and forty -two (142) owners. Based upon the information received, all of the EHUs were occupied by a total of two hundred and fourteen (214) employees. The thirty -five (35) owners who have not yet responded will receive reminder notices to return their annual affidavits. V. EHUS ESTABLISHED AFTER ORDINANCE NO. 5, SERIES OF 2002 There are eighty -nine (89) EHUs in this category. The deed restrictions recorded after Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2002, require owners to have the EHU occupied by a full -time year -round employee of an Eagle County Business at least seven (7) months every calendar year. Deed restrictions recorded after Ordinance Nos. 7 and 8, Series of 2007, require owners to have the EHU occupied by a full -time year -round employee of an Eagle County business twelve (12) months each year. Additionally, the deed restrictions require the owner to submit an annual affidavit to the Town verifying how the EHU was occupied in the previous year. To date, the Town has received affidavits back from seventy -eight (78) owners. Based upon the information received, seventy -five (75) of the EHUs were occupied by a total of one hundred and thirteen (113) employees. The eleven (11) owners who have not yet responded will receive reminder notices to return their annual affidavits. VI. FOLLOW UP Following reminders to the fifty -four (54) owners who have not yet submitted their annual affidavit, the Community Development Department will begin the process of serving summonses on March 22, 2010, to owners who have not yet submitted their annual affidavit. Again, the goal is to achieve compliance with the terms of each owner's deed restriction. \n 3/2/2010 \n 7 - 1 - 2 \n MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 2, 2010 RE: Governor's Energy Office Energy Efficiency Rebate Program Grant Opportunity I. PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to introduce the Governor's Energy Office (GEO) Energy Efficiency Rebate Program matching grant opportunity, in which the GEO will match a Town contribution of $10,000 toward residential and commercial energy efficiency improvements within the Town of Vail. II. BACKGROUND The Governor's Energy Office (GEO) is offering a suite of rebates for Colorado residents and businesses that install energy efficiency measures and renewable energy systems as part of the CEO's efforts through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The rebates, scheduled for release mid -March 2010, are intended to: • Increase consumer awareness and access to energy efficiency (EE) services and renewable energy (RE) technologies. • Help Coloradoans save money on their utilities and stabilize their energy consumption • Stimulate local economies. • Foster sustainable energy efficiency and renewable energy industries that provide quality, local jobs. Town staff has reviewed the program and determined that participation would directly contribute to achieving the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan goal #2: "Reduce the Town of Vail municipal and community energy use by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, in order to effectively reduce the Town's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and impact on global climate change." Therefore, staff finds that it would be of great benefit to the community for the Town of Vail to partner with the GEO and the Town of Eagle to pledge the program minimum of $20,000 ($10,000 from each community) to double the rebates offered by the GEO, and to receive the program administration and marketing benefits offered through this program. This partnership ensures that $20,000 grant funding would be reserved for residents and business owners in Vail (resulting in a minimum of $50,000 of energy efficiency improvements when combined with homeowner contribution). As the rebates will be available to all Colorado residents, funds are expected to be diminished very quickly. The Town of Eagle Board approved this partnership and their contribution on February 23, 2010. \n 3/2/2010 \n 1 7 -2 -1 \n In coordination with the GEO rebate program, the CEO's public outreach program will be working to communicate all aspects of financial incentives available to Colorado residents and businesses. In short, when a resident or business owner visits the GEO web site or calls the GEO call center, they will be asked where they are located and told about ALL programs available to them, whether it's a GEO program, a utility program, a local government program, a non - profit program or a combination thereof. Benefits of Partnership with the GEO By electing to partner with the GEO, the Town will receive a number of services and benefits from the GEO: • A designated number of rebates will be reserved for applicants in the partner territory or community. • The matching funds will increase the rebate amount in the Town of Vail, making the incentive more appealing to local residents and businesses. • The GEO will administer the rebate program on behalf of the Town of Vail, including accepting applications and sending rebate checks (complete with partner and GEO logos) to applicants. • The GEO will handle all ARRA reporting and verification. • The GEO will provide monthly reporting to Town staff, including the status of rebate funds, records of issued rebates, and businesses participating in the program in the Town of Vail. • The GEO will implement intensive education and outreach to local residents. • The GEO and the local partner will develop an appropriate outreach strategy to market the partnership within the Town of Vail. This could include co - branded materials and will be complemented by the CEO's statewide outreach strategies. Partner Program Contribution As a partner in the GEO Rebate Program, the Town of Vail will: 1. Provide matching funds - $10,000 will be matched by $10,000 from the GEO, contributing to a maximum 40% of the total cost of the improvement, resulting in at least $50,000 worth of energy efficiency improvements within the Town of Vail. 2. Coordinate with the GEO to develop an outreach strategy to market the partnership and rebate program within the Town of Vail. 3. Assist the CEO's local outreach efforts by assisting in the coordination of local events. GEO Rebate Program Criteria General Terms and Conditions • Only one rebate per type per property. • Residential applicants must be a resident of the town of Vail. • Business applicants must have a business physically located and licensed within the Town of Vail. • Do- It- Yourself installations do not qualify, must use a pre - qualified contractor (list available on GEO website). • Rebates are offered on a first -come, first - served basis. \n 3/2/2010 \n 2 7 -2 -2 \n • The GEO reserves the right to inspect and verify any improvements or installations. Energy Efficiency Rebate Terms and Conditions • A residence is defined as any existing R1 building or R2, R3 or R4 (single family residential, two family residential, and general residential) building used solely as living quarters, three stories or under above grade that does not have a centralized mechanical system serving multiple units. • Rebates are not available for new construction. • All furnace rebates are available to consumer for residential use and must be used to replace an old appliance in working order. • Contractor must use approved installation measures /procedures. • It is the applicant's responsibility to collect all required verification information and submit it to the GEO. • Purchases must be made from businesses with a physical location in Colorado. Out -of -state or online purchases do not qualify. • Installation must be in compliance with all local and state ordinances. Proper permits are required and must be submitted with the rebate application. Table 1. Rebate Breakdown Rebate T y pe ADWbat. CE Iculation GEO Rebate Partner Maximum Rebate (max) Contribution to Customer 40% of total job cost up to $600, 20% of job cost 20% of job cost Insulation and Air Sealing up to $600 other local incentives applied first up to $300 up to $300 40 % of total job cost up to $150 20% of job cost 20% of job cost Duct Sealing statewide, other local incentives Up to $150 up to $75 up to $75 applied first 40% of total job cost up to $700 20% of job cost 20% of job cost Furnaces -Gas Condensing- Partnered statewide, other local incentives up to $350 up to $350 Up to $700 applied first 40 % of total job cost up to $100 20% of job cost 20% of job cost Energy Monitors* statewide, other local incentives $100 up to $50 up to $50 applied first *Due to the low cost of energy monitors, staff recommends the Town's 10K contribution not go to this item. A $50 rebate will still be available for those who apply directly to the GEO. III. NEXT STEPS If approved, staff will finalize the contract with the GEO and develop an intergovernmental agreement between the towns of Vail and Eagle to move forward. Rebates issued for each town will be tracked by zip code and rebate, and invoices issued to the towns for payment. Rebate applications will be available beginning mid - March. \n 3/2/2010 \n 3 7 -2 -3 \n W V VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or 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. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire \n 3/2/2010 \n